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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 73
27
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

That is an interesting little attempt to construct an argument. However I will counter that, with I am not a member of an Abrahamic faith, and as such I've no interest in it. I have however read the spiritual works of my path in their first recorded language.

I would also be very interested to see you find access to some of those texts of yours in a non transcribed form. Say the ones written down the first time.

Best be careful with the Chemistry comments too neighbor. I hold one of my post grad qualifications in it




posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Hello josehelps, I have read a lot of your posts as this thread has progressed. While I find it a rather interesting take on our reality, I haven't at this point done enough research on the God/Alien angle. It is true though that my beliefs of unity of all life would make beings from anywhere in the Cosmos my brothers.

In fact there are other planets within our own solar system that are not detectable within our physical dimension, to repeat my statement. There is NO space, there is only Conscious matter in motion (energy). So I would prefer not to call any being Aliens and I am certain that communication between our neighbours happen routinely at a higher dimensional level.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps


So, first let me address your post a page back where you listed about 25 websites, for reasons which are very unclear to me. Not one of those sources provided even the slightest amount of evidence for anything you have said. Just to expand on that, lets go over a few of those sources you cited.

1) The first link you cited was a Wikipedia page on Erich Von Daniken. In the very 1st paragraph of the entire article, this was said: "The ideas put forth in his books are largely rejected by scientists and academics, who categorize his work as pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.[1][2][3]" Ok, so that one is out the window. On to the next one.

2) This is an article about experiments done involving manipulating DNA with lasers, and delves into the complexity of our DNA and how it can be thought of as a wave function...This has absolutely nothing to do with any of your theories nor does it lend support to your theories

3) You cited the Wikipedia page of Allan Snyder, a neuroscientist who does research on the neurophysiological components of savant-like behavior. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of your theories nor does it lend support to your theories.

4) You post a link about a woman who supposedly gave birth to an alien fetus in Italy back in 2010. Almost immediately, this was unanimously recognized as a hoax. It was a skinned squirrel fetus, which is just downright sick. There was even a lengthy discussion about it here on ATS back in 2010.

And now begins where your links start to even make LESS sense than they before, which is really saying something

5) You post a Wikipedia page about the "10 percent of brain myth." I have absolutely zero idea how this has even the slightest to do with anything you're talking about. So there is a misconception that humans only use 10 % of their brains. Research shows that this not true, and it turns out that humans indeed use all parts of our brain. Ok, so how is this at all relevant?

6) You post a Wikipedia article about "Mitochondrial Eve." I hope you realize that mitochondrial eve does NOT refer to the biblical eve--"Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve: 1) is not a fixed individual 2) had a mother 3) was not the only woman of her time, and 4) Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her."
I suppose you're not aware of this, but not only does this article not support anything you've said, it actually provides a substantial amount of contrary evidence to your ideas. For example, "This was the first crucial step in understanding the usefulness of mtDNA in estimating evolutionary divergence and relationships,[13] and they soon published a paper describing the evolutionary relationships among gorillas, chimpanzees (common chimpanzee and bonobo) and humans.[14]."

7) Here, you link me to a google search of the definition of supernatural. Thanks for that, much appreciated.

And those are just the first 7 out of 8 links you posted. Obviously, I'm not going to go through them all, but I'd like to just point out a couple more, which happened to amuse me as well.

8) About 25 links later, you post the NIH.gov page for Francis S. Collins. Since I have no clue who this person is, I went to his Wikipedia page, in which I came upon this quote. "he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science," And this: "Collins wrote that scientific discoveries were an "opportunity to worship" and that he rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design." He accepts the things that you have stated clearly that you reject. So, AGAIN, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of your theories nor does it lend support to your theories.

9) Finally, this is my very favorite one. About halfway down, you link a dailymail article. It's entitled "The good cheese guide," and goes on to rank all of the different types of cheeses according to their taste and nutritional value. Naturally, this one is a head scratcher..



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188




9) Finally, this is my very favorite one. About halfway down, you link a dailymail article. It's entitled "The good cheese guide," and goes on to rank all of the different types of cheeses according to their taste and nutritional value. Naturally, this one is a head scratcher..


I almost ruined my computer reading that instead I started choking. BTW who would design a being that could choke to death from the same passageway the ingest liquids/foods. Seems like a bad design.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Oh don't patronise me please.
No my feet are planted on this planet where we all evolved with every other livibgbthing.
Its fact backed up with science.
Nothing uou post is backed up...it is just your personal nonsense..
Crazy nonsense also....



