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.

 

Both forms of creation could be true

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
All the talk of God created the universe and the big bang created the universe and still no resolve. It is up to each individual to form their beliefs. I personally think there is truth in both.

On the God side, we can see through research that man has been here before. In fact, according to many ancient writings, man is in his 3rd cycle now - about to enter a 4th. From this we should be able to tell that the 7 day creation is either symbolic or described by people who knew rocks and sticks as the only things they had at the time.

On the evolution side, we see the universe expanding mostly from a central point. We know time can change a species. Bacteria is evolving now to resist anti-bacterials for example. I don't think we came from a single cell organism though - too many things against that.

I can understand the arguements on both sides, but there are things on both sides that don't make sense too.

What if both sides were correct?

Gravity pulls the universe together into one lump. This pressure eventually explodes, creating the forming galaxies, suns and planets. They form, certain organisms begin to grow. An energy known to us as God begins to manipulate/creates/build life on many of the new planets. They either destroy themselves like man does, causing cycles, or they live the right way giving to advancement of technology and spirituality. The universe expands until gravity pulls it together again into one large lump. Repeat.

Just my thoughts. Not neccessarily my opinion.




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
What if both sides were correct?


You mean, if there is a God (as described by Christians), he may have initiated the "big bang" to kick things off, and used evolution to ensure abundant life forms populated worlds and adapted to their environment?

Well... that would be too simple now wouldn't it?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
In this case, we might be talking about Einstein's "God," which is non-personal: Einstein's "God" does not concern himself with individual people.


from www.skeptic.com...
...on April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: "Do you believe in God?"(Sommerfeld, 1949, 103). Einstein's return message is the famous statement: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"( 103).


Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
There is something - call it God, call it energy, call it spirit.

I am just making a point - there are large misunderstandings on what God is and what evolution is. I think there may be truth on booth sides.

Against creationism, we know there was millions of years between the formation of the earth and modern man - at least this cycle of man. What is 7 days anyways if there was no earth to measure a day.

Against evolution, we could not have come from a single cell. Cells don't have eyes, so what made us develop an eye? According to evolution, there must have been a period of time where the eye was being developed because the cell saw a need to make one to detect light? Then, after the eye finally formed, it saw that it needed depth perception, so it went through a time again to make another? No way. If so, I know we have need of a couple more hands, why is there not a couple of stubs in our armpits that will grow into two more arms in a million years? Point is, we are made/complete, nothing is 'in progress'.

This is why I think there is truth and fiction in both theories. Our planets/galaxies may be part of evolution, but life is something else. Maybe something being creative with genes or deeper. Our concept of what God is may be distorted. Maybe man is not as smart as he thinks he is.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
Against evolution, we could not have come from a single cell. Cells don't have eyes, so what made us develop an eye? According to evolution, there must have been a period of time where the eye was being developed because the cell saw a need to make one to detect light? Then, after the eye finally formed, it saw that it needed depth perception, so it went through a time again to make another? No way. If so, I know we have need of a couple more hands, why is there not a couple of stubs in our armpits that will grow into two more arms in a million years? Point is, we are made/complete, nothing is 'in progress'.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ancient humans were, by and large, much larger than us because they, had to be more physically active to survive. To say that anything in the world is "permanent" is a fallacy - everything is transitory, from the forms of animals to the existence of the universe itself. Can you name something that is permanent in this universe, without naming "God?"

On eyeballs:



The central idea is that if all creatures were originally blind, 1% of an
eye is better than nothing and will be preferentially selected. The best
idea of this apparent evolutionary change (a flat area of skin or epithelium
with light sensors, then folding inward to form first an open cavity and
later a closed cavity, first without a lens and then with a lens) is
illustrated in many evolution textbooks and popular books; checking the
index of library books on evolution might work.

What is really neat is that we can find invertebrate animals like scallops,
worms, etc. that have eyes with each of these "intermediate" conditions
(i.e., open cavity with no lens, etc.). It is also neat that while our eye
and the octopus eye look very similar, our retina is inside out (the rods
and cones on the outside of the retina, *below* the blood vessels and the
neuronal wiring) while the octopus has a retina with the rods and cones on
the inside of the retina. (This is why we can see moving blood cells when an ophthamologist shines a bright light into your eye.) It is clear that these
different eyes evolved separately.

A clue to the origin of eyes is also found in the protein structure of our
lens and those of other animals...


There is much more on this subject, but if you're interested, and apparently you are, then you can check out these web pages for more on the story:

www.madsci.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Zip




 
0

log in

join