Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

reply to post by sinthia


Oversimplifying the google reference. But, sice you brought it up, here's a link for ya. Howie, check this one out, you'll love it.
After you watch remind me again how open minded and accepting your
beloved religion is.......................

truthbeknown.com...

you are also over simplifying the Earths rotational slow down as it were. I doubt very much it is exponential, especially since it is not actually slowing down but speeding up. The moon is slowly but measurably moving away, and since it is believed to be responsible for holding the Earth in it's particular axis tilt and rotational speed, we not only will speed up, but the axis will eventually straighten out. This will cause our days to shorten to about six hours, the seasons will cease to exist, and the poles will be continually frozen to almost absolute zero while the equator will heat up to several hundred degrees. This in turn will also cause weather patterns consistent with almost continuous planet wide hurricanes with winds in excess of several hundred miles an hour.
That being said it will be thousands of years till this happens, so I wouldn't worry about it to much.
Didn't answer my question though. What the hell does that have to do with creationism or Darwinism, or this pseudo scientists' claims of finding evidence of a creator?


Guess I couldn't bail after all, damn it.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by BlasteR

 

Yes, there are a few more that I can think of off the top of the head. Here's one; con-fused. The fusing of two opposing ideas. Such as believing in both A and B. I've met many people who have faith and believe in science, this makes them obviously confused and your options of A and B given to us here are a perfect example of showing how and why through the use of word.

But to some... confusion is their comfort, oddly enough and ironic as it may seem.

How can you believe and be undecided at the same time? IF you haven't decided you believe in creationism then you are undecided. Some people may just not care or not have an opinion, some may be confused and, so, be undecided. The fact is that all of these people are creationism-neutral because they want to believe but aren't sure yet. The fact of the matter is that some people want to eventually see science affirm their beliefs and that creationism is real.

The problem is that you have people coming forward like this guy claiming he's found what he claims are "creators tracks" when absolutely nothing proves that at all other than his statments. Then you have people who are so willing to believe in creationism that they will use anything they can find as some kind of scientific affirmation of their beliefs regardless of the situation. The only reason science even comes into the equation is because this guy is a scientist? And I'm supposed to blindly believe that without having the facts?

There are scientists that are religious but don't science and religion eventually conflict at the most fundamental level where creationism is concerned? If a scientist whole-heartedly believes in creationism how, then, are that scientists' opinions supposed to be objective and non-biased? This is why science and religion have always clashed.. It is because of the fundamental differences between what science confirms or seems to confirm vs. what religions and spiritual ideaologies accept as being truth.

I know people who believe that dinosaurs never existed and that the earth is 3,000 yrs old. I know people who I could debate things with and make valid arguments based on scientific fact but all they do is read scripture from the bible to back up what they believe as a valid counterpoint. How are you supposed to be objective if you are willing to deny scientific discoveries altogether based on your spiritual beliefs? If someone Ignores some science while acknowledging the rest that doesn't mean they are a scientist. It is actually a clue they are in denial and there is a big difference between true skepticism and denial.

-ChriS

Originally posted by BlasteR
How can you believe and be undecided at the same time?

I have met them, they exist. They believe in both, they are confused. They certainly aren't undecided and have no opinion, they are outspoken. They believe in religion and creationism and also evolution and darwinism. Yes they believe in the whole works and if you talk to them they'll explicate how and why to you... illogical in its wraps, but thoughtful nonetheless.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


You know next to nothing about my "beloved religion". Your
just stereotyping, and or defining Christianity in your or the world's
terms. Useless attack, that doesn't even speak too the OP.

or this pseudo scientists' claims of finding evidence of a creator?

This mind set, pretty much says it all, when it comes to how the mainstream, secular establishment, views and treats all who dare
question their official, established, dictates.
Tell me how this isn't the same mindset of those who refuse to admit,
that any real conspiracies exist.

I am a creationist Christion Mystic and am completely open to the possibility of "evolution" beingg factual. Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution fall hand in hand in my perspective especially after experiencing some truth of God.

The fact that evolution is an intelligently functioning design itself if it is indeed factual.

The biggest issue that I see for all those against the idea of ID or creationism is that for the big bang to have happened randomly, amongst the many things that had to be "just right" for it to occur....including temperature where if it where off by even a few digits...it would have been impoosible....

.....is the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and while there, it puts together a perfectl functioning jumbo jet using all the parts there. Those are the odds you fight against.

eberywhere I look I see intelligent design, even when I read all the responses to what I just wrote, I see intelligence by design at work.

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat

 

You know next to nothing about my "beloved religion". Your
just stereotyping, and or defining Christianity in your or the world's
terms. Useless attack, that doesn't even speak too the OP.

or this pseudo scientists' claims of finding evidence of a creator?