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Awesome example. What we have here is confusing, because could he choke, if there wasn't the "passage to stomach" right next to it?
Dear creationists, look what Grimpachi happened, made a tiny mistake, was confused, didn't think it through, but it is okay. Still the same fun, smart writing style as ever. Now, dear creationists, think about the brain bending logic required to hold on to that theory, even by the pope as metaphorical interpretated, creation fairy tale. Maybe it is more likely, when I drag everything out of the box to prove my opinion and it still doesn't make sense, it went "the wrong way"?
I like dragons. Now I shall spend the rest of my days hunting them for trrreasurrre! Because all I need to do to prove their existence is citing some verses from any book, build some themeparks and preach, ahem: spread the message.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Now, I'd like to briefly address this latest post of yours. You are so convinced that not only is everything in the bible historical fact, but that it also suggests god was a space alien. Your "proof" happens to be lines from the bible itself. While I'm not going to spend much time arguing with you over this, since clearly your beliefs are set in stone, but why is it so difficult for you to even consider that the bible was actually not meant to be taken literally (a view held by many if not most biblical experts)? Why do you not keep an open mind about the reasonable likelihood that much of what's written in the bible are metaphors? Why is this so difficult to fathom on your part? I know that you believe you've drawn parallels between certain aspects of the bible and extraterrestrials/the supernatural, but how can you be so sure that when the bible talks about heaven, it's not just simply talking about heaven, and not an alien planet? These are questions I'd like you to answer rationally, like you're having a conversation with me. Please do not repeat your mental manuscript, I've heard it enough times. You have to understand, that you are making claims about the bible, and then proceeding to "verify" those claims by citing the bible. That is literally the same exact thing as me saying "Harry Potter is real...because in the book it says he's real."

You keep mentioning the supernatural; things like invisibility, levitation, telepathy, etc. We all understand what these words mean. You claim to have done 34 years of research on these topics. Could you provide some peer-reviewed evidence of these things ever having existed. Peer-reviewed mean it's backed by independent scientific analysis. So this means you cannot use the bible, a youtube video, or a website called "ufoevidence.org" These are not proper proof. You say "I wanna know how Evolution made all this high tech stuff. Invisibility, reading minds, Telepathy, Remote viewing, come on people." You mention these things as if they are accepted fact. It seems that only you believe these things to exist in the manner you think they do.

Lastly, out of everything you've posted thus far in this thread, you've finally made the first reference to actual scientific concepts when you talked about the brain. Unfortunately, your scientific understanding is not quite correct. First, the Cerebellum is not an organ. It's a region of an organ--the brain. Also, it is not known as our subconscious. It's main functions include motor control, specifically things like balance and hand-eye coordination. You then say this "**For you delusional Evolutionists, this is your opportunity to explain to us all how in the world your so called process has the knowledge to program such abilities.*** The next thing you have to have in line, is a brain that all of this connects with so that your mind can control it all. " Well Jose, as it turns out, the process of evolution does not intend to have the "knowledge to program such abilities." You see, as we evolved from unicellular organisms to complex multi-cellular organisms, genetic mutations and adaptation allowed for our anatomy and physiology to gain such beautiful complexity. And for the record, we don't have "billions of correctly aligned chromosomes." We actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in total, in each cell. So it's actually 23 pairs of chromosomes that need to align correctly.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

Hello Barcs, you didn't respond to my last reply so I naturally concluded that you had conceded, Oh well I guess you have had a sleep and forgotten about your defeat.


I haven't seen a response from you in the last few that I've sent your way, so if I missed it, it was unintentional. I'd wonder what exactly I'd be conceding, though, since there wasn't really any argument.


If you where living in a void in space with no senses and just a conscious thought, You would have to conclude that you came from somewhere.

We are not living in the void of space, so your assumption is irrelevant


As It is, through your senses you can objectively witness miracle after miracle, If you wish to state that an intelligence was not behind this unfathomable mass of evidence, then the onus is on you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


How is the onus on the person that doesn't believe in miracles or creation? That literally makes zero sense, even in philosophy. To suggest miracles are real, is something that you would need to prove if this is your point. Then you'd have to prove that miracles prove that god is real and suggest we were created. He who makes the claim, must back it up. I'm not saying ID is wrong. I'm saying I haven't seen any valid evidence for it yet. If you have some, instead of arguing via metaphors and poor logic, I'd like to see it.

