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.

 

The argument over the existence of God

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimjamjerry
what the heck are you trying to say here?


That we have very good evidence that humans have a common ancestor with other apes.

You might need to be slightly scientifically literate to understand. If you read the links I provided, it might help a bit.




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jimjamjerry
what the heck are you trying to say here?


That we have very good evidence that humans have a common ancestor with other apes.

You might need to be slightly scientifically literate to understand. If you read the links I provided, it might help a bit.


lol. are calling me illiterate? aah. hilarious.

i am scientifically literate, though I'm not as familiar with the terminology you are using as a specialist in your field would be.

that's nice! illiterate :-) you made me laugh!! not an easy thing to do.

evolution is just a theory and I don't think we understand it all that well yet, but I still think that in broad outlines, its valid. I also don't see why evolution cannot be fit into a religious perspetive.

consciousness working in matter, driving, directing, equals evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
I understand what you are saying, now lets take it back even further. What do you consider happened, the big bang theory? or what other theory? Do you believe that we evolved from bacteria?


The big-bang theory is a valid model of what happened, but I feel that it will eventually become part of a bigger more expansive theory. Likely some cyclic universe theory.

As for common ancestory with bacteria. Yes, why not. 3.5 billion years ago, the evidence shows that bacteria is all that existed on the earth. Over time, species have diversified and become more complex.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Ahh I see the statement you try to say. You do not mean we came from ape
but our ancestors produced us and the apes over time. That makes more sense
to me. I did not think we came from apes, because here after millions of
years they are still in the jungle doing the barbaric thing and we have evolved
to this kind of technology.
So then there is a missing link somewhere, and until that is found then the
religious extremists will deny this.
I believe the Adam and Eve story was a metaphor, I never thought it was an
actual story. So now we find that science and religion can co-exist!



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimjamjerry
lol. are calling me illiterate? aah. hilarious.

i am scientifically literate, though I'm not as familiar with the terminology you are using as a specialist in your field would be.


Well, it wasn't meant to be a nasty comment. But if you don't understand the lingo, do a bit of reading. It's late here and I'm off to bed soon, so I haven't time to go into great detail. The links might provide a bit more detailed info.

But just a bit, coz I feel bad - a pseudogene is an ex-functional gene. It lost its function due to mutation(s). So, for hydroxylase-21, we and chimps have the exact same 8 base-pair deletion. That is, the exact same loss of function of the exact same gene. There's more like this as well. But I think one is sufficient to make the point.


evolution is just a theory and I don't think we understand it all that well yet, but I still think that in broad outlines, its valid. I also don't see why evolution cannot be fit into a religious perspetive.


Good point. It can fit with theism. Ken Miller is a good example of a theistic 'evolutionist'.

It has no relevance for me, being a church-burning atheist an all


But there is no real reason why evolution and theism can't co-exist in a person's worldview. It's a very elegant theory, why wouldn't an intelligent sky-fairy use such an elegant method?


consciousness working in matter, driving, directing, equals evolution.


If it floats ya boat, then that's fine by me.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Equinox99
I understand what you are saying, now lets take it back even further. What do you consider happened, the big bang theory? or what other theory? Do you believe that we evolved from bacteria?


The big-bang theory is a valid model of what happened, but I feel that it will eventually become part of a bigger more expansive theory. Likely some cyclic universe theory.

As for common ancestory with bacteria. Yes, why not. 3.5 billion years ago, the evidence shows that bacteria is all that existed on the earth. Over time, species have diversified and become more complex.


Where did the materials come for the big bang theory? Please do not tell me
2 molecules collided to form this whole universe.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Einstein had no problem believing in God. Certainly there had to be some singularity of consciousness to preclude the big bang. I'm with Einstein.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Where did the materials come for the big bang theory? Please do not tell me
2 molecules collided to form this whole universe.


At the moment I think we have to say that we don't really know.

I like the cyclic models of the universe, but at this point, the evidence to pick between the various scientific hypotheses are lacking. The Planck surveyor may help provide some test of their predictions.

Read a bit about them. Some good ideas knocking about (e.g. Baum-Frampton; Turok-Steinhardt).



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Ahh I see the statement you try to say. You do not mean we came from ape but our ancestors produced us and the apes over time. That makes more sense to me.


Essentially, yeah.

Think of what some say happened with dogs evolving from wolves (but this isn't so great as I think its likely it wasn't wolves, but bear with me)

So, we started with a population of wolves, by breeding, we have all the different types of dogs we see. All are related. All have a common ancestor in the wolf.

Better to say proto-dog though. As it might be the case that dogs are not direct descendents of wolves, rather some dingo-like dog.

With homonid evolution the same happened. There was a single proto-ape that led to all the ape species we see today. We are just one branch. And by far the most successful. But we are related to the other apes, some are closer relatives than others. It fits perfectly with all the evidence we have.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jimjamjerry
lol. are calling me illiterate? aah. hilarious.

i am scientifically literate, though I'm not as familiar with the terminology you are using as a specialist in your field would be.


