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.

 

Anti-Evolution Group Files Lawsuit Against Kansas Education Board Over New Science Standards

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenEars123
 


Evolution is real, however, creationalism is also real. How else can scientist clone other animals. If u can clone, then isn't that considered creationalism? Both views need to be taught, that way people can make informed decisions.




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by OpenEars123
 


Evolution is real, however, creationalism is also real. How else can scientist clone other animals. If u can clone, then isn't that considered creationalism? Both views need to be taught, that way people can make informed decisions.


So if I run a piece of paper through a photocopier am I creating something? I wouldn't think so, I would say I'm simply making a copy which is what cloning is, at least aT the moment and until we figure out how to tamper with DNA to alter aspects of either physiology or morphology it shall remain so. There's a big difference between explaining how science does something and explaining how an almighty creator cooked it all up 6000 years ago which is what the basis of "creation science" is.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by OpenEars123
 


Evolution is real, however, creationalism is also real. How else can scientist clone other animals. If u can clone, then isn't that considered creationalism? Both views need to be taught, that way people can make informed decisions.


That has to be the most convoluted logic i think ive ever heard.Just the fact we can clone a sheep for example shows that DNA can be replicated but in now way does it show it was created. If creationists want to have it taught as science its simple spend the money they collect on getting evidence that it occurred. Science works on proof of concept we cant say its a valid science because a book tells us.I have read books on Zues and hercules what about that should it be taught in history class? Or maybe Odin read a whole saga that involved him.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
the followers of God are not atheists...


No kidding. But the way you phrased your remark it appears you equate belief in evolution to be the same as Atheism.

The two can be mutually exclusive.


...no comment



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by goldenalien
 


what theya re putting their ''faith'' in, is science, and the scientific method. You cant compare the two because they have completely different meanings. Its the same as saying you have ''faith'' that the engineers who designed your car did a good enough job that you dont even think about driving when in fact you have no idea where that car was built and by who and to what standards. You just have ''Faith'' that whoever was in charge did a proper job of it



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by TownCryer
 

Really?

Do you also suggest that future dentist doctors should learn thootfairy stories in school to get all informations, and future business coordinators should learn business from Santa Claus as that is how delivery should be done, easy and fast...


I bet this is your preferred way of surgery....





Do you really believe in invisible man in the sky?




Watch at end, when he tells some other good stories...

And to answer your question, no children should not learn about your believes, as not all children believe in fairy stories. Even my 8 year figure out that Santa is not real, as there is NO WAY according to her that he will fit his big stomach trough our little fireplace. Smart girl..




edit on 27-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


so did you stop giving her presents? or just from santa?
i hope you told her the truth about the elves and rudolf.

did she tell all her friends?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
...no comment


Too difficult to answer?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
...no comment


Too difficult to answer?


It's hard to answer complex metaphysical questions when you're twelve.
I remember that I couldn't.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


it is not I who claim they are one and the same, but now that you bring it up...

You have repeatedly conflated acceptance of evolution and atheism in other threads, in spite of the evidence that has been provided that there are a significant number of theists that accept evolution.


I am quite sure atheism was first. Evolution shares a deep fundamentalism with atheism whether the followers of atheism know it or not.

Given that fundamentalism is defined as:

a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

1. What is "fundamentalist" about atheism?
2. What is "fundamentalist" about evolution?
3. What "scripture" is being interpreted literally in either case?

Though, to be fair, I wonder how much longer fundamentalists will try to be skeptical about evolution in particular and science in general.


atheism and evolution are two separate things, but once joined together coalesce to form a bigoted antichristian-only type of personality...

Claims, no evidence. As typical for your posts.


I personally refer to atheism as soft satanism,

I personally refer to my dog's tail as a leg. That doesn't make it a leg.


and it is part of my religious duty to combat it from time to time, reaffirming my faith in Jesus.

So your faith in Jesus is somehow dependent on you combating "soft satanism" (whatever that means), which in your mind is equivalent to atheism, which in your mind is equivalent to evolution? I'll be interested to see how you string three disparate concepts together into a unified framework from which you can direct your attacks.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
...no comment


Too difficult to answer?


because evolution shows how the world is... not how the world should be.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
because evolution shows how the world is... not how the world should be.


You still have not answered my question.

Do you equate belief in evolution to Atheism?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


atheism is akin to evolution as a neanderthal is akin to a human, it is just another failed attempt at humanity.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 

Maybe you should define how you're using words like "atheism" and "evolution" so that we can all be on the same page for this discussion, because your personal definitions seem to change from post to post. And while you're at it, make sure to define "soft satanism" as well.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


post to post? please to provide an example...

then I'll reply to you



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

SisyphusRide
atheism is akin to evolution as a neanderthal is akin to a human, it is just another failed attempt at humanity.


How about a 'yes' or 'no' instead of metaphors?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
...no comment


Too difficult to answer?


because evolution shows how the world is... not how the world should be.


and scripture shows how the world was 2000+ years ago. why is that then the superior way to view the world?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


to garner my vote for either or, it would take a different kind of discussion and a lot of typing... which I do not believe is relevant to this topic.

evolution and atheism walk hand in hand, although they are two separate things on the books, it is hard to tear one away from the other. I have never met an old school atheist, meaning one who is not a Darwinian evolutionist.

to me most of the time and depending on the subject at hand... I view them as one and the same, so "yes" 98% of the time.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
...no comment


Too difficult to answer?


because evolution shows how the world is... not how the world should be.


and scripture shows how the world was 2000+ years ago. why is that then the superior way to view the world?


so then are you admitting to the historicity of the Bible?


you should try the New Testament... I'm a new testament kind of guy, so the old testament is history to me too.

least we now have something in common...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
evolution and atheism walk hand in hand, although they are two separate things on the books, it is hard to tear one away from the other.


Well I guess I fall into your 2% category as I am not an Atheist but I firmly believe in evolution (and it is not 'Darwinian evolution').



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

SisyphusRide
evolution and atheism walk hand in hand, although they are two separate things on the books, it is hard to tear one away from the other.


Well I guess I fall into your 2% category as I am not an Atheist but I firmly believe in evolution (and it is not 'Darwinian evolution').


if something is a fact... then why does it require your belief in it?

we know the sun rises in the east, it's not something I have to believe in.

the question was if I think that evolution and atheism are one and the same, not about whether I "believe" in evolution. I provided the context for you knowing that your question was loaded... and flawed.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join