No, existence alone is not evidence for creation. If that is your claim, then back it up. I am happy to back up every single statement I make about evolution, if asked. Please offer the same courtesy instead of just arbitrarily stating things as fact unless proven wrong. I don't have to prove creation didn't happen or god doesn't exist. You have to prove those things do if you wish to use them in an debate.


"They" on the other hand are backed up by mountains, oceans, living organisms of every description, sentient consciousness and a spark of life that cannot be explained by anything other than a creator. So onus on you my friend, Get back to me when you have an answer


They can be explained by NUMEROUS things other than a creator. Creator is just YOUR GUESS, on the matter. Many folks have different guesses. LMAO at your terrible logic using gaps in scientific knowledge to suggest a creator and blatantly misusing burden of proof. You can't even prove that consciousness is external from the brain, let a lone that anything you listed is evidence for creator. Again, you made the claim, YOU back it up. Stop twisting words around. Prove a single thing you have said, rather than making blanket statements that cannot be verified.


Common sense actually, and I have no idea why they call it common!


Common sense is not a method. It's another way of saying, "I believe it, so it's true". Please give me a reason that can actually be verified instead of all these cryptic generalizations.


Common sense tells me, everything I perceive consciously is not an accident.

Common sense tells me that you are merely a figment of my imagination and that I am the only thing conscious. Prove this wrong.
OMG burden of proof is on you now!


In fact there are other planets within our own solar system that are not detectable within our physical dimension,

You shouldn't use the word fact, when something is a complete guess.
edit on 10-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Ya, it's really a big story, with what all happened to us, it's not something easy to simply debate about. But I'll try.

1* his books are largely rejected by scientists and academics / Of course they are. You're bringing a knife to a gun fight. I don't know how many more times I have to post this, but I hope this is the last. The supernatural is not tested, bound, measured, observed, understood, or even remotely related to science. So here it is again, maybe this time you will read it and understand it.

su·per·nat·u·ral

/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective

adjective: supernatural

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

"a supernatural being"

synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More

rareextramundane

"supernatural powers"

ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural

"a supernatural being"

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

"a woman of supernatural beauty"

noun

noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals

1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.


2* Well probably none that I have mentioned yet so far. You see, it was quite odd that God made these clear orders to have our abilities removed, in the bible, but what was even odder, was trying to figure out exactly how he did it. It would appear that the only remaining thing that we haven't dismissed in science to explain why some people here on Earth have powers and others don't is variances in each persons DNA. Even people with these gifts, usually end up getting cat scans and MRI's to try to see why they are so different, which of course never reveals anything unusual. Again, this equipment doesn't look at the DNA. Where things get real crazy is that there is what appears to be proof that God manipulated DNA to make his own versions of existing life. In the same Ezekiel chapter where god descends in a UFO, he is witnessed being accompanied by a four headed creature of lion, ox, eagle and man. In another reference God states that punishments will be handed down to our offspring.
This technology you are reading about has the ability to program, or reprogram DNA using sounds and word. Is it just possible that this is what was meant by the term "The word of God?" Either way, at the end of the order of removal of our supernatural abilities, God admits to making us sick by indicating we can turn and be healed. So not only did he have a way to make us sick through DNA, but he also had a way to put us back to normal. In the future because of this technology, you will see doctors using sound booths where they have you sit in for a few minutes and expose yourself to a per-determined set of sounds and words to heal you.

3* The 10% brain myth according to wiki is nothing more than a myth, and they are CERTAIN our brains are operating at full potential. Then they turn around at the end and say however we know very little about the brain. Now you can read the cold hard facts. Allan Snyder has dis-proven the claim that it's just a myth. It's common sense people. If your brain can work better, there is only one simple reason why, because it can.

4* Well nobody here on ATS tested the fetus and professionaly determined it to be a squirrel fetus, and ATS is not an authority on the subject, plus I would be more than careful at taking the opinion from anyone on ATS. I mean after all, just look, we have people that actually think we evolved.

