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.

 

How close are you in believing ?

page: 1
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
How close are you in believing ?

I fully understand this forum leans towards the Religious vs Darwin paradigm Conspiracy aspect but....

I'd like to have an open discussion as to why some of you fence sitters may be leaning towards there either being a 'God' of some sort of 'Intelligent design' aspect and why?

What is it that's making you question modern science?

This could be a rather curious discussion. I recently viewed some rather interesting videos by Randall Carlson, Very interesting.

I'll post one of eight videos now to get the ball rolling....


Published on May 15, 2014

"A cosmic tempo based on Sacred Geometry, encoded in myth & mystical architecture throughout the Earth governs the unfolding of world ages, the rise and fall of civilizations & is ultimately the very basis of apocalyptic prophecy" - Randall Carlson


The reason why I enjoy these types of discussions is simply this. There are so many extraordinary aspects of who we are and how our DNA works but also our planet, solar system and universe. Now, coupled with this, that I honestly feel is what our ancient ancestors seemed to have been clued in on, There are so many things that we are just either barely discovering presently or haven't fully come to grips with that they have seemed to have already known in prehistory.

*I fully understand he is playing with numbers, but the math doesn't lie.


Keep in mind, that the more we discover of the infinitely small "String Theory" and infinitely large "Bubble verse" the less we seem to really know. This is an exploration in not just ourselves, our planet, where we come from and why but also, the whole existence of what we perceive. It's potentially a major game changer in our perceptions. Because IMHO, our perspective needs to change because it's hindering our math and scientific understanding of who we are and also what we are capable of. Then, at that point, we will decipher that 'Life' is not only very important here on Earth but also to the grander scheme of things but that we also hold a future pivotal, yet to be defined, role to play.

So, in this instance, from that potential point of view. We seriously need to pull our collective heads out of our backsides and all start pulling in unison as a specie for the collective good. Not just for ourselves but for our future contributions and fulfill whatever it is we were designed/created/coded to finally accomplish.



DNA

Is a code.

Who created the code, it's parameters, it's potential and why?
edit on 15-8-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69


whatever it is we were designed/created to finally accomplish.


Really? Why do you think we are anything other than another branch of life? Assuming homo sapien had never come into being, assuming none of the forebears to homo sapien had come into being, do you think every other species of life - plant or animal - would have missed us? I'm not so sure an arrogance that we are somehow the best of breed holds true personally, and without our footprint, maybe the world would be in a much better place.

If you look at the events that culminated in where our planet is now, anyone of which could have seen our chances to exist dashed, I do hold some thoughts around the possibility of a divine creator for our world - if that was for our species or not (or if indeed any species was targeted) is a different matter.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

All hail the mushroom probes from outer space.

This is the truth of the past, and may it be the truth of tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
S&F



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The question of the ages. Whatever you believe, your faith is tested. The numbers of most of our geniuses show that our solar system should be at least alot more disorganized. The sum of all we know/think to be factual makes it easy to believe in some great Godlike force or forces. Look how glued to space the Vatican is. I find that fact very interesting, and contradictory to some of their teachings in my opinion. No doubt THEY know or have a good idea what they are watching or looking for! All my humble opinions, now of course burn me to ashes proving the unprovable.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Andrew created DNA.

His name spelled backwards is We r DNA.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
There is a design, but it is of its own making since everything is truly one 'entity' and exists as a god if thats what you want to call it.

Quite simply 'god' is within everything as can be seen by the infinite wonders within the multiverse.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.


Only it did not spontaneously emerge. It evolved over hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years.

Humans have been around for such a minute period of time in comparison to the existence of the universe, or even just Earth.

A lot can happened, and has happened, in that amount of time...



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Even i can see that. This is a great point to make and i think it fits well in the conspiracy forum. There is far to wide of a divide between "science" and "spirituality/religion". At least as far as they are considered in the media aspect, and that is how people are educating themselves in the sciences. With media. Social or otherwise. I hear so many people with barely a highschool education, call themselves scientists.


