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.
So evolutionists and creationists stop trying to say that you're better than each other because in truth watching the two of you is like watching two kids fight on a playground. It's actually pretty funny too.
OptimusSubprime
I agree with you. A debate is often misunderstood by an audience, meaning that most of the audience probably isn't aware that the two sides debating are not trying to change the other's mind, because the informed and zealous evolutionist and the informed and zealous creationist have already made their minds up. The idea of the debate is to convince an uninformed audience member of which side is correct.
OptimusSubprimeI think the arguments start because of titles like the one of this thread. The OP presumes that a young Earth Creationist can't possibly understand or comprehend science
OptimusSubprime
although most of the science involved in defining the theory of evolution is better described as pseudoscience,
OptimusSubprime
the fact remains that the self righteous, pseudo-intellectual evolutionist feels that he/she must take time out of their very important existence to "school" the young Earth creationist of science. It's absurd and offensive.
blueyezblkdragon
Okay I'm going to say this, in just about anything we do there is bias. That was the first thing I learned about history, historians and most things in life even science and religion. There will be bias in this post due to my own beliefs, experiences and current situation. Just like how there will be bias in say a religion or even a scientific hypothesis. Now while the theory of evolution isn't accurate enough to be called fact, can you tell me that you're any better than someone who's saying that god created man ? Just because someone said it was so doesn't mean they're right even for evolutionists that one goes.
Sure it's easier to say that god did this and that. But people thought no wait there must be more to life than god did everything. They decided to start to try and look at life and how it works and through that came the marvels of the modern world we have today, if we didn't look at how life and the world around us works we wouldn't have most of the medicine and operations necessary to save peoples life's. So not everyone is correct about evolution sometimes, but at least they're making an effort to try and understand. I'm sure you have a motive for everything you do as well.
We all make mistakes, sometimes were not right, I'm sure that to some people every little detail seems to be more important than the larger picture. You can stare at the stars and the heaven's above but in the end the evolutionists will need creationists and the creationists will need evolutionists simply because one can not exist without the other, because I bet you that if all the atheist's and evolutionists left only creationists would remain and squabble and argue amongst each other for years before splitting into smaller groups trying to kill each other. And the same would happen with the evolutionists no matter what.
The point I'm trying to make is that the creationists need evolutionists and vice versa. Why? having too much of one ideology is biased and closed minded meaning that nothing will ever progress and if it does it will constantly regress till there's nothing left.
So evolutionists and creationists stop trying to say that you're better than each other because in truth watching the two of you is like watching two kids fight on a playground. It's actually pretty funny too.
It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. - G.H. Harper
CovertAgenda
Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith. Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.
You are mixing the definition of faith. You're trying to justify a religious faith in science, versus a faith that describes "my faith my families abilities". They are two separate things. We use the latter definition of faith everyday. I have faith that when I turn my door handle, the door will open. In this sense, nearly everything requires an implication of faith. However, Science is not religiously faithful, because it's not an ideology. It requires that evidence be observed and tested in order for a hypothesis to be accepted. Whenever new evidence arises that contradicts the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is formed in order to accommodate the new evidence and provide us with a more accurate evaluation of whatever phenomenon. Science relies entirely on "seeing is believing" in order for it to work. It is the exact opposite of a religious-based faith, for that reason alone.
CovertAgendaI do not FULLY believe ANYTHING unless i can verify personally.
That's the greatest thing about Science! You CAN test everything yourself! It's how a hypothesis becomes a theory. Multiple confirmation through separate studies and researches that provide prove of the accuracy of a claim. So long as you have the right equipment (which is often not expensive at all, Perhaps even free!), you can conduct those same experiments and provide proof or falsification to any given scientific claim.
Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.
CovertAgenda to fully believe that the planets revolve around the sun, i would have to take my telescope out every night, plot and map the planets (or whatever those main moving points of light are) (aka Copernicus ~1510-1515) develop some interesting hypotheses, and confirm heliocentricity.
