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.

 

Surprising Number Of Americans Still Don't Believe In Evolution

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

antonia

No, it doesn't. If you have no physical evidence of the existence of something you cannot ask others to believe it is real.


You can ask others not to look down their stuck-up nose at you though.


Until you can present me with physical evidence of either panspermia or creation by a supernatural being, with further explanation of who said creator/race was and why they did it then you can't ask me to believe in this magical thought.


What makes you think its reasonable to expect physical evidence for such things in the first place?


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
double-post
edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

BlueMule

You can ask others not to look down their stuck-up nose at you though.


Good thing I don't care what people I don't know on the internet think of me.




What makes you think its reasonable to expect physical evidence for such things in the first place?


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


Really? You think it's ok to deny evolution because you don't think there is enough evidence, but I have to accept something you can't provide evidence for?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

antonia
Good thing I don't care what people I don't know on the internet think of me.


Indeed.


Really? You think it's ok to deny evolution because you don't think there is enough evidence, but I have to accept something you can't provide evidence for?


I don't recall saying I "deny evolution". Could you be a dear and refresh my memory by pointing me to the post where I say that?

And I couldn't help but notice how you went from demanding "physical evidence" to just "evidence".


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

BlueMule


And I couldn't help but notice how you went from demanding "physical evidence" to just "evidence".


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


I was very clear in my earlier response in the type of evidence demanded for the support of the items postulated. It's type doesn't need to be repeated.

This is what you said:


What makes you think its reasonable to expect physical evidence for such things in the first place?


I furthermore did not say you denied evolution, I said: "You think it's ok to deny evolution.....". There is a vast difference between the two. What you stated is illogical to begin with. Either you can prove something exists or you can't. It is not unreasonable to demand proof for those items. If they are real there will be physical evidence of said things.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Evidence isn't proof, antonia. And what I think is OK doesn't really matter. But if it matters to you for some reason, I don't think its OK for people to accept evidence for evolution as "proof" of a "truth" that has theological implications on one hand while denying parapsychological evidence on the other hand and looking down their noses at people who think differently. It reeks of double-standards and snobbery.


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Bassago
The theory of evolution is only a theory and has more validating support than magic (creationism.) But it's still just a theory, teaching otherwise is a disservice. Personally I go with the belief of a theory that is most supported until a better idea comes along.
Please look at the definition of 'theory' as scientific terminology. Heck...I'll even send you a link: Wiki

1 in 3? Sounds about right. Sigh.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

BlueMule
reply to post by antonia
 


Evidence isn't proof, antonia.



Yes it is. Physical evidence is proof of the existence of a thing in the scientific method. We are talking about science not theology.


I don't think its OK for people to accept evidence for evolution as "proof" of a "truth" with theological implications on one hand while denying parapsychological evidence on the other


Prove there are theological implications. Prove there is a God. Tell me and show me evidence that proves what that god is, who it is, where it came from, what is wants, how to communicate with it, etc. That's science. Nothing else is.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

antonia

No, it doesn't. If you have no physical evidence of the existence of something you cannot ask others to believe it is real. That is the keyword: believe. There are those among us who do not want to believe in something, we want to know it exists. Darwinian evolution has plenty of physical evidence to support it, Ghosts, Demon possession and Angels have none. Try again. My mind isn't so open my brain fell out.

Until you can present me with physical evidence of either panspermia or creation by a supernatural being, with further explanation of who said creator/race was and why they did it then you can't ask me to believe in this magical thought.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: added a thought


Please provide physical evidence of your thoughts being real. I am not talking about the electrical signal which can be measured but the actual thought itself in some chemical form. We can measure when a thought or emotion is being experienced but does that mean that the thought or experience is real?

I am not saying you're wrong I am just wondering if you can provide any physical evidence of the thoughts (in a platonic sense) being real.


Also, please prove that time exists, in a linear fashion which is assumed by many evolutionary theorists.

Thank you in advance.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

antonia

BlueMule
reply to post by antonia
 


Evidence isn't proof, antonia.



Yes it is.


No it isn't.


Physical evidence is proof of the existence of a thing in the scientific method.


No it isn't. Physical evidence is proof of the existence of a thing in a scavenger hunt.


We are talking about science not theology.


The moment someone decided that ToE means people shouldn't believe in creationism we started talking about both.


Prove there are theological implications. Prove there is a God.


Wow. Maybe you were right about the stupid being strong here. But not in the way you thought.

The glaring theological implication of ToE is that "creationism" is false. If there were no theological implications to ToE, then there would not have been a Scopes trial and there would not be threads like this.

Of course that means nothing to me because I'm not a creationist. But the theological implication remains. Whether there is a "God" or not.


Tell me and show me evidence that proves what that god is, who it is, where it came from, what is wants, how to communicate with it, etc. That's science. Nothing else is.


In a nutshell, comparativism and parapsychology provide the "proof" you ask for but I don't think that's what you really want. I think what you really want is reasons to believe what you WANT to believe.

I think what you want to believe is that you are smarter than stupid gullible religious people. If I'm wrong then a little "physical evidence" from you will easily "prove" it. Right?



edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

antonia


Please provide physical evidence of your thoughts being real. I am not talking about the electrical signal which can be measured but the actual thought itself in some chemical form. We can measure when a thought or emotion is being experienced but does that mean that the thought or experience is real?


Electrical signals are considered physical evidence of brain activity. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with this statement. Brain science is different from evolution. You do know that right? The subject you are arguing has nothing to do with physical evidence for the theory of evolution.





Also, please prove that time exists, in a linear fashion which is assumed by many evolutionary theorists.