5* See number 3

6* It does actually reference the original Eve as we have been taught, and they just haven't figured this out, and there are a multitude of reasons why I can say this for sure. The first is that it's clear as I mentioned earlier, Adam and Eve were abducted and brought to Earth. This female that was abducted, is one and the same that we all know as biblical Eve (which however is not the real first female in our real lineage). If you read the article, you will clearly see, she was separated from her contemporaries. This is obvious proof she was abducted. She also has lineage prior to that which NIH is not public with. You have to be smart enough to read between the lines and realize they never actually tell us exactly how far back our lineage goes, and I'll tell you why. It's simple, it goes back further than the age of earth and the world would either think they are idiots and did something wrong, or all hell would break loose. This also tells of course the obvious that God didn't create us allegedly when we were claimed to have been created. Which also tells us that God is not our real creator. Unfortunately it also proves we are all inbred as well.

7* You should read it again, as I'm sure you're not getting this.

8* No, Francis S. Collins was the head of NIH during the mapping of the genome. I could care less about anyone's opinions here, in case you haven't noticed I'm only interested in facts. And seriously, if YOU want to have any credibility here, or anywhere in the world, you should be too.

9* Ah yes the cheese guide. I have spent countless hours tying to figure out how humans are suppose to acquire their needed 1000mg of calcium per day. It's simply not here. Fruits and vegetables only offer low double digits, and cows milk isn't natural, it's processed, and it's not good for you. Cheese even though processed seemed to be the best source.

In the United States, more than 40 million people either already have osteoporosis or are at high risk due to low bone mass. According to the National Institute of health.

Gray aliens dumped us here without our proper food. SUFFER!



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Just one thing due to I am on my way to work.
A simple search asking google how to get the required calcium a day shows many many ways to get the right amount even wiyhout suppliments.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

I never said I believe in the bible because it says it's truth, I said it matches with our findings in science today.

Ok once again, I'm going to direct you to re-read the description of the supernatural, geez is everyone on here illiterate?

su·per·nat·u·ral

/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective

adjective: supernatural

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

"a supernatural being"

synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More

rareextramundane

"supernatural powers"

ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural

"a supernatural being"

unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

"a woman of supernatural beauty"

noun

noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals

1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

Peer reviews are not an ONLY determining factor of authority, not to mention your once again ignoring the fact that the supernatural doesn't apply to science. How you going to test it huh? Explain that to me. I'll bet you didn't even know that Albert Einstein never had a single solo peer review.

I'm questioning our understanding on the brain. I'm basing that on Allan Snyders work. Dr. Michael Persinger, Anyone with supernatural abilities, Remnants left over that now appear through what we refer to as the ideo motor function, like using a ouija board, or automatic writing. Even the 10% brain myth on wiki clearly states we know very little about the brain. You know what, I think they are right. So tell me, are all these people wrong?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Well this is breaking news, I wonder if we can get CNN on here because there are over 40 million Americans that aren't as informed as you are apparently.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Nope all of my information is from historical documents and science today. Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't have that creative of a mind. Ya like I woke up one day and imagined God being a space alien and taking our abilities away, come on man, this is movie making material and I'm not that smart.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Oh Barcs, please refer to my post The problem facing scientists

It is pointless to keep going over the same arguments as it is clear we can never reach an accord, although we come close when you said.



Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive and debunking one doesn't validate the other, just like proving one doesn't debunk the other.


I look forward to chatting with you sometime in another thread, If I ever feel an uncontrollable urge to bang my head against a brick wall.

It's been good fun though, Thanks again!

edit on 10-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Must not be all that bad, it applies to almost every living thing that eats.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Well that depends. Do you think we evolve to whats available, or just die from the consequences?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The guy must have been on the right track.

I can't disagree. Look at how I just found this Ecologist / Dr. Silver that has a book with details about how he knows humans aren't from earth. I have been telling friends and family for years that if our sun was truly our sun, it wouldn't burn us, it wouldn't give us skin cancer, we wouldn't have to wear sun protection, we wouldn't have to wear sunglasses.

I have been saying this for years, and just about 6 months ago find his book online quoting me. Now I"m not an ecologist, I'm not a doctor, and I don't know him and I don't read minds, so how is this possible?

I'll tell you the trick to understanding all this, why some people get it and other don't. Think about, no I mean really think about it, then when you're done, think about it some more, then read history and science and you will understand.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: boymonkey74

Well this is breaking news, I wonder if we can get CNN on here because there are over 40 million Americans that aren't as informed as you are apparently.