Well, it wasn't meant to be a nasty comment. But if you don't understand the lingo, do a bit of reading. It's late here and I'm off to bed soon, so I haven't time to go into great detail. The links might provide a bit more detailed info.


totally didn't take it that way. no offense intended, no offense perceived. i was, positively amused. I got a good chuckle.


Originally posted by jimjamjerry
But just a bit, coz I feel bad - a pseudogene is an ex-functional gene.


scuse my ignorance but, how do you tell when a gene is "ex-functional"


Originally posted by jimjamjerryThere's more like this as well. But I think one is sufficient to make the point.



which would be that.... there's no possibility of this mutation occurring independently? Make the gene became ex-functional become of some kind of environmental change that impacted both simultaneously. Is that possible?


Originally posted by jimjamjerry

It has no relevance for me, being a church-burning atheist an all



you poor, deluded soul you :-)



[edit on 3-9-2007 by jimjamjerry]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
science says nothing on god. god does not factor into any scientific theories. that's how it works. science leaves no place for god in its thinking


If that is true, then why do 4 in every 10 scientist believe in a 'God'?
Science cannot provide all the answers Mr.madness.

Evolution does not explain how we got here, how the universe came from nothingness, etc. At the same time, creationism does not explain how God became God. For instance, who made God? Did he come from nothingness? Alot of questions, with not many answers im afraid. I myself, tend to lean more towards the creationist side. I base this belief off of the human body. The human body is just to complicated, as is all life on earth. It seems to me, that something (God) knew what they were doing. Ask yourself this, does evolution, and creationism go hand in hand. Was evolution all a part of Gods plan?



[edit on 3-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I don't believe in a god or gods, or even "controlled evolution" by a higher entity. I personally think the concept of life and the universe is just so complex and amazing that some people think it couldn't possibly be natural.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Sytima]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
What a can of worms this is. I'll wiggle right into this discussion.
You will notice that my posts tend to get used as staging points for "when atheists attack!" but then again not many defend the notion of something that cannot be proven.

The one thing that gives me the most faith in a God is that everything exists. The mere notion of this reality, this planet, these people, this Universe, and that even it had a beginning, a creation.

I know the theories on the creation of the Universe and eventually our solar system and us, but when discussing outer space and what happens in it we commonly run into a problem.

People start thinking in an 'everything can be explained we are the masters of the universe' mentality, when in actuality, we truly dont know much whatsoever about the actual planets and bodies that inhabit the Universe, much less than we think we do. We think that what we see, smell, hear, feel, or taste is all that exists. Why? because we have no proof that anything beyond this exists!

Herein lies one of the fundamental flaws of "educated man". Can't accept the notion of anything that does not fall cleanly into one of the five categories above. Also, if it isnt explainable, it isn't real. That type of mentality. The line of reason that Humans are indeed the masters of the Universe in the sense that the knowledge we have documented and presented is all that exists and all that ever will.

This leaves zero room for anything you cannot prove with scientific means. So most of the topics on this website, save the Alien stuff, the Weapons stuff, and the War conspiracies, fall into that "zero room" and disappear. I see this as the way of the Educated Man in the future. It will be a crime to "Deceive the public with the notion of a God" and to "stir up panic by claiming to see Ghosts or Spirits" and likewise "to claim anything exists for which there is no proof". Kinda like its a jail able crime to give the Nazi salute in Germany.

I personally believe in intelligent design, but not the curriculum that the right wingers were trying to push into schools. It's merely the words and their meaning, something intelligent designed. I think something intelligent designed the laws of physics, decided that everything will look as it does, smell as it does, sound as it does, that evolution would be designed as a process of natural life to reach a peak species based on the natural surroundings and climate. Mankind is like a test by the Creator, will a creation that isn't that intelligent from the beginning without tutelage turn on the Creator and deem it unbelievable due to the sheer volume of what is simply unknown.

If you think about it, isnt that the picture that gets painted in all the Holy Books? Good versus Evil and Mankind in the middle? A humble creation of God falling into deception and being led astray, then having to choose between what he cannot hear, see, smell, touch, or taste, and what he can?

And so most choose the tangible. Then again, the positive afterlife has always been presented in all Religions as a place that only enlightened and "elect" go to, based on the way they lived their lives and the wisdom they discovered in that lifetime. Buddhists would call it Nirvana, being able to skip out on Reincarnation for once and watch from the sidelines (my own interpretation), and Monotheists call it Heaven. Then we have Valhalla, and the other names for afterlife or where the God(s) dwell(s).

So simply put, from the get-go it was known that most wouldn't believe, and thus it's always been depicted as an elect group FROM the Human race that attains paradise after flesh. So most of the humans .. well, I guess they either "stay in the rat race" if you believe in Reincarnation. If you dont, they either goto "hell", "purgatory", or wherever else you believe in. I personally believe that one has to awaken on the spiritual side, as if it were a duality .. two realms, physical and spiritual. So once you start sparking into existence on the spiritual side by awakening your spirituality on the physical side through the discovery of it IN the physical side... you will exist beyond death in a form. But those who never awaken .. well, I guess their life force gets drawn up back into the Creator and they are in effect blotted out from existence, asleep forever without a single dream if you will.



