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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

randyvs

AliceBleachWhite

Religion requires people to believe in it. Evolution doesn't.

You and anyone or even everyone can spontaneously not believe in evolution, and, it'll still happen.





Do you believe in religion Alice ? Of course you don't.
Niether do I. So, " required " is a bit misleading and over powered.
Religion doesn't require anything. It's there that's all and I see it
as having little to do with faith. Sermons are important tho.
Not to the religious so much but, to the believer.
edit on 19-11-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Not quite with you on this one. Surely for a religion to exist it requires followers and for said followers to believe and/or have faith in the high heed yin of that religion?




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


A vital part of evolutionary theory is that organisms can choose to evolve any way they want, and then the ones that work stay around.

This is one of the best bits of unmitigated nonsense I've seen on here in some time. What your describing is more akin to Lamarckism than evolution.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


Religion is of man, while faith is of the Father.
My faith wasn't born in a church under a religion.
Can a man just believe in God and take his word
seriously, as he interperates his own message, from
the words that were here before he was?

I know so.

Hope that helps.
edit on 19-11-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

flyingfish

SisyphusRide

flyingfish
Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts


would you agree that facts change?

would you believe that our understanding changes at a great pace and that we sometimes learn that truth is something we otherwise took for granted?

truth is fact


So, in other words, you're saying, in light of the evidence that proves you wrong, you "still" prefer willful ignorance.

Got it...


no... I am saying you are not a good teacher or educator, or bringer of truth (which is "fact" remember?)

try baby steps with me


Are you calling me a liar? I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm not giving you a subjective interpretation of some pseudo philosophy. I only deal in facts, or rather theoretical models of reality with an extremely strong observational base whose predictions have been shown to be extremely accurate.

You on the other hand have proven you do not know the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.

objective truth is what you have left when you remove the biases. Subjective truth has the biases left in. Even a schoolchild can see the distinction.

You're pretending that this is a matter of opinion, like a kindergarten teacher telling students that everyone's opinion is equally valid. If you want to use excuses to avoid looking at reality, I can understand that. This is what Cognitive Dissonance predicts, but don't call me a lier without precise points that are supported by objective empirical evidence... Got it.
edit on fTuesday1321117f211507 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

darkbake
The theory of evolution as it is currently being used without believing in any spirit or life force is not just unbelievable, it is an outright lie. LIE. As in can be proven false.

A vital part of evolutionary theory is that organisms can choose to evolve any way they want, and then the ones that work stay around. However, modern evolutionary theory even contradicts itself. That choice is the life force. Without the life force, there is no evolution.

It is a fact. And it is absolutely dangerous to be promoting a false scientific theory.


As other have already suggested, you are far away from understanding basics of evolution and natural selection. It has been proven over and over by many fossils as well in experiments in labs around the world.

In this topic there are multiple reference for those experiments.

Please read couple of books by Richard Dawkins on this topic, he is one of greatest ethologist, evolutionary biologist.

If you don't have time (or for whatever other excuse), then just spend a bit less then 8 minutes on following video....




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

flyingfish

SisyphusRide

flyingfish

SisyphusRide

flyingfish
Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts


would you agree that facts change?

would you believe that our understanding changes at a great pace and that we sometimes learn that truth is something we otherwise took for granted?

truth is fact


So, in other words, you're saying, in light of the evidence that proves you wrong, you "still" prefer willful ignorance.

Got it...


no... I am saying you are not a good teacher or educator, or bringer of truth (which is "fact" remember?)

try baby steps with me


Are you calling me a liar? I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm not giving you a subjective interpretation of some pseudo philosophy. I only deal in facts, or rather theoretical models of reality with an extremely strong observational base whose predictions have been shown to be extremely accurate.

You on the other hand have proven you do not know the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.

objective truth is what you have left when you remove the biases. Subjective truth has the biases left in. Even a schoolchild can see the distinction.

You're pretending that this is a matter of opinion, like a kindergarten teacher telling students that everyone's opinion is equally valid. If you want to use excuses to avoid looking at reality, I can understand that. This is what Cognitive Dissonance predicts, but don't call me a lier without precise points that are supported by objective empirical evidence... Got it.


I'm not calling you a liar... I am calling you a meanie

all truths are "subjective"

whose truth is your truth... mans? a flawed species...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
lol @ Richard Dawkins




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
lol @ Richard Dawkins



He is something called an 'expert'. Perhaps you might learn some facts from him. Go ahead - open your mind a little.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide
lol @ Richard Dawkins



He is something called an 'expert'. Perhaps you might learn some facts from him. Go ahead - open your mind a little.


well that is subjective...

