Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

Why does Creation have to stem from an intelligent entity at all? Why must religious people attach a humanistic personality to something, that if it truly existed, would be so far outside anything we describe as even being recognizable? The problem most people with critical thinking skills have with religion's take on the matter, stems from this arrogant attitude that not only are we created in gods image, this master of everything actually has the time and compunction to be concerned about the everyday goings on down here on little 'ole earth. The reason they don't teach this nonsense (that is something that makes no sense), in school is because it isn't considered a theory by it's proponents, but fact. Evolution, is taught as a theory, not as fact, (at least when I was in school), because it's proponents recognise that it is just that. A plausible theory supported by evidence and facts, but a theory none the less. There are many unexplained things in regards to human evolution, but I'd wager any self respecting scientist would rather admit that we were genetically modified by aliens, rather than fall back on the unprovable religious model. At least genetic manipulation is detectable, and last time I checked, no one has been burned at the stake for not believing in Darwin ........

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


Absolutely. That combined with the fact that religion and spiritualism altogether is man-made (historically speaking) and you end up with the human tendency to attribute human characteristics to a non-human enitity (let's call it god).

The argument would be that if god is omnipitent why couldn't GOD/the creator walk in the form of a man?

The counter-argument would be why would he want to or need to for that matter if god is actually omnipitent? Arguing this point goes in a big circle and goes nowhere.

For anyone trying to argue intelligent design this makes little sense to me (why god would need or want a human form)

That's even considering this is even scientifically valid data. We know that human error can cause miscalculations and generally false data to come into question when it wouldn't normally. To my knowledge this data has not even been peer reviewed in any way. What I gather is that this is one man's archaeological find and that's really all it is right now. Noone really knows what it means yet scientifically nor should we assume what it means.

As I said in my example earlier, for the believers this is one possible source for validation. The problem is that cherrypicking the real science to fit your spiritual world view is in no way solving anything nor does it factually mean anything. I just hope that the other scientists can review this data and come to a factual non-biased conclusion.

Just because one scientist thinks he's found something impressive may not necessarily mean that is true.

-ChriS

Another problem that results from putting a religious twist into any scientific endeavour, is what I call the "Contact scenario". Named after the movie. Every time I watch it, my fists clench, because deep down I know, when and if it comes time to represent humanity to a "foreign" species of equal or greater intelligence, the religious nuts will be out in droves, demanding that someone of faith is the candidate, primarily because 90% of the population has been brainwashed into believing that hogwash. Never mind that they don't all believe in the same hogwash.........

edit:by the way, thanx for the applause, watch_the_rocks

[edit on 30-4-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

[edit on 30-4-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

If he found the Escaton's tracks he sure as hell is not sharing them with us in that article. It is a propaganda fluff piece for creationism.

Science describes the mechanism as best we can. To my knowledge it cannot describe the origin of the mechanism. Not now, not ever.

Here is how it goes, there was all this mass in one place, it went BANG!
A, It keeps spreading out forever.
B, It falls back and repeats eventually.

Questions:
Where did all the mass come from?
What was the original trigger for it to explode?

Some additional problems with "Scientific Reasoning" as shared with us rubes.

The same people who say perpetual motion is impossible, live in a universe where all matter is in perpetual motion, and cannot be created or destroyed, only state changes are possible.

The prevailing theory of Quantum Mechanics, says that at every choice, a new universe is created to allow both quantum potentials to exist simultaneously. Where does all the mass and energy come from?

The next time you buy a talking horse, check it's logic carefully. You may find that all talking horses are less than reasonable in their opinions.

reply to post by Cyberbian


I think you have the most excellent reply and your reasoning is brilliant and sparkling clear. I too share the same reasoning as yourself. I subscribe to neither organized religion nor organized science, only to my own logic and intellect. It seems we have landed in the same ship ;-)

I hope I see you around, never stop that thought process you've got going, it's a good one.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


But you subscribe to a supreme being,no?
It really doesn't matter if you follow an organized religion or not. It's like saying you don't belong to any political party, but you support the idea of a president/prime minister/etc..
Intelligent design is just a repackaged glossied up version of creationism. Unfortunately for it's pushers, no one is buying it.

reply to post by Cyberbian


The big bang theory, is a theory. Most physicsts that subscribe to other models, discount it. Then you have the electric universe theory. Point is explanations for these events and processes are continually being formed and tested. Unlike creationism, which is virtually unchanged for 2000 years. Why? Fear. Fear that this it, and that we are responsible for our own actions. No god/s to save us, or to forgive us for the stupid unthinking # we do everyday. That and a bunch of hypocrites that use it to control frightened little people who can't think for themselves, or don't want to think for themselves. Decent moneymaking scheme it is too....

