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.

 

Creator V Science

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hey guys, My first post here, just wanted to hear some views, lots of people try and "prove" evolution or creationism, but isnt it just the case that they are both theories, im religious but alot of what i like about religion is ideas so im open to debates, but both of them are theories, so there isnt proof for either!
For example a few things i will pick up on, a typical Religious argument is that people get stigmata, which before you disprove as psychological, alot of cases happen to people who arent religious, or people who come from areas where god isnt a known thing, so cant be psychological, yet to not be one sided, why the hell do we have a tail bone? confusing.
An argument from the other side say, our DNA is 99% the same as an apes. Yet our DNA is about 50% the same as a banana. So i dont listen to alot of these people who try and "prove" things, i just want opinions really.

www.icr.org...

One thing that scientists seem to now agree on tho, is that the big bang had to come from some kind of creator, so i think everyone should agree that there is a God of some kind, just as i think everyone should agree evolution of some kind has occured, whether it be natural selection or evolution. Hope my first thread isnt a rubbish one!




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Well when one goes to build a new home........, I buy the supplies that i need and throw it into one big pile...........and i close my eye's....... and wait for awhile........ and wait ........and wait......,the pile of stuff that is needed for my new home has not turned into a house,.. that thought of! .....why not i have everthing that i need why does it not turn into a house?......... I need to have a blue print....,a plan .......a thought,...... some structure.... to the order in which to build the house,.......a master plan. where do I start? if I start the roof.......what would hold it up?... if I start on the walls frist what will hold the wall? so there you have it ....in a nut shell.....there is a order in which things are built no if ..and or ..but...about it.. look around you !



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
First, welcome to ATS.

Second, I should point out that scientific theories actually are supported by evidence. If a theory didn’t have strong evidence then it wouldn’t be considered a theory. No matter how much evidence a theory gets, it will always be a theory. Even germ theory, which almost everyone agrees is a fact, is still just a theory.

Well humans, apes, and bananas all are cellular eukariotic organisms so it doesn’t seem too unreasonable for them all to share that much of the same DNA. Also DNA is very long, and even changing a small percent of it can still have huge effects.



One thing that scientists seem to now agree on tho, is that the big bang had to come from some kind of creator, so i think everyone should agree that there is a God of some kind, just as i think everyone should agree evolution of some kind has occured, whether it be natural selection or evolution.


Well actually I don’t believe that there is such an agreement. Although I do agree that there is certainly a question on what caused the big bang, throwing god into it as an answer doesn’t really solve anything in my eyes. For me it just leads to more questions.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys Also DNA is very long, and even changing a small percent of it can still have huge effects.



I couldnt agree more. Even if the DNA strand is 99.9% the same, what if that .1% tells the 99.9 what to do and how to act?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
And who, or what, created the Creator?

You see, people get all wrapped up in the idea that time only moves in one direction. A simple mistake, because that's how we evolved to perceive time. But time and consciousness are very complicated "things." And the ordinary notion of cause and effect doesn't necessarily apply when you're talking about really big things or really small things.

Free your mind from the notion of past, present and future, and you'll be one step ahead (or is it behind?) most people with very limited perspectives who argue about this stuff.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Eh, it may be alot to read, but it's a decent start and you can always google up more information on any of these topics discussed here.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
And who, or what, created the Creator?


Stephen hawking won the nobel peace prize in the 70's by proving time was created. So since time has a begining and an ending the creator would have to operate outside of time. Therefore He isnt subject to beginings, endings, cause or effect. I say He because the only "Holy" book that says time has a begining and an ending is the bible and it refers to the creator as He.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny bravo

Originally posted by Enkidu
And who, or what, created the Creator?


Stephen hawking won the nobel peace prize in the 70's by proving time was created. So since time has a begining and an ending the creator would have to operate outside of time. Therefore He isnt subject to beginings, endings, cause or effect. I say He because the only "Holy" book that says time has a begining and an ending is the bible and it refers to the creator as He.

You really should read all of the text before taking out of context what was said. Here's a few paragraphs from Hawkings Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time.



At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. www.hawking.org.uk...


I seems your assumption that we HAD to have a creator is not quite so clear cut.

G



Mod Edit: Posting work written by others. – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
shihulud... How do you figure I took anything out of context? I replied to Enkidu question about a Creator and simply stated Hawking won the nobel prize. How do you get me taken anything out of context from that?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   


simply stated Hawking won the nobel prize


You did abit more then just 'simply' state he won a nobel prize. From what it look's like, you did take it out of context by using his 'proof' that time was created at the start of the big bang and using that as 'proof' that there was a creator who exist's outside of time and isn't constrained by time itself. Fact is, we've never seen a 'timeless' space and therefore can't claim that one exist's. Nor can we readily claim what initiated the big bang. No one's observed what existed prior to the big bang, nor ever will. The only thing we can measure and observe is within this universe alone. Also you can't claim god just always existed then counter natural causes for the universe by claiming you can't get somthing from nothing. God is something and yet he came from nothing. Illogical, does not compute.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny bravo
shihulud... How do you figure I took anything out of context? I replied to Enkidu question about a Creator and simply stated Hawking won the nobel prize. How do you get me taken anything out of context from that?

The assumption that because time was created that it must have been a creator beings/gods doing. Was that not what you said?


G



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
This actually got me started on wondering what time is...

I've been doing a few search's, reading stuff here and there. Everything I've came across however describes time as a measurment of an object moving, or tries to prove time exist's through casuality (cause and effect), which in a sense is still a measurment of two or more object's movements, such as a pool stick hitting the q-ball striking the 9 ball into the corner pocket. There's not actual measurment of time itself, just our perception of time through movement's.

So I started thinking, using casuality as an example. If casuality can be used to prove time exist's within this universe, then shouldn't casuality allow us to prove time did indeed exist prior to the universe as well? The universe had a cause, be it god or natural processes we've yet to understand. So, by cause and effect, time by our definition should have existed prior to the universe. Right?



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

So I started thinking, using casuality as an example. If casuality can be used to prove time exist's within this universe, then shouldn't casuality allow us to prove time did indeed exist prior to the universe as well? The universe had a cause, be it god or natural processes we've yet to understand. So, by cause and effect, time by our definition should have existed prior to the universe. Right?

I see where your going with this, I also think that a form of time existed before the creation of the universe. With the creation of the universe spacetime was also created at the same point but who's to say that another form of spacetime or time did/does not exist outwith our universe.


G



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   


With the creation of the universe spacetime was also created at the same point but who's to say that another form of spacetime or time did/does not exist outwith our universe.


Well, it's an interesting point. Our 'space-time' began with the big bang, which doesn't rule out the chance of another form of space-time existing prior to it in order to cause the big bang.

I was reading Genesis again just a few minutes ago and realized, some Christians like to claim that time didn't exist for god. No where in Genesis is anything of this sort mentioned, and it clearly show's God using time in the 24 hour sense. Day and night. His first act was to make the first day followed by the first night, but nowhere before does it lead one to believe time itself didn't exist for god.

So either way we slice it, there must have been some form of time, either the same time by our definition or time of some other form that we have no concept of currently. But from everything I've read on time and all definition's are based upon or require the measurment's of other object's and not of some actual physical property or field called time. Space is infinite and so time is infinite, both prior to and after our universe.




top topics



 
0

log in

join