I see him as a militant atheist, an arrogant vengeful bully, and just an overall meanie who lost his wife and daughter to the Church.

he's not a good teacher and has foul language...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide
lol @ Richard Dawkins



He is something called an 'expert'. Perhaps you might learn some facts from him. Go ahead - open your mind a little.


well that is subjective...

I see him as a militant atheist, an arrogant vengeful bully, and just an overall meanie who lost his wife and daughter to the Church.

he's not a good teacher and has foul language...


None of which has anything to do with the fact that he's an expert and is very well qualified to speak about it. Go read something that he's written. You might be surprised.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide
lol @ Richard Dawkins



He is something called an 'expert'. Perhaps you might learn some facts from him. Go ahead - open your mind a little.


well that is subjective...

I see him as a militant atheist, an arrogant vengeful bully, and just an overall meanie who lost his wife and daughter to the Church.

he's not a good teacher and has foul language...


None of which has anything to do with the fact that he's an expert and is very well qualified to speak about it. Go read something that he's written. You might be surprised.


maybe not to you... but in my country we judge you by the content of your character, we determine by your demeanor if what you have to say is worth listening to.

it doesn't matter really... his opinions on evolution are obviously swayed and tempered with a bit of hate and tease.

we don't stand for that where I am from... in fact one of our middle class/working class scientist pretty much kicked him out of the country (in scientific circles anyway) now only making appearances on some talk shows or late night television... and even weirder youtube videos.

yeah Neil Tyson pretty much showed him the door from our more serious forums...


edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide
lol @ Richard Dawkins



He is something called an 'expert'. Perhaps you might learn some facts from him. Go ahead - open your mind a little.


make him a pope! or give him the dawinian award.

ya know? for the new mega-atheist churches.

gonna need one.

evillution, lol, just kidding.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
I see him as a militant atheist, an arrogant vengeful bully, and just an overall meanie who lost his wife and daughter to the Church.


What are you talking about?

Which wife?

His first wife Marian Stamp who studies animal behavior? His second wife Eve Barham, couple have one daughter and after divorce she fought cancer and died.

Or Lalla Ward, his current wife, who helped him with his TV shows that she co-narrates.

Please be more specific.

If he is militant atheist, what late Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris are?



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 

Tyson commented on Dawkins, claiming his methods of teaching aren't as effective as he can make them be. It can be seen here, and please note that Dawkins made whole room laugh with his response.



Note, this is video from 2006. But if you like to see what really they think, please watch this video, where they talk about science. Note, they respect each other and science behind them.




In short, you not only misunderstood Tyson's statement, but you are trying to show that they are against each other, where they are not. They respect each other, only it is matter of their approach toward ignorant people who have big misunderstanding about science.

Tyson believes that best approach is larger and better education and science approach, with hope that people will release how absurd are their believes.



In overall, he is completely against religion in public school or science lab. Please watch whole video...

'Let's fix this one once and for all...' he quoted Einstein at the end and said, 'if anyone tells you Einstein was religious, just show him this letter...'


Got to love this guy, but he is just a bit too soft and ineffective - there are those ignorant people who don't like to learn and don't care about science.

Here is extract from Einstein's letter send on 24 March 1954 to Joseph Dispentiere, an atheist:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.







edit on 20-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I'm not calling you a liar... I am calling you a meanie


Meanie? I'm actually treating you with kid gloves, I have yet to get one of my post removed from this thread.




all truths are "subjective"


This is a recipe for ridiculousness. ALL becomes equally subjective.
How do we decide anything if objectively evidenced and inductive conclusions are no more or less valid than anything that sounds subjectively plausible?
That which is objectively true, is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. Objective truths are not subject to subjective opinions. That is what makes them objective.




whose truth is your truth... mans? a flawed species...