Originally posted by BlasteR

The argument would be that if god is omnipitent why couldn't GOD/the creator walk in the form of a man?

The counter-argument would be why would he want to or need to for that matter if god is actually omnipitent? Arguing this point goes in a big circle and goes nowhere.

For anyone trying to argue intelligent design this makes little sense to me (why god would need or want a human form)

Everything in existence is what we call 'God'. We are part of the ink blot, we are all part of that bigger whole. The quote "God created man is his own image" isnt correct, it is more like "Man was created from God as God's own image." The ink blot started as condensed matter on the wall but then slowly stretched into new forms. (this being an example of our universe)

We are all learning very slowly that there is no separation.

That may well be true, but my objection to any theory about "God", is the prediliction or assumption that it is:
A. Intelligent
B. Sentient
C. An entity of some sort
D. all of the above
If what you suggest is that the universe/energy field we exist in is none of these things, but you choose to call it God, and don't worship it, but respect the power of it, then I can begin to skip merrily down that lane of thought with you. But I think we are diverging from the op a bit.
Unless you are also suggesting that this is "creation", ala the Billy Meier/pleidian theories?

This is great stuff but to spell out creation is a waste of time. Why even bother to formulate an explanation or defination to life. It's beyond any human capability. Sure there is definatley room for argument on the human time table but to go beyond that is absurd.

And what if life exists elsewhere in space? then what? What if it is similiar to life on Earth? Read up on what they have been finding on Mars. Stuff thats very similar to life on earth. Then checkout life that they think lives in space. What is this the next ocean of life?

So how can you pinpoint intelligent design to creation of life on Earth? No matter which direction you go it would take someone or something with intelligence as proposed to create life.

Beyond that point. Beyond that intelligence your back in the ooze. It's the matrix. The rule of three.

This Rainbow guy is wasting everyones time.


I like the scientists better that discoverd that in all organisms, chromosones coil up causing you to rest or go to sleep. When they uncoil you wake back up. It only occurs at night. - - - we need more of these people on board.

Originally posted by xnibirux

Everything in existence is what we call 'God'. We are part of the ink blot, we are all part of that bigger whole. The quote "God created man is his own image" isnt correct, it is more like "Man was created from God as God's own image." The ink blot started as condensed matter on the wall but then slowly stretched into new forms. (this being an example of our universe)

We are all learning very slowly that there is no separation.

Being someone who is well versed in astronomy and astrophysics I feel comfortable with the big-bang theory. It's good enough for me. But, then again, I am not a devout spiritualist thinker or religious individual. Your post is philosophical and ethereal, however, your thinking doesn't include much about what we know about the universe. For example, what existed here before our universe?

It is possible that it was simply a vacuum of empty space between universes. Nobody knows. Maybe the first actual universe was created trillions of trillions of years ago in a different universe entirely and had nothing to do with our universe. Perhaps our universe was created when membranes of other universes collided. There are many possibilities that don't necessarily have to involve god.

Debating how/when/why/etc GOD created time and space and, eventually, doesn't ever really go anywhere nor does it address the real point in my post
(which is why would god want to walk on earth in human form if god really were omnipitent?) It's romantic and reassuring to think that god would really care that much in the first place. But if life is abundant in the universe (and I believe it is) I believe that life can take hold without any direct intervention from "god". If god really created all life then why were the first lifeforms we can scientifically verify single celled organisms and amoeba's? Everything we see in science contradicts the religious creationists.

I, personally, don't mind seeing the romance and amazement in the simple fact that even if god didn't have a roll in creating the universe, earth, or humans in general that it is simply incredible how the universe works and how life finds it's way. I don't require some reassurance.

-ChriS

[edit on 30-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
But you subscribe to a supreme being,no?

No. I do not subscribe to a "supreme being" in the sense that there is a mighty man out there in a far off land called heaven.

The universe consists of good and evil. We call this good, "God". I subscribe to goodness and truth, also passion and fairness and I am strong in it, not weak. But just because of this subscription it does not mean that I deny anyone or their beliefs, rather I will induct logic where necessary to show the truth. Evil is a part of our universe and I must deal with it subjectively.

Originally posted by xniburux

The quote "God created man is his own image" isnt correct, it is more like "Man was created from God as God's own image."