From the uneducated "science deniers" pov, it does seem that anouncements from the scientific community are being upturned all the time.

People who get their "scientific education" with a religious bent, are likewise befuddled when they dig into actual science.

That is not to say that religious people can't understand science. But i think it is fair to say that people with a deity based world view are less likely to seek out answers or to accept certain accepted pardigms like evolution.

One thing that everyone can agree with is that the patterns seen in the very fabric of material existence are at best, dubiously coincidental, and at worst, seem to be designed in some way. Which doesn't neccesarily lead to a designer, but would seem to be a common thought on this planet.

I am more of the mind that the patterns are naturally occurring. If that is the case, i think it is very important to try to understand them as best we can.

Thanks for posting this vid.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Back off.

The Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Mayans etc etc etc, all played with numbers.

Why?

That was in antiquity.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.



"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69
I usually avoid these topics on ATS as the venom usually flows freely.

S&F For a well worded OP that encourages discussion.


I have passed college Microbiology and Anatomy while studying for a Nursing degree.

And to this day the more I learn the more I can say IMHO a Creator is the only thing that makes sense.

From our unimaginable complexity to the many mysteries of our ancient past I for one believe there is an agenda to hide the truth.

Again, just my humble opinion.

Thanks for the thread Slayer.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

This always confuses me too. Science is FAR more exciting, breathtaking, and plus it changes as opposed to a belief structure that has remained the same for thousands of years. Science tells us SOOO much more about the universe than any one religion (or even all of them combined) could ever hope to tell us about the universe.


edit on 15-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.


With a lot of respect I find that dubious. Why? Mainly because it ignores a fairly straight line from life coming into existence on Earth, through to the genetic links human kind has with so many other branches of life on this planet. If you mean did some seed from another world ignite the whole thing for any life........... it's a theory, but what does that tell us? If it didn't spontaneously emerge here, where did it spontaneously emerge - and that debate could - hypothetically - go around in circles for several ice ages of debate.

If you mean it was designed somewhere else and made its way here, then aren't we into divine creator territory? And if here, how did said seed know that with tectonic plates, iron core, our planets chemical combination etc. then we were best placed to follow such an evolutionary path?

For me, the question may as well be if the most civilised society that had ever evolved on this planet had been that of the termite, or a bee, or an ant, would we as a planet been any lesser to a designed path? You know what? Possibly not.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.



"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick


This is a terrible analogy. We know how a jumbo jet was assembled. We know who created them, and we know they aren't natural objects in the universe. We also know that jumbo jets cannot evolve from smaller jets into jumbo jets as they don't reproduce.

There is so much wrong with the irreducible complexity argument that it's beyond absurd that people even bring it up still... In other words you are comparing apples to oranges here.

PS: Just because some smart guy said something once, doesn't make it true. It still falls on you to fact check that info, which you never did.
edit on 15-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: uncommitted

Back off.

The Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Mayans etc etc etc, all played with numbers.

Why?

That was in antiquity.





Errrm, not sure I really understand your response there. Back off what exactly? I honestly and respectfully don't understand your response. What I would add though is we are tomorrows antiquity.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69


I fully understand this forum leans towards the Religious vs Darwin paradigm Conspiracy aspect but....


just wanted to offer a quick correction here - religion vs d̶a̶r̶w̶i̶n̶ modern evolutionary synthesis.


Who created the code, it's parameters, it's potential and why?


why do you care?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I disagree.

A shame we can not grab a beer and talk.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.



"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick


This is a terrible analogy. We know how a jumbo jet was assembled. We know who created them, and we know they aren't natural objects in the universe. We also know that jumbo jets cannot evolve from smaller jets into jumbo jets as they don't reproduce.

There is so much wrong with the irreducible complexity argument that it's beyond absurd that people even bring it up still... In other words you are comparing apples to oranges here.

PS: Just because some smart guy said something once, doesn't make it true. It still falls on you to fact check that info, which you never did.


Thanks for reminding me.

Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.





top topics



 
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join