It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Genesis 3 introduces the Serpent, "slier than every beast of the field." The serpent tempts the woman to eat from the tree of knowledge, telling her that it will not lead to death; she succumbs, and gives the fruit to the man, who eats also, "and the eyes of the two of them were opened." Aware now of their nakedness, they make coverings of fig leaves, and hide from the sight of God.
No, I mean what would be the point of it to God? Why not just create the world fully formed, instead of having this thing called evolution? What good would that do?
Well, it's an apparently reasonable opinion - till you realize that you then have to explain the higher power.
Originally posted by MatrixProphet
I view God as very logical and methodical. He is a creator. What does creating involve? Do you ever create anything? What do you get out of it? What do you learn from it? Does it create a methodology? One or many that can be used again and again?
It is my thinking and experience that God will use whatever naturally works without using unnecessary magic (magic to us, but possibly higher stages of physics to Him), unless needed. Perhaps this was his intent with the cosmos. Give it a head start, intervene only where necessary, and let his creation evolve.
About 90% of the universe is invisible and is filled with dark matter. Very little is known. Yet, this could be assisting all the visible cosmos. Could black holes lead us to other universes?
If we cannot answer HUGE questions regarding our universe, or multiple universes, or even dimensions, how in the hell can we answer the question of God?????
In light of the magnificence of the universe...super novas, quasars, galaxies, etc., can you honestly say with intelligence that you are positive there is no intelligent founder?
Can you explain the power behind life? Who or what developed or created the spark? Evolution is a mechanism for life, but it never would be a reality without something creating the breath of life, to give it - "life."
I contributed a post in another thread that speaks to some of these questions. I create things for a living, so I have some experience of the process.
I seem to recall that you and I have had this conversation before.
If it's only 'higher stages of physics' to God, why shouldn't He use it?
Of course, it is possible to think of possible reasons why he might had chosen evolution: maybe his object in creating the world was such that it could best be achieved through this cruel, messy, expensive and uncertain process. Or maybe God just wants it this way. Or... but it doesn't matter.
Next we speculate as to his methods. Then we go on to speculate about his motives for choosing those particular methods. We'll be speculating about his digestion next!
74 percent dark energy, 22 percent dark matter, 3.6 percent interstellar gas, 0.4 percent stars, planets, quasars, black holes and other stuff, including us. Don't you think you're being just a wee bit anthropocentric?
I think God is pretty easy to explain. Voltaire did it once and for all, actually.
There does not need to be and there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that one exists, so why bother even thinking about it?
Life is certainly mysterious - but only, I believe, in the sense that our knowledge of it is rather sketchy. I don't think it contains any essential mystery beyond the power of human inquiry to solve. There is no ghost; there is only the machine.
Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Voltaire... said many things.
He sure did. The statement I referred to was this very famous one: 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.'
This was the fact that our sense of ourselves as willing agents in control of ourselves and aspects of the world around us is forever being compromised by the fact that we are, at times, nothing of the kind. I'm not getting into a free will debate here. I'm simply pointing out that strong emotions, generated by powerful unconscious, instinctual drives, often seem to take over from our rational, willing selves and force us to behave in unexpected, unpredictable ways. Reason, like consciousness, is associated with the self; hunger, lust, fear and anger often shoulder reason out of the way and take over the controls themselves.
To emergent, reasoning consciousness, these moments when it was shoved aside by instinct must have been threatening and uniquely terrifying. How could they be understood? One answer would be: as other, alien consciousnesses. Thus the concept of possession, of other minds - gods or spirits - that could enter a body and sieze control from the mind that inhabited it. The first gods and demons, I suspect, were not anthropomorphizations of external phenomena but personifications of our own inner drives.
So we create laws, morals and manners to regulate our behaviour, and police forces and other authories to enforce them; collectively, we call these inventions society. But the most important device we use to tame our instincts is religion, because it is by far the most powerful. Unlike other institutions, which work to restrict the external manifestations of instinct, religion works like - is, in fact - operant conditioning that causes the instinct to manifest itself in some kind of displacement activity. And it works extremely well: the legions of the hashishin, kamikaze and modern-day jihadi suicide-bombers bear witness to this.
I know you're one of those people who thinks belief in God is okay but religion is not. Well, there's no denying that all religion is corrupt and may, indeed, be so by definition. But it isn't, after all, God that humanity needs; it's religion. God is marginal to our requirements; religion is, it appears, central.
Have you ever experienced anything remotely like what you have just described?
Witnessed anything paranormal?
Have you been around evil?
You are applying rational reasoning to an irrational situation, the very thing that a good therapist is trained to NOT do.
No one has the intellectual reasoning to overcome my experience of reality.
Have you ever experienced anything remotely like what you have just described? Witnessed anything paranormal? Have you been around evil? You are applying rational reasoning to an irrational situation, the very thing that a good therapist is trained to NOT do. Why? Because there are things that cannot be explained through logic or science. I speak from vast knowledge and experience. It is the very reason why no one has the intellectual reasoning to overcome my experience of reality.
The parietal eye is a photosensory organ connected to the pineal body, active in triggering hormone production (including reproduction) and thermoregulation. It is sensitive to changes in light and dark, it does not form images, having only a rudimentary retina and lens. It is visible as an opalescent gray spot on the top of some lizard's heads; also referred to as "pineal eye" or "third eye."
The parietal eye is a part of the epithalamus, which can be divided into two major parts; the epiphysis (the pineal organ, or pineal gland if mostly endocrine) and the parietal organ (often called the parietal eye, or third eye if it is photoreceptive). It arises as an anterior evagination of the pineal organ or as a separate outgrowth of the roof of the diencephalon. In some species, it protrudes through the skull. The parietal eye uses a different biochemical method of detecting light than rod cells or cone cells in a normal vertebrate eye.
The lizard-like reptile tuatara has a "well-developed parietal eye, with small lens and retina".Parietal eyes are also found in lizards, frogs and lampreys, as well as some species of fish, such as tuna and pelagic sharks, where it is visible as a light-sensitive spot on top of their head. A poorly developed version, often called the parapineal gland, occurs in salamanders. In birds and mammals the parietal organ (but not the pineal gland) is absent.
The parietal lobes can be divided into two functional regions. One involves sensation and perception and the other is concerned with integrating sensory input, primarily with the visual system. The first function integrates sensory information to form a single perception (cognition). The second function constructs a spatial coordinate system to represent the world around us. Individuals with damage to the parietal lobes often show striking deficits, such as abnormalities in body image and spatial relations (Kandel, Schwartz & Jessel, 1991).
Ecological and Physiological Requirements for UV Vision. A wide range of species has maintained UV vision during vertebrate evolution and used it for such basic behavioral traits as foraging, mate choice, and communication. This finding suggests that organisms with UV vision have a selective advantage over those without it. However, we have also seen that many other species exchanged UV vision by violet vision. Therefore, the selective advantage of organisms having UV vision may occur under special circumstances. Because UV vision works under UV light, it is reasonable for organisms to switch UV vision to violet vision when UV light is not available to them. In the extreme cases, as we have seen in the coelacanth and dolphin (Fig. 1), the SWS1 gene can become nonfunctional when UV and violet light are not available or are unimportant to them.
Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
The one that always stumped me was the evolution of gender.
I imagine the entire ocean filled with amoeba and one mutates and develops the rudiments of male sexuality. Understanding the millions of years involved, what are the odds that another will mutate (evolve) and produce the rudiments of female sexuality?