The universe created us in its own image and we create it in our own image, that which is both good and evil. We were not created as only good or only in the image of God; this is a lie. God is good. We were/are created by the universe, as the universe and with the universe, as both and in the image of both good and evil. Your explanations of the universe and how reality works are still lagging and I wouldn't go around parading something that isn't the truth and no matter how often or in what contexts you bold your statements, it only makes them more prevalent to the eye, but does nothing for the truth of the matter. Truth is blind to the classy membrane.

I, in time, will have all the answers and will share them.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I am glad to see you have given all of this a thought. This is what is needed of you, and others. Much of humanity never questioned any of the areas of thought we question now. This is good, and we are all witnessing the evil's retirement from its long line of work in our sector of the galaxy.

This is all part of our journey through the source of the universe.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by xnibirux]

reply to post by xnibirux


You're quite a funny character... deceptive and stealthy in your endeavors... played off almost quite well, but it shows through, you know what I mean? I know you do.

We are all learning very slowly that there is no separation.

And this statement here is a flat out lie. You're really going to generalize everyone and tell them what's happening within them? I don't think you can possibly know that I was born knowing that everything was interconnected, it was a process that involved neither slow nor fast. So, please make one exception before you plaster us with your prophecies.

If you would like to get to know me, then get to know ME, don't project your own situation onto me and don't flat out lie. I am not a part of that all that you mentioned.

When I was a little boy I sat outside away from everyone testing the functions and observing the phenomena of action and reaction through spider webs, twigs, bugs, fire, leaves. I already knew, all I was doing was seeking what purpose it served.

For one that preambles thought so efficaciously, please consider specifying in depth more before you make comments and statements, maybe then your true greatness will be revealed? Otherwise they are loosely spun together words of deceit without the consideration of possibility.

This is all part of our journey through the source of the universe.

There is no extranious source. It supplies itself. It is the source of itself. It had no creation/beginning and it will have no destruction/end. It does not expand and crunch and there are not multiple universes.

Everything in existence is what we call 'God'.

And remember, this is not true. Everything is not Good according to Human morality. There are definitely evil things in the universe. The only way that this statement could ever make sense, and I'll help you out here, is if God is a directly effecting everything. Which would mean that the good that takes place is of course, God, but that also the bad that takes place is a lack of God. You must also know that the same can be said of evil or Devil. The bad is of course, Devil, but that also makes the good only a lack of evil.

This is good, and we are all witnessing the evil's retirement from its long line of work in our sector of the galaxy.

I also can't grasp how you can make this statement. I am not in contact with any other planets, their inhabitants nor their problems or lack thereof. Are you? I also do not know the future of this Earth and the future of this Earth for Humans and I will only speculate on it, I would never make a blanket statement as to what is or is not occuring in the future. Evil will always exist as a contrast for good, otherwise good is lost and vice versa. That much must obviously be known.

The universe is ambivalent about ambivalence.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

What am I missing here? So life started as an accident. And it somehow created what we now call humans. Uh, couldn't a god also have started as an accident and created what we now call humans? I guess what I am trying to say is that both evolution and creationism call for some sort of faith and no proof whatsoever of the very beginning. Believe a few random skeletons or believe writings of humans that go back father than a "2000 year old book". Ya got me on this. I will stick with my "faith", that somehow an intelligence was created out of nothing and began an experiment that ended up with what we have now, a universe and a tiny, miniscule planet on which there is a modicum of intelligent life. Plus many more tiny, miniscule planets, and maybe, because science and religion can't expound upon this idea, more universes than this one which we inhabit. The arguments are all silly and all rely on faith of something unseen and undiscovered. Wouldn't it be a hoot if science found God accidently?

Originally posted by kyred
What am I missing here? So life started as an accident. And it somehow created what we now call humans. Uh, couldn't a god also have started as an accident and created what we now call humans? I guess what I am trying to say is that both evolution and creationism call for some sort of faith and no proof whatsoever of the very beginning. Believe a few random skeletons or believe writings of humans that go back father than a "2000 year old book". Ya got me on this. I will stick with my "faith", that somehow an intelligence was created out of nothing and began an experiment that ended up with what we have now, a universe and a tiny, miniscule planet on which there is a modicum of intelligent life. Plus many more tiny, miniscule planets, and maybe, because science and religion can't expound upon this idea, more universes than this one which we inhabit. The arguments are all silly and all rely on faith of something unseen and undiscovered. Wouldn't it be a hoot if science found God accidently?

It's easy to speculate about god and how life began. It's something else entirely to remain scientific and objective. This shouldn't be a debate about god or how life began because it is a topic people feel very strongly about and will defend it with everything in them. From a psychological perspective you can't always debate science topics at all and expect to actually be heard since creation and god are topics people are not willing to compromise their values to accept. It is one thing to be skeptical but it is something else entirely to be unwilling to accept truths of the universe around us due to closed minded dogmatic thinking in which people are only willing to accept science which they believe vindicates or, otherwise, validates their spiritual way of thinking.