That would be unnecessary if you can understand the concepts behind those observations Science is never meant to be absolutely finite. Anyone who claims that has a misrepresentation of what science is. Science isn't the answer for everything, nor is it even the answer for anything. Science's only goal is to attempt to explain naturally occurring phenomena, nothing more. Our explanations may change, because we can't know everything, but the natural phenomena doesn't. You can't go in thinking that "I want answers" when referring to science. It simply doesn't work like that. We have our best explanation from our current observations, and that is it. It is why science is so exciting! There is always something new to learn and always a way to further our explanations.
Biblically , its just a variation within a kind.
What hasn't been observed is macro-evolution, which means the changing of one kind of species into another.
THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF EVOLUTION ARE DESCRIBED:
Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.
Now certainly, and admittedly, the same thing can be said about Creationism. By the way, I am a Christian and a "young Earth creationist". I believe that everything was created in the exact manner that is depicted and described in the Bible, or more specifically, the Book of Genesis (with some elaboration found elsewhere throughout the Bible). Having said all of that, my wish is to not "convert" one who subscribes to the theory of Evolution. No, my wish is for only the evolutionist to admit that their belief system is just as unprovable as mine is, and that evolution takes just as much faith as mine does.
I'm not claiming to be any more intelligent or intellectual than anyone else. However, I do feel that I am more educated on this specific subject than the individuals who have commented here so far. Is that insulting? No. It's simply fact.
BlackManINC
I'm sure most Christians would agree that an evolutionists philosophical beliefs about the origins and meaning of life really isn't welcome at all,
BlackManINC
this given the history especially of America and the western countries that didn't start off with neo-Darwinian principles, quite the opposite.
BlackManINC
Many science magazines and scientists who don't hold dogmatically to the evolutionary view of the world will tell you that if evolutionary interpretations of real science didn't exist, it would hardly be noticed, and this is assuming that the science itself is legitimate and not some kind of fraud like the piltdown man.
CovertAgenda
My definition with regards to the domain of this conversation was stated in the second line. I never said science was religiously faithfu
CovertAgenda
Looks to me you will have to be (3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.) and (1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal. 5. Consistent with truth or actuality)
In order to follow the scientific method?
CovertAgenda
Yes and I more or less state that in the following paragraph concluding with:
Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.
CovertAgenda
I do. And i still require my faith in the science presented.
CovertAgenda
Should we go in asking that we want more questions? That would certainly help with funding.
Why cant 'answers' be 'our best explanation from our current observations', who said the answers are going to be true or correct?
CovertAgenda
I'm not claiming to be any more intelligent or intellectual than anyone else. However, I do feel that I am more educated on this specific subject than the individuals who have commented here so far. Is that insulting? No. It's simply fact.
You are not claiming...., and yet you feel..., then its a fact.... wow... have you read what you waffle?
CovertAgenda
Is that your scientific method?
A fact (derived from the Latin factum,) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
Mate, verify it.
the2ofusr1
I would think that if you wanted to educate people about science then putting your thread in the religion section was a simple error on your part .
the2ofusr1
So like you ,I am only expressing my opinion on evidence we have gathered . I didn't get my information from a pastor .Did you get yours from the equivalent in science ?
the2ofusr1
You may in the end have confused Theory , and Theology .On is associated with science and the other with religion .Unless you consider science a religion in which case I would have to agree and think that you may have the correct forum .
the2ofusr1
reply to post by Ghost147
Ok then carry on ...I was a little confused as to the why and what the thread was created for . My interest in evolution is about the same as politics ..peace
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?
borntowatch
Evidently there seems two
theory's at the moment I am aware of
Yes, one organism splitting into two
The other theory is a group of organisms suddenly appeared as a soup
Prezbo369
borntowatch
Evidently there seems two
theory's at the moment I am aware of
Yes, one organism splitting into two
The other theory is a group of organisms suddenly appeared as a soup
Evidently you don't bother to read the responses to the same malformed questions and claims you continually on this forum.
