It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by Howie47

The actual creator being diety God as a person as symbolized by most Christian and related faiths - (not observable, only arguable and clearly existentially and universally illogical)

Like a candle's flame constantly changing yet keeping its form, why am I in this body, perfectly held together in this mold without a container?

It is because of everything around me, the interaction of all forces and materials.

For 50 years science has a methodology through which they have thus far failed to explain everything.

For thousands of years theologians are yet to prove the existence of God and most have a terrible understanding of the universe and science, except to say that God is an omnipresent force, thus simply pointing at a blade of grass and proclaiming holiness - fine, but do they understand that God? Do they understand this blade of grass that they worship?

[edit on 28-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

God is not being taught in public schools as a scientific (fact)!
Evolution is being taught and paid for by taxes! As a fact.
To prove that things were created.
Science doesn't have to identify the creator. Or where He came from.

Funny how some people can separate Evolution theory from Abio Genesis. As if they aren't related. But they can't separate the identity of the creator from the fact that there was one!

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 06:55 PM
With the recent scientific and technological advances the past 50 years is at least equivalent to 1300 years of primitive scientific procedure.

[edit on 4/28/2008 by InterestedObserver]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:04 PM

With the recent scientific and technological advances the past 50 years is at least equivalent to 1300 years of primitive scientific procedure.

I find that most folks have taken modern technology for granted, seems we got used to it in a hurry. Some have no hindsight at what early scientist had to work with as far as tools. That being said, either what is needed to "grow" humans either is not on this planet or our technology has yet to develope to the point of finding it. So in my opinion evolution in man does not exist.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Howie47

Oh cry a river already. Creationism cannot be taught in public schools. Therefore, the only theory really left is some sort of evolution - but even then it is clearly stated as a theory. They may talk about it as if it is fact, but many believe it is likely.

Even if there is a God, it is likely that there was some sort of evolution, not a sims like game where he adds donkeys, then fish, then humans. That's silly.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:18 PM
All anyone has to do is look around at the mess this place is. That alone proves no intelligent design. What intelligent designer would hand over it's creation to a bunch of clearly insane beings that have little regard for themselves or their surroundings? Don't slap freewill into the equation either, it's a circular argument. No intelligent designer would make such a stupid mistake. If there is such a thing as a creator, I would hazzard a guess that it is either retarded, or a sadist, or both. Unfortunately, that means it is probably human and neoconservative.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:30 PM

Creationism cannot be taught in public schools.

Thats true thanks to atheist. I have been here on earth for well more than you probably and this debate started long before I became. At first all there was is evolution and creation. Now we have intelligent design and that makes more sense than the other two. No where is it written that humans were designed with the capacity to know everything. As a matter of opinion, we could have been designed with lesser knowledge skills of the brain to allow our brains to evolve or adapt to knowledge as it increases.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by alienib

No, that's due to the Constitution. Atheists aren't the only ones who may not want to hear about Christianities theories - there are many other religions in this country.

The founding fathers clearly wanted religion and government to be separate. Since schools are part of our government, religion should be left out of them.

Want your kid to only learn what your religion teaches? Private schools are there for a reason.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:03 PM

your wiritng style/complexity has increased dramatically by this post


6th paragraph

[edit on 28/4/08 by cheeser]

Use of all caps: Please review this link
Complaints can be directed to the Complaints form.

[edit on 28/4/2008 by watch_the_rocks]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by alienib

yes, it does clearly display that "apes and monkeys" had smaller brains than us

Show me your missing link...if you can't do that you are in the same guessing boat as us!!!

you didnt even read my missing link argument did you? it showed how ludicious the idea of it is.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Howie47
But they can't separate the identity of the creator from the fact that there was one!

Well, when you find "Him", you know, that mystical man that had no creator himself (how ironic and illogical? When and where convenient use the God aspect, even if it contradicts itself, huh?) , you let me know, okay? Until then you have no proof

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Only the technology has evolved.... not man.

Plus it's a theory.

Which in my mind, is basura (garbage)

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

Hey, Area 51 isn't far from me....

I just went there not too long ago..
And this video is proof of what happened that night...

I'm glad I brought a truck from the Suburban Auto Group..

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Ihavenoidea]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:53 PM

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

You didn't read the rest of that post.

Please if you want to be taken seriously at all, read the ENTIRE post.

As I stated, that graph of primate to human is drawn from the skeletal remains that have been dug up.
It is NOT someones opinion.

I know it's hard for you. You've been told to have blind faith in your religious teachings... but you are amongst portrayers of science, and we DO read everything. Regardless of whether we like it or not.

If you want to be viewed as rational and serious, you'll have to actually read the other side of the argument, and not skip over the parts you don't like.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by johnsky

But reading is hard!!!