When I can prove it exists I won't be sharing it here. I will likely be doing it in a peer-reviewed journal and then accepting my prize in Stockholm.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


How can evolution take place over long periods of time if you cannot prove the existence of time.

You criticize the practice of faith and yet you seem completely oblivious to the multitude of actions occurring daily which require faith. Your belief in small changes over time, evolution, being one of them.

Brain activity can be measured in electrical signals which have mass due to electron transfer, however that is merely the transference of a signal. Is there any evidence that that signal is the actual thought or emotion experienced or is it similar to RNA in that it is a copy used to replicate the actual thought/emotion so as to be transported to another area of the brain?

Perhaps the thought IS the bridge of the electrical charge.

My point is that you cannot physically prove what your "thoughts" are and so it is disingenuous by your logic to even consider them real, or worse to believe any of them.

Out of curiosity do you work in the scientific field?

-FBB
edit on 30-12-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

nixie_nox

stonergeek
reply to post by TLomon
 


What is there to believe? Darwin observed mutations withing species. There has yet to be any evidence of cross-species evolution. If you believe in something without evidence, it is Faith. Most people who reject the Theory of Evolution already have a different Faith.


science is not a faith. No matter how many times the theist try to use this particular piece of propaganda, as seen on these boards a hundred times, it just isn't so.


You are correct. Science is not a faith; it is a methodology. Metaphysical materialism or naturalism, the a priori assumption underpinning Darwinsim, however, is a faith far more than a science and no matter how many times a materialist denies this, it doesn't make it so.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by antonia
 


How can evolution take place over long periods of time if you cannot prove the existence of time.


Time is not a causative force. The Earth is not moving through the fourth dimension into tomorrow. It's already there. It (your perception of it) is an emergent effect of physical motion-Ex: The Earth moving around the Sun. This is one of the basic tenants of the Theory of Relativity. Space and time are not separate. One's perception of time depends on velocity. One can actually argue the fossil record is evidence for the existence of time.



My point is that you cannot physically prove what your "thoughts" are and so it is disingenuous by your logic to even consider them real, or worse to believe any of them.


Then by rights how can you prove what you are typing is real? How can you be assured you are really living and breathing? How can you be assured of anything? How can you be assured of a creator?

I don't work at all, I don't see what this has to do with the topic either.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: opps, forgot a word

edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: forgot something

edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: forgot something



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

antonia
One can actually argue the fossil record is evidence for the existence of time.


Hold on! I have just used the scientific method! The physical existence of the fossil record is evidence of the proof of the existence of a thing called the fossil record.

Case closed.


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
But isn't this two issues? The first is that everyone believes in tiny mutations within species...even bible thumpers. So then evolution is a matter of degree? The second issue is what is the competing theory. Intelligent design or creationism. Perhaps but what flavor? Not Genesis I hope? Because that was stolen from the Sumerians...and as all such arguments this will devolve into Christian literalists vs the world? Where is Scott Pilgrim?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

nixie_nox
reply to post by stonergeek
 


quote]The big bang is a hypothesis, it was never a theory.


Please.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6] which is thus considered the age of the universe.

en.wikipedia.org...


Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

www.big-bang-theory.com...


One of the best know theories in cosmology is the Big Bang. This is the idea that our universe started out much hotter and denser than it is now and has been expanding since then. This theory is based on observations of our universe, among which are:

curious.astro.cornell.edu...



ANd this is why 33% of Americans don't believe in evolution because they don't even understand basic scientific definitions, because they skipped biology and chemistry one too many times.


Or, another theory, in the general sense, not the scientific sense, of course (and boy, how utterly brilliant it was to appropriate a commonly used term and twist it into a specialized meaning that virtually guarantees misunderstanding), is that many people may find the insufferable certainty and snotty condescension that goes with it to be so overbearing, especially when such have been proven to be incorrect time after time, that they are not willing to put their faith in the latest version of phlogiston.

Of course, it could be something else altogether. After all, it's only a theory.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

BlueMoonJoe

Or, another theory, in the general sense, not the scientific sense, of course (and boy, how utterly brilliant it was to appropriate a commonly used term and twist it into a specialized meaning that virtually guarantees misunderstanding), is that many people may find the insufferable certainty and snotty condescension that goes with it to be so overbearing, especially when such have been proven to be incorrect time after time, that they are not willing to put their faith in the latest version of phlogiston.


Much like religious people who try to use their book to prove their worldview? Really, that's the pot calling the kettle black.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

amazing
But isn't this two issues? The first is that everyone believes in tiny mutations within species...even bible thumpers. So then evolution is a matter of degree? The second issue is what is the competing theory. Intelligent design or creationism. Perhaps but what flavor? Not Genesis I hope? Because that was stolen from the Sumerians...and as all such arguments this will devolve into Christian literalists vs the world? Where is Scott Pilgrim?


Christian literalists vs science literalists. Each thinks the other is the evil twin.

Incidentally, Scott should be having pancakes with his evil twin right about now.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

BlueMule

amazing
But isn't this two issues? The first is that everyone believes in tiny mutations within species...even bible thumpers. So then evolution is a matter of degree? The second issue is what is the competing theory. Intelligent design or creationism. Perhaps but what flavor? Not Genesis I hope? Because that was stolen from the Sumerians...and as all such arguments this will devolve into Christian literalists vs the world? Where is Scott Pilgrim?


Christian literalists vs science literalists. Each thinks the other is the evil twin.

Incidentally, Scott should be having pancakes with his evil twin right about now.





True that! But then where's the middle ground where God Created the Universe by creating evolution and the Big bang or something else...where's the middle ground for believing in God and in Science and not the Old Testament. When Talking about Creationism it's like asking "What kind of tea do you want?"

There's more than one kind?




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join