The truth, whether I am heard or not, is what the true pursuit of science should be and for the most part that's what it has been. Science is not exact and we are all human, therefore how science works in modern society is not perfect. The problem is when people are willing to accept certain scientific principles/theories whilst being unwilling to accept others. IMO Cherrypicking the data to your way of thinking is the only reason the creationist intelligent design movement has gotten so much attention. It is something that people use some science to support while ignoring the rest of the science that contradicts the very foundation of what intelligent design actually entails.

What I've seen are people in this thread saying things like "Finally! I've been wondering when this proof would come along". This basically validates my statments which point out the human tendency to desire scientific validation for their spititual opinions/beliefs. That's my opinion anyway.

I have yet to see any validation to this scientific discovery of the "creator's tracks". For one thing, how scientific is it to actually jump to conclusions and say that this is somehow the "creator" when nothing points to that? Secondly, this archaeological discovery has not been peer reviewed and nothing published acknowledges or otherwise even points out this discovery. It may in the future, but it hasnt happened yet. For all we know this is an actual archaeological find but the creator? please.

Like I said before...If an ancient civilization created a religion which worshipped large lizards would they feel spiritually validated if they found proof that dinosaurs were real (by finding bones and tracks)?

It just goes to show that everything that people ever really thought about god is man-made. That's the reason there are countless religions and spiritual concepts out there which all disagree with each other. The heaven's gate cult believed that a comet was coming which would take their souls aboard and whisk them off to somewhere far beyond. When Hale-bopp came along they believed it validated their way of thinking and that's the only reason they all killed themselves. OK I'm done..

-ChriS

[edit on 1-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 1-5-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by kyred


Tsk,tsk. No faith is allowed my friend. You must:
1. Analyze the situation thoughtfully.
2. Measure the absolutes against the unknowns and form a hypothesis that is logical and reasonable.
3.Then you must pick holes in your hypothesis and be extra critical of your thinking so as not to color it with what you are hoping for as an outcome.
4.When you find a problem with your theory, return to 1. and subject the problem to the same rigorous examination.
Only then will you be on the path to knowledge. Anything else, including "faith" is primitive mumbo jumbo that serves only to rob you of the truth of the nature of the questions you are trying to answer.

Example : faith (simplified, although, not by much)
"The sun is a great god which gives us life. When it dies every night after doing battle with the lord of the night (that would be the moon) across the sky, it travels through the underworld only to be reborn in the morning to bring us life again and defeat the lord of the night. If we don't sacrifice a virgin (what a bloody waste) every season it will grow angry and never return to do battle with the lord of the night and all will be lost ."

Example : truth (also simplified, by a great deal, 'cause i don't have all day)
" The sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. It is here for 12 or so hours, and gone for about the same give or take, depending on the time of the year. When I watch a boat sail away it goes over the horizon as the sun also does at dusk. Since the boat doesn't disappear into the sea, the underworld, or off the edge of the earth, then it seems likely the sun doesn't either. On the other side of the coin when i see a boat coming over the horizon from the opposite direction, as the sun does when it rises, it must mean the earth is curved, so most likely round, in at least 1 direction anyway, so that means that......."

[edit on 1-5-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

Awe, so shoot me.

Remember also that the sun doesn't actually rise or set in reality. Relative to us it is pretty much stationary. It's just the Earth turning on its axis again. We orbit the sun and turn on our axis (as the Earth), the sun rotates on its own axis but does not orbit the planet.

(Yeah, you hate me now )

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Duh, thanks, Mickey!
Actually I don't hate you. I hate cops (just ask rcwj75 ).
No really. You raise interesting and well thought out points in your posts, and I can respect that (even if I think you are a kook ).
Doesn't change what I just said about faith vs. scientific method. One is primitive mumbo jumbo that can't be proven and is not to be questioned. The other is critical of itself wether it is wrong or right, and anyone is allowed to question it (unless it will affect your government grant, don't get me started on that....).

The universe created us in its own image and we create it in our own image, that which is both good and evil. We were not created as only good or only in the image of God; this is a lie.
I actually agree with you on this and many other of your ideas, believe it or not

[edit on 1-5-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

Can someone balance these equations for me?


macromolecules > living cells (nature) = 500,000,000 + (years)

macromolecules > living cells (bio-chemist) = 50 + (years)