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.

 

Does hydrogen turn into people?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Wow...heated discussion. Lot of bullets and grenades flying in here.

ID and Evolutionism really cause a lot of fires around ATS.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Isn't that sort of like the Solist perspective...ie: the creator distributed itself among the universe, and thus accounts for the... 'behavior' of matter?


Now that's something I didn't expect to see.

Pantheists believe that Nature is God. Which is similar to the Solist idea that The Original Creator distributed itself among the Universe. The difference being that the latter perspective is that all souls are what is left of TOC, while the former position believes that God is still in its singularity and present but in the form of Nature.





posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I think that it is more Hindu in this case, being that the original article was from ancient Hindu text. By that, I mean that all everything in the universe is connected. More than that, all existance as we know it is illusionary, and exists in a fashion to distract us from the development of our soul.

Aside from the spiritual aspect, this text in particular shows some sort of understanding of elementary particles, and how they progressed to man.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Mattison,

I didn't say the evidence is lame, I said your interpretation of it is lame. Like we both said, the allele frequency changes in the population from generation to generation. You know what that is called? EVOLUTION. Yet, antibiotic resistance is not evidence for evolution? What gives?

Well, we need to take this to another thread, because this one has been hijacked long enough. So, that's my last response to you here.

Back on topic, it seems that the OP supports creationism. Going from hydrogen to man is no doubt a big thing. However, the human body has loads of hydrogen linked with oxygen, but also has lots of hydrogen itself, mostly ions. Still, it is a daunting task to go from hydrogen to man.

So, your option seems more plausible? A creator god made man using dust and breathed life into him, took one of his ribs and made a female clone somehow genetically different, then punished these proto humans and all of their descendants for something the proto humans did out of ignorance?

Any evidence of dust in people?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
...all existence as we know it is illusionary, and exists in a fashion to distract us from the development of our soul.


Wasn't that point made in Monty Python's Meaning of Life?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Yet, antibiotic resistance is not evidence for evolution?


Not really...no.

An original supposition that Charles Darwin had is that a whale can evolve into a bear. However, towards the end of his life he dismissed that supposition because he could find no evidence to support it.

Progressive mutations in microscopic life does not prove Evolutionism. It only provides evidence that evolution occurs in very small ways and only among very basic forms of life.


Originally posted by truthseeka
So, your option seems more plausible? A creator god made man using dust and breathed life into him, took one of his ribs and made a female clone somehow genetically different, then punished these proto humans and all of their descendants for something the proto humans did out of ignorance?


A more reasonable supposition is that the conditions for life were orchestrated eons ago by an Intelligent Designer and that Evolutionism played a small role in the process of Homo sapiens coming into being.




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   


A more reasonable supposition is that the conditions for life were orchestrated eons ago by an Intelligent Designer and that Evolutionism played a small role in the process of Homo sapiens coming into being.


A more reasonable supposition is that one can not come to any definitive conclusion when one doesn't know all the variable's, interactions, and conditions for how a universe and life within can form. The only reasonable logic one obtains from ID is through attacking that which science has no current explanation for, which in itself is hardly logical. No observation's have been made from the ID circle of super friend's that's provide's definitive evidence for design, as all so called evidence has done nothing more then rely upon science's lack of describing how a particular system works and how that system came to be. Nor is it logical to just assume and absolute and then refuse to discuss the absolute. For example, the designer himself. Not one person in ID will ever dare discuss the designer. Most who adhere to the ID circle of super friends are religous and feel the IDer is their god. Other's might claim ET, but none will discuss ET. I started a thread for this specific type of discussion, I'm not surprised IDer's haven't bothered with it. Another thread was started seeking evidence for both evolution and IDism. So far, the thread is predominatly evolution. Again, not surprised there. One doesn't have to be well versed in IDism nor religion to see what ID is. neocreationism without the mention of the religous god. If it were truely ET, you'd guy's have no problem's theorizing on possible scenarios for how and why ET would conduct such a vastly improbable experiment.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Aparently the hydrogen atomic weight is also calculated in the first line of Genesis written in Hebrew. Have to find the article or look it up for your self.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Can you give abit more information on this rather then a vauge statement? Having trouble locating anything that remotetly pertains to this.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I saw it in documentary or something I read it somewhere but at the momenet do not have that much time to locate it. I'm quite sure I just need to find it need hope maybe some one else heard this. Will research it but have to do something else for now.

below is not the right link but something I found but the Hebrew translation is another matter.
www.revelation13.net...

