Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 19
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

When we're talking about scientific progress, we're not talk about inventing unobserved idea's and "rolling with it".
And that's exactly the limit of science and exactly the part that needs to change for real progress.


Because it doesn't follow the scientific method and has already been admitted to be created as a new term for creationism by God. If you wish to argue ID by way of aliens from Tau Ceti, then we can argue something that is actually tangible and testable.
The scientific method is outdated. Like Einstein once said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew". Science might have brought us forward in technology, but we are losing our humanity because of it. We want to see everything in a Newtonian way, which is simply falling apart nowadays. Science was needed in that time to create a sustainable way of living for humanity. Now we have that, but we are still following that path while it is not needed. What we need now, is something to bring humanity closer together. Without that, we might as well throw science away because otherwise we'll destroy ourselves.


While abiogenesis hasn't been observed and is predicted for by the theory of evolution, the mechanics behind abiogenesis are sound, those being physics and chemistry. Some of the predicted outcomes of the theory has been observed to occur and does occur, so we can't just rule it out as there is some evidence in favor of it. Whereas ID lacks any such evidence in favor of it, instead it pokes holes in different theories or at the moment unknown processes.
If you use physics and chemistry as an argument that it's valid, we can use logic or philosophy to support ID. But then again, the scientific method won't allow that. And that's exactly the point..


I disagree with your assertion that a stone would have to be placed ever 20 seconds. By my estimates, they would have had to place fourteen stone blocks per hour.

2500000
/
20 years
=
125000 blocks per year to be moved.
/
365 days out of the year to work
=
342 give or take, stone blocks per twenty four hour day
/
24 hours a day
=
14 stone blocks to move per hour.

Although my math could be wrong, not my strongest suite so if it is wrong can you please show me where I went wrong. I just don't see how they achieve this one block every two seconds claim.

Considering the sizable work force they had and that one man is capable of quickly and effortlessly moving well over nine tonnes alone, I think it's entirely possible for them to have achieved the goal.
I guess they never slept or ate or rested then.. In any case, what you're doing is pure speculation, and there is no real evidence for that.. Just like there was no evidence that the Sphinx was only 5000 years old.. They taught everyone it was, and recently, someone decided to actually measure it, and it was older than 11000 years old.. You might think this is an exception, but it's the rule.. They assume a lot of stuff and just go by it, and you think they have scientific evidence for it..


Do you have anything that has evidence for it that science has thrown out?
let me ask you something first. Why do you want evidence for everything?


Why does the materialistic view have to change? Change to what? There is no evidence for anything else to work with here. You can't just make an unsubstantiated claim and leave it at that.
Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



And that's exactly the limit of science and exactly the part that needs to change for real progress.


So we can just invent any unobserved thing without evidence and call it progress?


The scientific method is outdated. Like Einstein once said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew". Science might have brought us forward in technology, but we are losing our humanity because of it. We want to see everything in a Newtonian way, which is simply falling apart nowadays. Science was needed in that time to create a sustainable way of living for humanity. Now we have that, but we are still following that path while it is not needed. What we need now, is something to bring humanity closer together. Without that, we might as well throw science away because otherwise we'll destroy ourselves.


I disagree that science will destroy us. With science people are forced to back up their claims leading to less infighting over who is more right compared to who with invented unobserved lack of evidence claims. At least that's my take on it. Personally I would rather not see any more fights over who's God is more real but with a scientific twist.


If you use physics and chemistry as an argument that it's valid, we can use logic or philosophy to support ID. But then again, the scientific method won't allow that. And that's exactly the point..


Physics and chemistry do allow for it, whereas logic doesn't inherently show us a designer. It's faulty logic to point at something whilst saying I have no clue how this could arise naturally ergo a designer created it. You show me the logic in that and I'll concede to your statement.


I guess they never slept or ate or rested then.. In any case, what you're doing is pure speculation, and there is no real evidence for that.. Just like there was no evidence that the Sphinx was only 5000 years old.. They taught everyone it was, and recently, someone decided to actually measure it, and it was older than 11000 years old.. You might think this is an exception, but it's the rule.. They assume a lot of stuff and just go by it, and you think they have scientific evidence for it..


Your right, it is pure speculation, but it's more realistic than the speculation you posted. They wouldn't need all 100,000 people working at once to move fourteen stones an hour. I also call into question this supposed new date for the sphinx, this is the first I have heard of this and if you can cite any peer reviewed sources for this new date i would appreciate it.


let me ask you something first. Why do you want evidence for everything?


Because I don't blindly believe everything. If there is no evidence for something claimed, then I have no reason to believe it to be true. If I told you I had a talking cat, would you just believe me without evidence or would you also demand evidence?


Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?


I disagree it was born from philosophy.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnexSo we can just invent any unobserved thing without evidence and call it progress?
No, it's not about inventing, it's about not throwing stuff away that has a foundation in logic.