This question is nonsensical. You are, in effect, asking the wrong question, unless you for some reason feel a need to continue with the trend of defective reasoning and find yet more reasons to be impressed by your own ignorance, instead of using that feeling of mystery and curiosity as a prompt to investigate and find an answer.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 

Tyson commented on Dawkins, claiming his methods of teaching aren't as effective as he can make them be. It can be seen here, and please note that Dawkins made whole room laugh with his response.


there is nothing you can say or show me or do to make me change my mind about Dawkins... it is something he has to do on his own.

he is very British... we don't like Brits here, they are pompous and rude and exhibit a "holier than thou" attitude.

the forum laughed in disbelief... that's what Americans do... right before they throw you out the door.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I'm not calling you a liar... I am calling you a meanie


Meanie? I'm actually treating you with kid gloves, I have yet to get one of my post removed from this thread.




all truths are "subjective"


This is a recipe for ridiculousness. ALL becomes equally subjective.
How do we decide anything if objectively evidenced and inductive conclusions are no more or less valid than anything that sounds subjectively plausible?
That which is objectively true, is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. Objective truths are not subject to subjective opinions. That is what makes them objective.




whose truth is your truth... mans? a flawed species...


This question is nonsensical. You are, in effect, asking the wrong question, unless you for some reason feel a need to continue with the trend of defective reasoning and find yet more reasons to be impressed by your own ignorance, instead of using that feeling of mystery and curiosity as a prompt to investigate and find an answer.


mkay


gimme something I can work with... you are not the judge of me.

remove the gloves... I don't mind... but leave my spirituality alone.

ol SuperFrog is still confused about the difference between Spirituality and Religion.


PS; who has had posts removed in this thread? enlighten me...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


there is nothing you can say or show me or do to make me change my mind about Dawkins... it is something he has to do on his own.

I'm sure this is very high on his list of priorities.


he is very British... we don't like Brits here, they are pompous and rude and exhibit a "holier than thou" attitude.

Who is "we"? Where is "here"? Speak for yourself.

For someone who railed against "character assassination" earlier in this thread, you seem very quick to stereotype people and assassinate their character.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

iterationzero
Who is "we"? Where is "here"? Speak for yourself.

For someone who railed against "character assassination" earlier in this thread, you seem very quick to stereotype people and assassinate their character.




I'll openly without remorse or regret discredit Richard Dawkins, he opened himself up to it...

PS; over 85% of Americans do not feel the way you do, majority rules!



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

was it written by a panel of experts, paid for by my tax dollars and certified learning curriculum that is deemed accurate for educational purposes?

No.



additionally my ancient browser doesn't open PDF, and I am not allowed to download on this computer, so you are going to have to use your own words to convince me of your version of reality.

I doubt you want that re evolution as it coincides with mainstream science, it also excludes ridiculous Canaanite war gods, the notion people can walk on water or that magic beings *poof* things into existence. As to the papers, I'll try.

They offer a cross national study of the worlds richest (1st world) democracies against 25 key indicators of a healthy society and their correlation to religion/secularism. A "Successful Societies Scale" is drawn from this clearly showing secular nations being far better off. This direct correlation (that secular societies are healthier in general proportion to their lack of religion and vice versa is already well known, although not well understood). The stats in the paper are cited with sources.

On available statistics (which are explained) the US is way out on it's own re levels of religiosity (absolute belief in a deity, rejection of evolution/belief in creationism, frequency of prayer etc) to an extent that simply isn't seen in any comparable nation in the modern, developed, educated world (it is well known that over 40% of US adults reject science out of hand in favor of creationism) which reduces your original specific objections to nonsense. Were they even genuine?

The level of societal dysfunction in the US, commensurately, is also way out on it's own. Being so out of kilter with the rest of the modern world, the US offers a great comparative study. The second paper looks more at whether poor socioeconomic conditions contribute to religious belief rather than the opposite (that religion is causal). This basic study has implications for religion.

Religion seems to follow consistent trends (apart from belief in gods).....higher levels of poverty, higher abortion and teen/unwanted pregnancy, higher divorce rates, populations that work longer hours, STD infection is higher, incarceration levels are very high (with Christians having a highly disproportionate share), exploitation is higher, the gap between workers and executives is higher (shared wealth), welfare is poor-it can't or won't look after less fortunate citizens etc. etc. etc.

Though you might have no interest in it overall, it does put paid to your original objections, in the correct context.

So the claim in the video is obviously true among the modern "educated" world. If you are claiming beliefs in 2nd-3rd world countries discredit this, apart from being laughable in what it implies and the fact it doesn't matter, it will need to be backed up with reliable statistics.....got any? If you could do this, it would seem to reinforce the actual point he is trying to make. It is a shame there is no reliable statistics for other seemingly fundamentalist countries (such as in the middle east). On the surface there seems an obvious similarity.....




edit on 20-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join