[edit on 5-3-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Aparently the hydrogen atomic weight is also calculated in the first line of Genesis written in Hebrew. Have to find the article or look it up for your self.


First i ever heard of this. Did some googling and, after a few tries, found this site which is debunking (for the most part) the idea that the atomic- symbol, number, and mass of every element from (atomic numbers) 1-107 & 109 are found in the Torah. Was the documentary that you saw about Bible codes? If so this may be what you're talking about.


www.mayim.edu...

A list of the Chemical Elements, in Hebrew, was obtained from the General Hebrew Encyclopaedia, 1989 Bulletin, page 462 (in Hebrew : enciklopedia ha'ivrit klalit, yedion 1989, daf 462).

This contained a table of every element with atomic numbers 1 to 107, and 109 (I do not know why 108 was omitted). For each element, a Hebrew spelling was listed, plus the atomic symbol, atomic number, atomic mass (of most common form), and year of discovery (where known).

A cursory analysis of the Hebrew element names revealed that, for the majority, the name was a straight transliteration from the known English name, and most of these were at least 6 letters in length. We agreed to perform our experiment on those elements whose names were specifically Hebrew in origin, because these were generally shorter (and therefore had more chance of being discovered as an equidistant letter sequence), and this is more in keeping with principle 3 above.

The experiment was designed to test whether the text of Genesis might indicate knowledge of the atomic number of those elements for which there is an original Hebrew name. We suggested that such knowledge might be indicated by inserting these elements' names into the Genesis text at skip distances equal to their atomic number. We would compare the number of occurrences at this distance with the number of occurrences at all distances 1 to 82 (82 is the highest atomic number of all the elements tested).

As a result of the test, no evidence was found to support the existence of knowledge of the atomic numbers of the chemical elements for which there were Hebrew names. Furthermore, we found no evidence that these element names had been encoded at any short skip distance within the Genesis text.

Conclusion
The issue by no means closed, but for now we can reach the following conclusion :

Based on the experiments performed so far and in consideration of their flaws, there is no significant statistical evidence for the existence of codes in the Masoretic Torah text which would indicate some supernatural phenomenon associated with it.


That's all i could find... sound right?

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

Not one person in ID will ever dare discuss the designer.


Not true.

It has been discussed at length by yours truly.

An Alternative Mystical View On God




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Any chance I could get an IDer to reply to this thread? Paul? Rren? Matt? Would be rather interesting to discuss, seeing as how most IDer's do believe evolution is possible, but just improbable to lead to our intelligence. Or something to that effect. Very curious what the probability of a designer is.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm also abiit taken back on how those of faith in a supernatural god as to have always just been there, i.e, always existed (something from nothing). Yet, they simply refuse to believe in the possibility that perhaps there is some natural properties of the existance prior to the big bang as to have always just been there. The whole IC argument is rather pathetic, as it SHOULD apply to the designer itself as well, and when it does, the probability of an IC designer become's even more improbable then us being designed. Why do those of faith in the designer fail to accept a more mundane answer to everything? One we may never have the answer too, as we're confined only to this one universe...

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Produkt

Not one person in ID will ever dare discuss the designer.


Not true.

It has been discussed at length by yours truly.

An Alternative Mystical View On God



Not really an alternate view in a way. Nothing more then another interpretation of the same religous supernatural god and another interpretation for why he no longer performs the miracle's he once supposedly did for uneducated primitve man.





That is why He isn't around these days in His Ascended state. We are all that is left of Him and the angels in heaven are not spiritually advanced enough to cure the ills of society.


That's the give away



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
I'm also abiit taken back on how those of faith in a supernatural god as to have always just been there, i.e, always existed (something from nothing).

Go to the thread link in my last post.