This mind set, pretty much says it all, when it comes to how the mainstream, secular establishment, views and treats all who dare
question their official, established, dictates.
Tell me how this isn't the same mindset of those who refuse to admit,
that any real conspiracies exist.

The only reason some phenomenon is considered pseudoscience is because there is a lack of scientific evidence to support that phenomenon. But that is only because the scientists are the ones who refuse to do the science in the first place (It doesn't mean there is a lack of supporting evidence). It's not my fault mainstream science is in denial. People have pre-conceived ideas about pseudo-scientific topics without seeing all the evidence (including the scientists). Doesn't that kind of compromise any objectivity whatsoever?

I agree with Howie in a way, however, due to the simple fact that this is all supposedly being backed up or supported by the fact that this guy is a "scientist". As if that is somehow supposed to reassure me the evidence is valid and scientific. It's a bunch of B.S. with nothing to support it other than a scientist's statements. Nothing has been peer reviewed and noone else has looked at the site to investigate it and give their take. Even if this is somehow some valid archaeological find, I'm then supposed to just ASSUME that these are the footprints of the creator? How is that logical?

-ChriS

Originally posted by dominicus
I am a creationist Christion Mystic and am completely open to the possibility of "evolution" beingg factual. Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution fall hand in hand in my perspective especially after experiencing some truth of God.

The fact that evolution is an intelligently functioning design itself if it is indeed factual.

The biggest issue that I see for all those against the idea of ID or creationism is that for the big bang to have happened randomly, amongst the many things that had to be "just right" for it to occur....including temperature where if it where off by even a few digits...it would have been impoosible....

.....is the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and while there, it puts together a perfectl functioning jumbo jet using all the parts there. Those are the odds you fight against.

eberywhere I look I see intelligent design, even when I read all the responses to what I just wrote, I see intelligence by design at work.

I'm not sure what to believe, but lets say the space before the Universe was infinite. Then the Big Bang would have had to have happened because the space had to encompass all possibilities.

Just a though.

Mitch

[edit on 5-5-2008 by MitchMagic]

reply to post by Howie47


Not attack, but the truth, that's why it hurts so much. I know more about your religion, and many others, than you could possibly imagine. Difference between us is, that I am very familiar with both sides of the coin. That's how you distinguish that which is fact, from that which is conceived (by an old man that was probably not only suffering from alzheimers, but most likely halucinating from any number of things (mouldy bread, hunger, thirst, etc.).
Another difference? I don't care if you believe in a god/s. Go right ahead it if it makes you feel better. I have little doubt, if you are a true christian, that you would jump at the chance to sit in my living room and tell me of the glory of your god. It wouldn't be the first time.
I have no desire to come to your living room and teach you the glory of evolution.
For one thing, it is an incomplete model, there are many unexplaineables at the moment. There is an endeavour to find out, and that is what is important. Only a fool accepts anything as the complete truth without all the facts, and evidence (like guess what?)

Not attack, but the truth, that's why it hurts so much. I know more about your religion, and many others, than you could possibly imagine.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


You don't even know how stereotyping of Christians you are. If you read every post I've made. You would not have an inkling of what my
personnel beliefs are!
So how could your post be anything but a blind, bigoted attack against my personnel beliefs????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by Howie47


Actually I do know how much I'm stereotyping christians. That would be because I have never come across one who didn't try to change your way of thinking to their narrow paradigm. Not one.
While we are on the subject, do YOU realize how much you are stereotyping evolutionists?
Shall I go dig up some of your other posts, in other threads, with examples of your attacks on the science in question?
I know they are there, because I looked.
I have stated from the beginning that evolution is a theory, and a far from perfect one, that is continually revised, and updated. The same cannot be said of christian dogma. The fact that evolution is now accepted as a reality by the Catholic church in the confines of intelligent design is hardly an admission of acceptance at all.
It is a meaningless platitude, nothing more.
I also siad that if there is such a thing as a creator, I highly doubt it has the time (in whatever concept of it you choose to espouse) to worry about what's going on here.

The problem here is, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? At some point life must have developed unaided.

reply to post by Cthulwho


That's the rub aint it? And one of my very first posts on this thread asked why a creator has to be an entity at all let alone intelligent? There are others on this thread who have basically concurred, although we haven't necessarily used the same words or tac.
Religion does not seem to be able to accept that a creator is not a being. It is, if anything just the absolute nature of existence. It is logical, and natural. There is no thought or design. There is no beginning, there is no end. The energy around us (an electric universe as it were), creates matter. How? That's the real question. Can science answer it? I will be the first to admit probably not, not our science anyway.
Religion? No freaking way. It's a man made institution that is designed to control many with few. It answers no question realistically and causes more turmoil than it solves.
Keep your god/s, your scripture, your angels and all that crap. Your prophets, your mohammeds, your krishnas, blah, blah, blah......It is meaningless garbage.
We evolve from base energy to higher lifeforms. Science and religion can't answer these questions because they are BOTH very primitive, and at current levels are inadequate to explain most stuff deeper than what is our own material experience (otherwise known as reality).

reply to post by alienib


You need to read your own link properly. The chap is not saying evolution isn't valid, just the actual origin of life itself.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Rockpuck, they already have proved that the "primordial soup" theory works.

