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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Now you're just trying to troll...
If evolution described creation, you first had to prove the existence of a creator. Because without a creator no creation is possible. We have ZERO evidence for a creator...so your whole "evolution describes creation" is a weird claim.
Originally posted by oozyism
I don't have to prove to you the creator, I already did before many times.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Riiiiiight, care to quote that proof, because I can't remember
And no, they're not synonymos because that would imply evolution requires a creator...and we have no evidence to support that claim. And you know it!
edit on 25-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Researchers at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., have successfully programmed a computer to simulate the evolutionary process in a population of simple robots. The computer tested each successive generation of primitive robots to distinguish which could crawl the farthest. Then, the program itself refined the robots' design, replicating the process of adaptation intrinsic to evolution.
Symbolic languages are not just limited to human communication. Every living thing uses symbolic language to communicate information. How? In the form of genetic words written in the languages of DNA and protein. If you are interested in the details, just look in any basic biology textbook, and you will find that the language of DNA is made up of words. Each of these words is given an arbitrary meaning by a codebook called the "Genetic Code." Proteins are also "written" using letters in a chemical alphabet called amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids just as there are 26 different letters in the English alphabet. Different arrangements of these letters in proteins spell out protein words, which are given an arbitrary meaning or function by the cell that makes them. Just as in any other symbolic language, there is no inherent meaning for a given protein outside of the how the cell defines it. For example, the protein called "insulin" is a signal to some cells in the human body to uptake sugar (glucose) from the blood stream. The insulin protein (Bovine Insulin) is made up of two protein words that are linked together. One of these words is 21 letters (amino acids) in length. The other word is 30 letters in length.1 There is nothing special about these words in and of themselves that tells a cell that it needs to uptake sugar. So, how does the cell “know†what to do when it comes in contact with insulin? The cell recognizes insulin. But how does the cell recognize insulin? The cell has a specific receptor protein that senses insulin like a lock recognizes a key. Then, just like when a key turns a lock, this insulin receptor sends a signal to the cell that tells it to uptake sugar. In other words, this lock is linked to an underlying system of function. The key that it recognizes is the insulin key, but this recognition is arbitrary. The same function could in fact be set up to recognize any other protein "word" or "words." The fact that it recognizes insulin is strictly arbitrary, just as in any other symbolic language. The insulin molecule is simply a symbolic representation of an idea or a function that the cell recognizes.
Well, thanksgiving wasn't a religious holiday anyway.
In any case, 'sorry' for the interruption.
I don't have to prove to you the creator, I already did before many times.
This thread is inspired by recent creationist posts in several other threads in the O&C Forum.
This is a free country
people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe.
No one is king over the other.
Isn't that a bummer for those ot the leftist "educated" class who think they are royality.
They are not even in control over what one another think and believe.
Hahahahahahahaha! The beauty of America!
Originally posted by Astyanax:
In this thread we are discussing the proposed ignorance of creationists. This has been interpreted by some creationists--dusty1 and BluJay specifically, and many others by implication--as an attack on the intelligence of creationists. Leaving aside that such a misapprehension is itself pretty stupid, I should like to point out that much of the time, creationists are neither ignorant nor stupid. They are simply cunning.
[...]
Second, the repetition ad nauseum of debunked arguments. This certainly isn't evidence of ignorance; it is evidence of ignoring inconvenient facts in order to repeat the same lies over and over again. It looks stupid and stubborn to someone who knows better, but among undecided and genuinely ignorant onlookers to the debate, it acts as a kind of brainwashing. That, in fact, is its purpose.
8...]
As for the scientific ignorance of creationists, it's real enough, but what do you expect? What motive can they possibly have to familiarize themselves with knowledge they already know is destructive to their beliefs?
Originally postet by Madnessinmysoul:
Listen, this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked...the simple fact is that there is a complete and almost proud ignorance of science coming from creationists. They try to speak volumes about science without having even picked up a book on it. How are we supposed to debate science with those who refuse to take part in it?
Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
you can remedy this by ceasing to waist your time by caring what others believe.
it seams to me that you have a superiority complex
and have to prove others that you are wright and they are wrong.
whether evo is wright or wrong seems to me, to not be the point of your thread.
the point to me seems to be that "you" are wright and not evo.
obviously you have a problem with God and or the theory of God.
this is the second thread you have made in the past few weeks, that is an attach on creationism.
you seem to be a very intelligent person but it is hard to have any respect for you since you flaunt your intelligence around like a brand new ferrari.
“The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”- Socrates.
"if you truly want people to believe that you are wright and they are wrong, admit you have no idea if you are wright but you think that you could be". - me
and one more for good measure
"For every design, there is a Designer" - Albert Einstein
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)
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.
Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689
Originally posted by sara123123
This is a free country and people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. No one is king over the other. Isn't that a bummer for those ot the leftist "educated" class who think they are royality. They are not even in control over what one another think and believe. Hahahahahahahaha The beauty of America!