How can you ask that of people?

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

Where in the Constitution does it say that creationism cannot be tought? The theory of evolution is tought. I see it as a theory just as creationism. If one can be tought then so should the other. I just happen to believe in creationism. By the way, the city schools where I live teach evolution as fact not theory. They teach an unproven theory as fact. It is no longer refered to as the theory of evolution in their books. It starts out and says the origins of life : then begins explaining everything, never, ever refering to it as a theory, but just that's how it happened.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by johnsky

That is an absured statement about the skeletal remains. The skeletal remains have been discovered scattered all over and rarely in tact. I watched a show on national geographic a few weeks ago about the so called missing link. The bones found that supposedly belonged to the same animal were found scattered over a twenty mile radius of each other. These arrogant scientists picked up these bones and began spilling out this elaborate story of how she lived, what she ate, how she looked, what car she drove, what version of windows she used, and if her poop smelled or not. That was of course a bit of sarcasm. How in the world could they possibly assume that the bones were all from the same animal? As well as how could they pick up a bone and face the camera and honestly begin telling us exactly what she did as if they were there? There is a lot of arrogance in science.
Science has been a very useful tool, when dealing with the tangible. When they get to dealing with the untangible, such as creation, the far reaches of space, and other things they have never seen then science takes on the role of just another religion. It really takes faith to believe in evolution and alot of other things that science is working with. The only difference between science and other religions at that point is that there is no form of deity outside of man. If you say that religion should be kept out of government, then there ya go, the theory of evolution should go as well.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

Oh cry a river already. Creationism cannot be taught in public schools. Therefore, the only theory really left is some sort of evolution

OK, we cann't teach that there is a creator, because (someone) defines that as religion and not science.
"Well let us see, we've got to teach them something about origins".
"Can't have those kids thinking we are a bunch of dummies".
"I know let us make up a story. hire experts to put their stamp of approval on it, and teach that". "Yeah let's teach them that there is no God", "Then we'll be their god's".............

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
I'm always baffled by the argument that because things exist then a creator must be responsible for their existence. Think of this. You have to suspend reason to believe that this creator was/is not a part of "things". What is this creator made up of that it/he/she is not a part of things? No one knows! Therefore this is a statement where no type of proof is possible because it is contradictory. If you say the creator is made up of "spirit" then what is "spirit"? No one knows! The argument goes on and on. Faith substitutes for Reason. I have yet to see a reproducible piece of evidence to support Faith. Science to be valid must be reproducible. If you can't demonstrate your God on demand, then your belief is but wishful thinking.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:45 AM
If scientists create a cup of prebiotic soup in a lab, what does it prove? It only proves that scientists are capable of creating prebiotic soup. The theory that life as we know it today originated in a primordial soup would still need salt. The creation or invention of prebiotic soup would not prove that life originated in something similar many eons ago. It wouldn't even come close. It wouldn't negate the existence of God. And, especially, it wouldn't prove that men are gods.

Religion wouldn't take even the slightest hit because religion does not rest on proof. Religion rests on faith. If anything, science would sustain the most devastating blow if men discovered how to create life from scratch. The question would no longer be, "is there a God and did He create life?" It would be, was life as we know it created by other lifeforms other than ourselves? If we assume "Yes", how did the original lifeforms come into existence? If we assume "No", then... In other words, science would find itself right back where it is now and asking the same basic questions of where and how did life originate.

What if life did not originate in this universe? What if life originates elsewhere and that only a fertile universe would attract life? In other words, how does life originate anywhere? Just because a primordial or prebiotic soup is created does not mean that life could only originate under those conditions. It also does not mean that life originates in the place and moment it can be observed.

Some might argue that if something cannot be observed it does not exist. Those who would might want to think about that some more.

On the other hand, why would an all powerful God need to create anything? It's the all powerful God! He knows all that is, was, and will ever be. So, what's the point? Creating things would be profoundly boring exercise. What would be the point of exercise for an all powerful God? It's not like He would ever show signs of getting weak, slow, or flabby? There would be no need for laps around the track or shadowboxing. He certainly would not ever have the need to read a book. He knows all of the punchlines, so a humorous God is out of the question. And for that matter, so is an angry God. Some folks claim to perceive a benevolent God, but that's from their perspective, not God's.

Religion nor science makes sense when attempting to answer the question of the origin of life or the universe. Religion requires no proof but is happy to adopt anything that strengthens its position in the minds of its followers. Science requires proof but is happy to believe just about anything that makes most of the puzzles it has discovered fit together. A bit of faith goes a long way towards securing grants and funding for research, that's for sure.

It would be best if both sides would just plainly admit that they do not know.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in