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.

 

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienib
Ok we are not talking about bacteria or some micro organism, we are talking about man...a bit of a difference since I guess you could say that plants evolve from a seed. I have found nothing that said man came from any seed that is planted in the ground.


Yes I know, I was just stating my position on the subject so evolutionists wouldn't accuse me of being a creationist or what not.




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I do admire everyones belief. What I mean is we all have our opinion and stick by it even without ANY evidence what so ever. I guess our brains sort of lead us in our beliefs but everything is subject to change without prior notice



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raistlyyn
What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?


I have'nt read through the whole thread, but I found this too good to pass up.

If aliens landed on earth tomorrow, then...
I'd believe aliens landed on earth.
LOL


-Jimmy



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
So if you try to answer a question and can't after 50 years, that means there's a good chance it's design?

Great, so that means since we've been trying to figure out how gravity works for way more than 50 years, then Intelligent Falling must be real.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Evolution within species is fine but there is no proof of something evolving into something else. IE:Ape to man.

There are many, many flaws in the theory of evolution. I believe Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled" is turning many evolutionist on their ear and getting them downright enraged. It's amazing that intelligent design is not even considered worthy of educators yet evolution, even with all it's mistakes, contradictions and theoretical at best views is just given a free pass.

As Stein said on Medved Friday: "People seem to get most upset when you are close to the truth." (paraphrasing)

JMO.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Here is the problem, scientists for a long time have been tweaking models to get the right conditions sufficient for life, obviously the flaw in so doing is that "Intelligence does the tweaking!"

However that isn't the biggest problem. Even if somehow we showed how life could come about from the inorganic, how can we expect such a cell in such a state of immaturity to survive?

The condition of that first cell would be such that it surviving would be highly unlikely.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
Evolution within species is fine but there is no proof of something evolving into something else. IE:Ape to man.




Do you know what classifies one species from another?

Us giving it a name.

Doves and pidgins are essentially the same species... but we call them different names. Because they have different colors.
On the other hand, Black humans and White humans are still called humans.

It's just names. Thats it.



BTW, have you seen the insane amount of variant monkeys and apes out there?
That chart they show you in school... the one with a very long line of animals, from monkey, slowly changing until they're human... you know they didn't just draw that for fun right? Each one of those animals was drawn from a real skeletal remain they dug up.
... they do show you that in schools in the States right? I know your maps depict Canada and Mexico as bodies of water... but please tell me they at least show you the evolutionary chart.

Do you want to know why there isn't a half evolved version of human left alive?
Because we KILLED them. Human nature, fear, hate, and kill that which is different.

Look back far enough, and you will find records of them. They were alive. Scientists took those fossils, and realized that the older the fossils get, the closer they resemble a primate... up to the point where you cannot tell the difference... because they WERE the same species.


I'm getting frustrated now.
Why is it that so many of you haven't seen any of this?! Do you live in a box? Have you never been to a museum of archeology?

Or are those shown as bodies of water on your maps as well?

[edit on 27-4-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   


from monkey, slowly changing until they're human.

I remember those and even in school I knew that it was just someones opinion but it doesn't prove anything but it is a possibility and not probable



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by alienib
 

I'm trying to understand this intelligent design theory. So in the beginning no life existed, not even a single cell. So this Intelligence decided to create life. Question: Was this Intelligence alive when it decided to create life? After all, intelligence presupposes consciousness. And to be conscious means to be alive. So there could not be an intelligent designer prior to the existence of life! So the designer had to create himself at the same time it created life. Life could not precede life for that is a contradiction. Non-life had to precede life! So then the designer was not alive when it decided to create life. If it was alive before it created life, then life preceded the designer and so the designer could not have been responsible for the creation of life having been alive before life! What am I missing here?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   


I'm trying to understand this intelligent design theory


We were placed here, by who or what remains a mystery. Thats my theory anyway. Science has not been able to prove evolution and to me that means the stuff we are made of came from somewhere else.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ameneter
reply to post by alienib
 

I'm trying to understand this intelligent design theory. So in the beginning no life existed, not even a single cell. So this Intelligence decided to create life. Question: Was this Intelligence alive when it decided to create life?


I think the standard religious reply is that God, the creator, always existed even when there was nothing. He is simply there and always have been there. So, even when there was no life, God existed.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


In other words God existed in Nothingness! I thought that nothing meant just that: NOTHING. Furthermore, I thought that Intelligent Design was the scientific explanation by Creationists of how things began. But in reality it seems that Intelligent Design is just another way of postulating GOD as the first cause of creation and so have fallen back on the religious, NOT scientific, explanation after all! And another thought: if God always existed, why couldn't THINGS always existed too? Why postulate a Creator? You see, I find it easier to postulate that THINGS always existed, moving from simplicity to complexity rather than from Complexity (God) to simplicity (atom/cell).