So why bother to post at all?edit on 3-2-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)
Ghost147
BlackManINC
I'm sure most Christians would agree that an evolutionists philosophical beliefs about the origins and meaning of life really isn't welcome at all,
Considering that I have already demonstrated that Evolution has no say or do with the origins of life and especially the meaning of life, those Christians you speak of would have a misinterpreted definition of Evolution. I have also demonstrated how there is nothing philosophical about Evolution at all. Thus why it is not an "ism" or ideology. Simply a branch of science.
Please refer to my former posts for more details.
BlackManINC
this given the history especially of America and the western countries that didn't start off with neo-Darwinian principles, quite the opposite.
Nor does any form of science. Fortunately, since nothing scientific has anything to do with how we should act Morally, or what laws we should implement, or anything philosophical, it doesn't inflict with the general stance of any religion, when referencing these points.
BlackManINC
Many science magazines and scientists who don't hold dogmatically to the evolutionary view of the world will tell you that if evolutionary interpretations of real science didn't exist, it would hardly be noticed, and this is assuming that the science itself is legitimate and not some kind of fraud like the piltdown man.
Once again, Evolution does not instate a philosophical interpretation of anything. It simply is a process of why we reproduce with variation, nothing more. There for any scientists or scientific magazines who hold this idea of Evolution, would also be misinterpreting what the Theory of Evolution describes.
Your continued misrepresentation of what Evolution actually is simply establishes your bias and refusal to accept, not the theory itself, but even the definition of it.
I have no issues with why you do not accept Evolution, you reasons are your own. However, you continuously spout misrepresented points about the subject, even though they have repeatedly been shown to not actually exist (the accusations you make). This is simply an incomprehensible reason for the action of accepting ignorance.
Could you please explain to me why you continuously feel this is necessary? While also explaining why you continuously dismiss and ignore the real definition of evolution.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that it exists. My goal is to simply show what the subjects means and describes.
iterationzero
reply to post by BlackManINC
Biblically , its just a variation within a kind.
Since we're entering into a scientific discussion here, please define "kind".
What hasn't been observed is macro-evolution, which means the changing of one kind of species into another.
If you're claiming that there are no observed instances of speciation, you're simply incorrect.
the2ofusr1
reply to post by Ghost147
If you could take 5 min. and watch this vid on solar observations and how theory can be misunderstood within the scientific community you may want to re-think your theory of evolution www.youtube.com...
Peace
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?
tomoe723
If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?
BlackManINC
Why do you think every humanist manifesto, an atheist doctrine permeating the school system, makes it very clear that it is directly based on evolution?
BlackManINCBecause it attempts to explain how nature got to this point without God or any supernatural creator, and by definition is entirely compatible with the materialist beliefs in old religions where evolution was taught in the form of pantheism.
BlackManINC
The very idea of a pre-biotic soup, of which the various lab tests I'm sure you are aware of have failed to show is even possible,
BlackManINC
as well as the big bang theory attempts to explain how the universe came to be without any supernatural implications.
BlackManINC
Everybody knows that Darwin, from which it is claimed the very theory of evolution came from of which I have shown is not true in the slightest, also attempted to explain away nature without God. Thats why atheists and other scoffers of the Bible always bring up evolution in their arguments against it.
BlackManINC
Both sides of this issue about origins are biased, but the reason why the creationists almost always win the campus debates is because they tend to appeal to the actual scientific facts unlike the evolutionists who tend to appeal to made up philosophical assumptions that has nothing to do with science, as even some evolutionists have admitted.
BlackManINC
I have seen nothing in that link that shows how speciation can lead to an ape magically transforming into a human, or a frog transforming into a prince.
BlackManINC
Speciation might cause one type of primate to be unable to reproduce with another species of primate, but that doesn't make it any less an ape. This is the problem creationists have with the tripe that's taught in the schools when it comes down to it.