I disagree that science will destroy us. With science people are forced to back up their claims leading to less infighting over who is more right compared to who with invented unobserved lack of evidence claims. At least that's my take on it. Personally I would rather not see any more fights over who's God is more real but with a scientific twist.
It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with children playing with stuff that's too dangerous for themselves.


Physics and chemistry do allow for it, whereas logic doesn't inherently show us a designer. It's faulty logic to point at something whilst saying I have no clue how this could arise naturally ergo a designer created it. You show me the logic in that and I'll concede to your statement.
Here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Logic shows us a designer, science refuses to listen to logic and prefers to determine EVERYTHING in a systematic material way. That's beginning to fade away with quantum physics, since there's no real difference between matter and energy.


Your right, it is pure speculation, but it's more realistic than the speculation you posted. They wouldn't need all 100,000 people working at once to move fourteen stones an hour. I also call into question this supposed new date for the sphinx, this is the first I have heard of this and if you can cite any peer reviewed sources for this new date i would appreciate it.
Well.. I can't find that right now, but Mystery of the Sphinx on Discovery Channel (you can find it on youtube if needed) is a good start..


Because I don't blindly believe everything. If there is no evidence for something claimed, then I have no reason to believe it to be true. If I told you I had a talking cat, would you just believe me without evidence or would you also demand evidence?
I wouldn't necessarily demand evidence but I would question your statement and approach it logically. Maybe you mean a toy cat, or maybe it's a metaphor, or, other options, and after that, I question you, to see if it's logical. If it's not logical, I refute it. Science is the other way around. They refute it if there's no evidence, even if it's logical.


I disagree it was born from philosophy.
There's nothing to disagree there. It's a fact in history.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



No, it's not about inventing, it's about not throwing stuff away that has a foundation in logic.


Saying I don't know how X could occur naturally ergo it must have been designed is not logic.


It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with children playing with stuff that's too dangerous for themselves.


Like what?


Logic shows us a designer, science refuses to listen to logic and prefers to determine EVERYTHING in a systematic material way.


Logic does not show us a designer. It is no more logical to assume a designer than it is to assume there was no designer nor to assume fifty-nine designers.


That's beginning to fade away with quantum physics, since there's no real difference between matter and energy.


If you think that is true, then there are many websites out there that will demystify QM for you.


Well.. I can't find that right now, but Mystery of the Sphinx on Discovery Channel (you can find it on youtube if needed) is a good start..


When I get the time to look for it I might.


I wouldn't necessarily demand evidence but I would question your statement and approach it logically. Maybe you mean a toy cat, or maybe it's a metaphor, or, other options, and after that, I question you, to see if it's logical. If it's not logical, I refute it. Science is the other way around. They refute it if there's no evidence, even if it's logical.


Why would it not be logical to have a talking cat? I also disagree with your interpretation of science.


There's nothing to disagree there. It's a fact in history.


I'm still going to have to disagree as well as ask for sources to these so called facts as well as a definition and example in your own words as to what science is.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Saying I don't know how X could occur naturally ergo it must have been designed is not logic.
I never said that either.


Like what?
Never mind this part.


Logic does not show us a designer. It is no more logical to assume a designer than it is to assume there was no designer nor to assume fifty-nine designers.
Then why does science want to go so badly with the assumption that there is no designer, if they both weigh the same? =)


If you think that is true, then there are many websites out there that will demystify QM for you.
Lol.. Matter is energy and energy is matter.. Where did I go wrong??


Why would it not be logical to have a talking cat? I also disagree with your interpretation of science.
Because talking is a human way of communicating. No other species talks, they might communicate in another way, but we wouldn't call it talking. Therefore a talking cat is not logical, assuming it's a real life organic cat.


I'm still going to have to disagree as well as ask for sources to these so called facts as well as a definition and example in your own words as to what science is.
You want me to provide sources but do not give a reason why you disagree. Anyway, I know the origin of science was to seek knowledge. But nowadays it's more to seek power.. I don't know what kind of definition you want.. I'll give you this one.. Science is a set of branches that wants to seek infinite knowledge in every branch. This knowledge needs to be tested and needs to be supported by phyisical evidence, and if this is not possible, it can still be sustained if it has a basis in mathematics, or is supported by other branches. , But this does not necessarily mean that science seeks to unify all the branches, or that the support from other branches is based on scientific evidence itself.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



I never said that either.


Perhaps not, but this is what ID itself postulates, therefor ID is not logical.


Never mind this part.


OK, but I am genuinely curious.


Then why does science want to go so badly with the assumption that there is no designer, if they both weigh the same? =)


I think you misunderstand science's stance on God or God like entities. From my understanding science doesn't inherently assume there is no God and there are plenty of scientists who are attempting to 'find' God through science. The reason God isn't inherently or explicitly viewed as absolutely true in the same light as religion is because there is no actual evidence for a God or fifty-nine Gods.