Originally posted by Produkt
Yet, they simply refuse to believe in the possibility that perhaps there is some natural properties of the existance prior to the big bang as to have always just been there.

First off, I don't agree with the Infinite Creator paradigm.

The Universe is finite - however extremely large - and the Intelligent Designer, although very spiritually advanced, was finite too


By the way, the above is a perfect example of inductive reasoning.


All souls are finite, no matter how evolved. It is all a matter of degree of spiritual excellence or lack thereof.

The natural property you are looking for is not a physical property at all. Where the boundaries of scientific materialism end, metaphysics begins.

The missing piece to the cosmic puzzle of why current science cannot explain what happened seconds before The Big Bang occurred - or what caused it - is The Light Of The God Force.


Physical substance cannot come into being in a vacuum of space without the help of Spirit. The Light Of The God Force that millions of Near Death Experiencers have reported witnessing when they leave their bodies (many seeing it "at the end of the tunnel") and what many Gifted people use on a small scale therapeutically in various healing modalities, is what existed prior to The Big Bang.

The Light, referred to in most religions, near death studies, out of body experiences (astral voyages), and in various metaphysical schools of thought: is not just vague symbolism, but an ACTUAL ENERGY which enabled ALL THAT IS to emerge in the first place.


Without it, there can be no stars, planets, corporeal life, or life in the discarnate dimensions.


The Light has always been there and always will be there. It is infinite and nonliving and is not governed by the laws of physics but by a Universal Law which transcends the physical spectrum of reality.

How can something emerge from The Light in the Spirit?

Time is the key factor here.

Time is a condition of consciousness. When there is no consciousness, there is no linear time.


In the discarnate dimensions, time is much more pliable than it is on the physical plane of existence.

Which means that something can emerge from its own probability - with the help of The Light - in a process that does not utilize linear time.

When time does not exist, then something can indeed emerge from nothing - with the help of The Light Of The God Force.

Which is precisely how it happened.

Confused?

These are very difficult metaphysical issues to understand.

Most people who are scientifically oriented will not even entertain the idea that there are higher planes of existence, that we are all souls and not just bodies, and that there is an energy on the Other Side which transcends all the known mathematical equations and scientific paradigms to explain how the Universe emerged.

But these things exist nonetheless.





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

Not one person in ID will ever dare discuss the designer.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Not true.

It has been discussed at length by yours truly.

An Alternative Mystical View On God




Originally posted by Produkt
Not really an alternate view in a way. Nothing more then another interpretation of the same religous supernatural god and another interpretation for why he no longer performs the miracle's he once supposedly did for uneducated primitve man.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
That is why He isn't around these days in His Ascended state. We are all that is left of Him and the angels in heaven are not spiritually advanced enough to cure the ills of society.



Originally posted by Produkt
That's the give away


Not quite.


Name a religion on the planet that espouses that all souls are what is left of The Original Creator.

Not one.

Except Solist Mysticism that is.

Could you identity an original thought if you found one?

Or perhaps your prejudice simply prevents you from doing so.





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   


But these things exist nonetheless.


Before I start the inevitable questioning of your view's. What evidence is there for these view's?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt



But these things exist nonetheless.


Before I start the inevitable questioning of your view's. What evidence is there for these view's?


Which would you like to start with?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   


Original Creator


That being god, or god 'force'. A supernatural intelligent being existing prior to the universe. There are many widely differing view's on this 'original creator'. Your is but just one of those many. Need not agree with all the differeing opinion's of it.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Produkt



But these things exist nonetheless.


Before I start the inevitable questioning of your view's. What evidence is there for these view's?


Which would you like to start with?


I did just state I'd like to start after evidence for your views.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
That being god, or god 'force'. A supernatural intelligent being existing prior to the universe.

You really didn't read my thread on this as you claimed, did you?



Originally posted by Produkt
That being god, or god 'force'.

No.

That is the Creationism paradigm.

Again...can you identify an original thought if you found one?

The Original Creator (aka The Intelligent Designer) manifested The Big Bang. He/She did so with The Light Of The God Force. The Original Creator did not create The God Force, the latter enabled to former to come into existence - in the Spirit - prior to The Big Bang.





top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join