Acording to total Population, that 40 million is only one in seven Americans.
USA

Strangley enough, it seems that we have the same ratio we have on this thread. One in seven do not even bother to do the research. Simple as that.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Your friends and family must really be proud of you for being one of the only people in the entire world to have figured all of this out. I'd like to personally thank you allowing me to understand the secrets of the world. I'm just glad I know all of this now. I had a sneaking suspicion that everything I'd learned--from my bachelor's in science in neuroscience and philosophy to my 4 years of medical school--was totally false. It truly all makes sense now. I've thought about it like you told me to. I read the definition of supernatural over and over, but I finally understand. Everything--from god being a space alien who hijacked our species, to genetics being a hoax, the fact that our sun isnt really our sun, the fact the mitochondrial eve actually DOES refer to the biblical eve (they just don't know it yet), and most importantly----the cheese website. All I can say is that you're right, and I'm wrong. If only I had realized how wise you and Dr. Silver, the Ecologist were all along.
edit on 10-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

It's only pointless because you ignore every counterpoint presented against you. I crapped all over your "existence is evidence" argument and left you speechless, apparently. I guess since you ignored those counter points, you have conceded them. Your arguments for creation have been completely illogical and baseless. You just assert everything as fact and don't back it up, yet have the gall to criticize science. You claim miracles are real, but won't back it up when asked. I'm guessing the post you linked will be more of the same, and all counterpoints I present will be ignored and fact will be dismissed in favor of faith. Let's see if I'm right.

None of what you said are actually problems with science and the dark room analogy is terrible because we don't even know this room exists right now. There is no reaching into the dark blindly. There is objective reality, and then there is guesswork. I mean seriously, your beef is that we can't discover stuff we don't yet even know exists? Science is supposed to analyze evidence, but it isn't pigeon holed. That is a ludicrous accusation and is untrue of science.


Evolution theory is an example of how science is picking up scraps of data pigeonholing it, analysing it and fitting it into an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. The whole solution of which lies behind the door.


What door are you talking about? You are just guessing that there is some magical door with all the answers behind it, but we don't know this door even exists nor do we know that this mythical thing has anything at all to do with evolution. Please explain how you think science is supposed to look for the key to something we don't even know exists.

The science says that we can measure genetic mutations, X amount per generation"

The science says that speciation has been duplicated in a lab

The science says that relation can be proven via DNA, which holds up in court today

The science says that natural selection has been observed with dozens of creatures

The science says that each creature's genetic blueprint affects their morphology


Hylozoics is an ancient knowledge that describes the nature of reality at a quantum level. It describes everything science understands to date about our quantum reality and predicted it thousands of years ago and described everything we understand today about Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Geology etc


I'm calling BS on that one. Please cite me the portions of Hylozoics that talk about EVERYTHING in modern chemistry and astrophysics.



Hylozoics predated string theory, supersymmetry, the assumption that atoms where the smallest part of matter. It predated concepts of the multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, consciousness, every field of study.


None of which proves its accuracy.


it explains entanglement, spooky action at a distance, protons, neutrons, electrons, exotic particles strong and weak forces, gravity, the physics behind the spin and spiralling of the monad(string) , It is all covered and beautifully describes how it all dovetails together in a unifying whole.


I asked you what specifically that you learned from your studies of Hylozoics that convinced you it was true. Anybody can believe something on the internet. In your research, for you specifically, what was it that convinced you that it's more than conjecture? I'm legitimately curious.


It is all conceptual at a theoretical physicist level of understanding. For now it cannot be worked out into a theory, It is however the best hypothesis to date. How can I make this statement?

Because science does not have a hypothesis of the unity of everything.


There are numerous hypotheses on that actually. String theory was originally proposed to be that, although, like your system, it cannot be proven.

You specifically said "Science intelligently arrives at a hypothesis based on the information available,", yet you call theoretical physics a hypothesis. If that is a legit hypothesis, then please tell me what objective information it is based on.


Hyloziocs provides answers, not just from the quantum aspect but also for our complete understanding of the reality of life. It is completely in accord with scientific knowledge and is non contradictory. If scientists would just look at it and understand it, It could change everything of our view of science, our view of spirituality and how we relate to each other.


What answers does it provide? Can any of them be proven? Creationists always say, ID provides answers. It actually doesn't. It takes guesses at what they think is true to explain what science doesn't yet know. Hyloziocs can't change our view of science, because science by its nature is objective. Studying some ancient belief system loosely based on Pythagoras isn't going to suddenly make scientists have an epiphany and start searching for things that don't exist just because the thought of spirituality sounds nice. Science is and always will be objective. The second that stops, it is no longer science.


edit on 10-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join