[edit on 9/3/2007 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Where did the materials come for the big bang theory? Please do not tell me
2 molecules collided to form this whole universe.


I don't buy the Big Bang theory as it is currently presented either.

To those that do, I ask these questions to speculate an answer on, since theres currently no way to know for sure (no proof, lol):

1) How long did nothingness exist before the big bang happened? how many billions of billions of billions of years

2) Why did the uninterupted beauty of the nothingness get interuppted after an eternity with a "Big Bang", what changed in the nothingness to allow this? Last time I checked, nothingness is a bunch of.. nothing, and that means no primordial elements or molecules in it either.

3) Where did the primordial big bang precursor elements come from? How were they introduced into the nothingness? at what point did the nothingness become what we call "Universe"?

By just focusing on the beginning alone, we see Science cannot prove ALL. And that just like followers of Religions believe in a God or Gods that cant be proven and events that cant be proven, likewise so do people who dont believe, they believe in events like the Big Bang that we dont know for a fact either.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Not sure if I read this theory, heard this theory or came up with it on my own, but I postulate it was some type of "white" Hole ( anti black hole ) that started the big bang, and as far as "how long was the Nothingness before the big bang" the answer to that is "any thing multiplied by Zero is still Zero, Null is Null. ( time is a man made concept ) Duration however is different then "time".
Duration is a segment of existence. with out existence there is no duration (see above)you could use any arbitrary number for "time" before the creation of the universe and be correct.

whether you believe in "God" or not makes no difference, the universe is the way it is because if it was anything different you could not ask the question in the first place ( paraphrased Stephen Hawking) that the Universe follows laws makes it look like an intelligent design because thats the way the brain is wired ( seeing animals in clouds as an example ) that is the limitation of being Human. No matter what you believe ( or not ) means nothing because it comes from the human perspective. Until we get a NON human perspective we will never be able to resolve this quandary. Science has taken us to the very edge of the big bang ( i forget the exact number but it's like .ooooooooo1 seconds AFTER) we can reproduce it, but there is a "wall" that cannot be broken to say what happened Before it.

none the less it does make for interesting mental exercise to speculate about "God" the "big bang" and what was before it.............



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
thought n°1: This guy has been brainwashed 'till he couldn't store any more crap within his head.

thought n°2:I will make some prayers at the first sign which confirm these claims.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

I am not going to say evolution is wrong, because I have no proof, but you
can not prove that religions are wrong also. So therefore this is a dead
conversation, similar to an Atheist vs a Religious person.


Umm there's proof that the Earth is not flat, nor does the whole universe orbit the Earth...


Originally posted by runetang

1) How long did nothingness exist before the big bang happened? how many billions of billions of billions of years



That's a pointless question everyone askes. Time did not exist before the Big Bang...


Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
science says nothing on god. god does not factor into any scientific theories. that's how it works. science leaves no place for god in its thinking


If that is true, then why do 4 in every 10 scientist believe in a 'God'?
Science cannot provide all the answers Mr.madness.


=.=... Have you considered brainwash? Plus i'm sure those scientist aren't thinking of how god when they're testing new theorys and exracting data.
Science can provide all the answers, we just haven't found them all yet...



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Human didn't evolve from apes. Achient summerian writtings says that Human were genetically clone part ET and part homo erectus found on earth.

The scientific genome project conducted by some scientist sugested that over 90% of human's DNA did not come from planet earth and is actually extra terrestrial.

I'm not saying that evolution is no possible, but that it didn't happen to humans on earth. The biggest proof of no human evolution on earth is the fact that there are no missing links was ever found to prove humans came from homo erectus or any other types of apes. Now, there are billions of homo sapians today. If there is really evolution for humans on earth, what the hell happen to the other million of transition fossil as well as other other species that share a common ancestor? Why aren't they still alive? Why are the monkeys still around, but not are common acestor? Not a single fossil found! Extremely unusuall if u ask me. We found thousands of dinosaur fossils, but we can't find a single human transition fossil. That leaves only one thing, that we were intelligently created.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
Now, there are billions of homo sapians today. If there is really evolution for humans on earth, what the hell happen to the other million of transition fossil as well as other other species that share a common ancestor? Why aren't they still alive?


Some died out and didn't have the ability to survive, that's why it's called evolution. What's left is those that can, like what you see around us today.


Originally posted by amfirst
Why are the monkeys still around, but not are common acestor? Not a single fossil found! Extremely unusuall if u ask me. We found thousands of dinosaur fossils, but we can't find a single human transition fossil. That leaves only one thing, that we were intelligently created.


Look around you. Why do you think there's difference races of humans? Why they look different to each other. This is the process of work over millions of years.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Einstein was an agnostic, who was quite insistent about his lack of belief in any kind of personal god. End of story. When he spoke of a god, he was using it as a metaphor. He probably shouldn't have, but he did.

We should make a stickied thread that explains all of these common misconceptions in the same place...

[edit on 4/9/2007 by Thousand]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join