It isn't a simple case of add some protein, add some electricity and you have bacteria, but rather the primordial soup gave rise to self replicating protein, which then lead on to more complex self replicating molecules, which in turn leads to simple celled life. So on and so forth.

Miller-Urey Experiment

reply to post by stumason


About the Miller-Urey experiment;
It always makes me laugh that anti- evolutionists use this as an argument against evolution. No one ever said (including Carl Sagan) that anyone expected a lifeform to crawl out of the "test tube". At the same time who has a spare billion years to find out what would actually happen.
By the way, thanks for stearing this thread back to the op, stu.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Complete opposite ? How ? Whether it be creation or evolution (both of which have their many "disciples" on ATS and everywhere else); ones' belief, or lack thereof, in either, neither proves or disproves either one of them like I said before. Moreover, whether one takes the words of a bunch of people written long ago, or the words of a bunch of people to-day; since there presently are no first-hand accounts to substantiate either position, ironically enough, ANYONE has to take either one on -and I know that this is a dirty word for some: "faith".

reply to post by MannyKin


Wrong. Religion and the bible requires faith because it relates supposed events that happened long ago, and has been passed down, and "interpreted" by various factions over centuries to reflect their thinking at the time (resulting in all kinds of atrocities that ARE provable and are recorded in posterity, with a great deal of pride in most cases).
Evolution although not readily quantifiable, due to the fact that the process in question takes millions of years to occur, is in fact identifiable by fossil evidence (the weakest by far), among other things (genetic, etc.). It has been questioned and continues to be so using the scientific method. Religion does not. Although I am sure there are those (of one who I am not) that approach evolution as an absolute (which it is not), the bottom line is that it is thoroughly researched on a methodical level. Regardless how anyone feels, this is the most intelligent way to approach the subject.
If anyone so much as questions the validity of something as nonsensical as, say the shroud of turin, (which has been debunked on numerous occaisons, by numerous methods), the zealots raise their voice on mass and declare that:
1.Deception by the deceiver (the favoured argument).
2. God works in mysterious ways (also known as, WTF?).
3.My faith tells me the truth, no matter what your lying science says.

ok people, ive tryed, i really have, 2 follow this thread but... i dont get it!

Originally posted by MannyKin
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

Complete opposite? How?

I'm not sure what you're replying to. I've been quite busy lately and I've lost track of a few things, time being one of them.

Yes, in a sense evolution can be argued to be creationism since it creates beings, planets, stars, etc. The creationism that I am talking about is God picking up the dirt, as if he is a man, and molding life. The universe does this, but scientifically in a much less poetic way. In the year 2008 we're past parables and pretty stories when it comes to the seriousness of today's nature regarding the universe.

The universe itself was never created, it's an eternal existence of evolution, this evolution is dependent on the aggregates of known elemental participants in any local environment, such as a planet. A planet with certain elements can only contain certain forms of life, metals, etc.

Since a planet is described as a closed system (ignoring the fact that a or the sun shines on it among other things acting upon it), then its capability to evolve entities with no outside influence other than the formerly addressed relies solely on its compositional make up.

Whether it be creation or evolution (both of which have their many "disciples" on ATS and everywhere else); ones' belief, or lack thereof, in either, neither proves or disproves either one of them like I said before.

Well, that's just incorrect. Like I said in another post. Through science we know that salt is the same for all of us - NaCl (or the 2 elements that make it up, whatever you wish to call them), Jesus is not the same for all of us, nor is any faith.

Moreover, whether one takes the words of a bunch of people written long ago, or the words of a bunch of people to-day; since there presently are no first-hand accounts to substantiate either position, ironically enough, ANYONE has to take either one on -and I know that this is a dirty word for some: "faith".

No, faith is blind belief. Surity of knowledge is logically impermeable and universally scientifically binding.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by BlasteR


If Evo's want to make claims, that changes in isolated populations are do to (mutations) and not Mendelian inheritance. Then they must provide the hard evidence of that. They must eliminate all the possibles that Mendelian inheritance isn't the source. Then show that mutation is the source. But they don't provide any support of their wild claim. They just say it must be true. Because classical evolution is true. Circular reasoning at it worst. Or best, depending on how you read it.
They also need to stop bemoaning their lack of a big enough laboratory or enough time to demonstrate classical Evolution experimentally. There are no and can be no exceptions to the rules of the scientific method. If scientific theories can't meet the criteria of that method. They remain, pseudoscience, and should be viewed as such................

Metaphysics can answer these questions of life.

Soon my friends.