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Everyone uses the Bible to their own end!
Some use it thinking they can defend a position, Others thinking they can attack a position. I don't buy into any fanaticism, religious or scientific.
I accept that Moses wrote what he did, not as an "all encompassing" record of history, he was focusing on the source of mankind. It is very easy for me to accept that all fossilized remains come from the same creative period.
In other words, just because some carbon dated fossil suggest something existed 15,000 years ago does not mean it's grandparents didn't exist 150,000 years ago. Just because the grandparent(s) haven't been found does not mean it evolved from something else!

Evolution is B.S. otherwise I would have Superpowers "TODAY!"
What came first, the Chicken or the egg?

If one chicken had to evolve from slime how the hell did the species survive for hundreds of thousands of years before it could successfully procreate with it's "also" successful partner which had to go through the same process?

Obviously a none physical, energy only sentient being fashioned physical reality from subatomic level! Duh!!



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienib



I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.


And your evidence of evolution is?.......

Clearly you are one of those who refuses to read the evidence. Or having read the evidence dismiss it because you don't "want" to believe it.

The new scientists did a several page explanation as to why evolution has occured as well as highlighting some of the misquotes by the creationists.

One final point. If evolution is not occuring right now then it is impossible to get sick from a new strain of virus that has evolved.........good luck!!



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.


Well, I'm in the same ship as you. But you realize that it's the same thing for both sides. They both claim lack of evidence is default of hierarchy for personal theory/belief.

My personal belief is that there was no beginning and will be no end and we will never be able to answer the question of what created it all because it had none to begin with.

The pro-creation/God supporters will say "I will remain a monotheist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just lack of 'enough' evidence for one side automatically means everything evolved Godlessly and without a creator." Which I am within concurrence with you about, is also and equally absurd.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienib
Science has not been able to prove evolution and to me that means the stuff we are made of came from somewhere else.


science doesn't prove anything, YOU along with so many others on this site have such a mediated viewpoint of science. i'm assuming you have no scientific training at a tertiary level from statements your posting. you aren't trained in science and aren't very familiar with it. i'd hate to be cleshay.. but there is just so much ignorance on this site in regards what science really is.

the viewpoint expressed by the professor in your OP would be a minority at best among biologists that are postgraduates.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienib



from monkey, slowly changing until they're human.

I remember those and even in school I knew that it was just someones opinion but it doesn't prove anything but it is a possibility and not probable


-correct, its someones opinion along with the mainstream opinion of experts in the field who have spent live-times investigating it.

-as i said in my previous post, science does not prove anything.

-anything is a possibility, however not probable? intermediated stages between primitive primates up until humans?


HYPOTHESIZED HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY LINEAGE


LIVED---------------------SPECIES----------------------BRAIN CAPACITY

3,900,000-2,900,000---australopithecus afarensis-------400 cubic cm
2,500,000-1,000,000---homo halibis---------------------660 cubic cm
1,200,000-500,000-----homo erectus-------------------900 cubic cm
250,000-present--------homo sapiens------------------1300 cubic cm

these figures will vary slightly depending what researcher you talk to, but most would agree that these are a good approximate.
the point i'm trying to make is that these are measurements taken by various scientists over many years and there is a general progression or development into a larger brain capacity. it is someones opinion, but their opinion is based on a rational extrapolation of huge collections of fossils, unlike your opinion.. you can't choose to ignore this.

and its not just brain size, various bones change morphology in a obvious pattern over these species and the progression of higher complexity in tools. hence allowing scientists to state with even more confidence, their conclusions.

you summed at it up as "it was just someones opinion but it doesn't prove anything but it is a possibility and not probable".. i really do hope you revise this and come to some sense. however your ego is probably to big and you'll just ignore everything i've said or attempt discrediting it by singling out a single sentence you have a good rebuttal for.. ATS users are really good at that one.

[edit on 28/4/08 by cheeser]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   


i'm assuming you have no scientific training


Thats right I'm not now or ever have been a scientist...never claimed I was. All your chart proves is that apes and monkeys have smaller brains than us...been that way since Moby Dick was a minnow. All this post was ever about was the fact that science, me and you can prove nothing on this subject, how ever I honor your opinion....which was?????

BTW where is your missing link on these charts?

[edit on 28-4-2008 by alienib]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   


Everyone uses the Bible to their own end!


Nothing truer has ever been said and I'm sure that down thru the ages the bible was streamlined for such a purpose and has been proven by the "superstar" tv evangilist such as Benny the Hinn and Creflo gimme your Dollar.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
The human race is a mixture. And as I have written before the sperm and ova collected from the abductee's is just the way it has always been they create new beings.

Hmmmmm we are a recipe gone right



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join