Lol.. Matter is energy and energy is matter.. Where did I go wrong??


Energy is an inherent property of matter, but like I said if you think what you said about QM, then there are many websites that will demystify it for you.


Because talking is a human way of communicating. No other species talks, they might communicate in another way, but we wouldn't call it talking. Therefore a talking cat is not logical, assuming it's a real life organic cat.


I disagree and I think you are anthropomorphizing semantically a species ability to exchange communication. There is also the possibility of mimicking sounds to appear as human speech.


You want me to provide sources but do not give a reason why you disagree.


Yes, it's an exercise to understand why you stated what you stated.


Anyway, I know the origin of science was to seek knowledge.


Ah, much better!


But nowadays it's more to seek power


I think your mixing science up with government and politics.


Science is a set of branches that wants to seek infinite knowledge in every branch. This knowledge needs to be tested and needs to be supported by phyisical evidence, and if this is not possible, it can still be sustained if it has a basis in mathematics, or is supported by other branches. , But this does not necessarily mean that science seeks to unify all the branches, or that the support from other branches is based on scientific evidence itself.


Interesting view you have on science. Wrong, but interesting. Could possibly write up a novel around this idea. Start off with some scientific cult that obtained governmental control of sorts and just take off from there.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, but I am genuinely curious.
Let's just say we don't have enough responsibility to handle the knowledge that we have now.


I think you misunderstand science's stance on God or God like entities. From my understanding science doesn't inherently assume there is no God and there are plenty of scientists who are attempting to 'find' God through science. The reason God isn't inherently or explicitly viewed as absolutely true in the same light as religion is because there is no actual evidence for a God or fifty-nine Gods.
Well, I think abiogenesis and possibly evolution have that assumption. Big Bang however, does not. Though I agree in its optimal form science would not take any side. But usually people begin to argue science vs religion and those two don't even have to close each other out..


I disagree and I think you are anthropomorphizing semantically a species ability to exchange communication. There is also the possibility of mimicking sounds to appear as human speech.
That is a possibility, yes.. One can also mimic the movements of a flying bird, that does not mean that that person is flying.


Yes, it's an exercise to understand why you stated what you stated.
Hm interesting.


I think your mixing science up with government and politics.
Without those two, science can not exist. Who do you think are the ones funding the science projects? Same reason why science is not what it's supposed to be (the seeking of knowledge).


Interesting view you have on science. Wrong, but interesting. Could possibly write up a novel around this idea. Start off with some scientific cult that obtained governmental control of sorts and just take off from there.

What's the view according to you? Today science is too branched imo.

In any case, ID is not viewed as science because it offers closure without physical evidence, and that's something that science usually does not want.. With or without the physical evidence, the closure is not acceptable..

[edit on 9-11-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
To the OP.

People say it's not scientific because it doesn't use science to gain data.

Intelligent design is this: God created everything as it is now.

Science is the practice of 2 things:

-observation
-measurement

Intelligent design is one thing

-belief

I suggest you banish yourself from using anything science has provided us with and from now on you must have everything created for you by your god instead. Good luck with that! NO electricity, no cell phone, no tv, no car, no transport, no hygiene, and so on and so forth.

Intelligent design is lacking in exactly 2 things:

-intelligence
-design



please stop with it now. creationism is an easy out from investigating the world around us and our universe. It is a way of keeping the truth away, not a way towards truth. IN short, it's a lie that is pushed to maintain control by a failing group of institutions who are still lying to you day in, day out, especially on the weekends and for some 5 times a day! lol

no offense, but maybe a little.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by djusdjus]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Let's just say we don't have enough responsibility to handle the knowledge that we have now.


Like what kind of knowledge?


Well, I think abiogenesis and possibly evolution have that assumption. Big Bang however, does not. Though I agree in its optimal form science would not take any side. But usually people begin to argue science vs religion and those two don't even have to close each other out..


True, evolution and abiogenesis are theories of life without the need of a God, but neither of those theories involve the creation of everything, they just deal with life as it exists here on Earth. I think the reason science and religion are so up in arms is because religion claims absolute truth of the universes origins without evidence and there are so many different religious beliefs claiming this whereas science doesn't claim any one theory as being explicitly true or fact but accepts certain theories based on the predictive evidences for those theories.


That is a possibility, yes.. One can also mimic the movements of a flying bird, that does not mean that that person is flying.


Considering the dynamics involved, the analogy is moot.


Without those two, science can not exist. Who do you think are the ones funding the science projects? Same reason why science is not what it's supposed to be (the seeking of knowledge).


Scientific inquiry does not need nor has ever needed governmental funding nor does it require governmental funding today. Anyone is capable of funding scientific progress that isn't a government body. Many private companies and organizations are also at the forefront of scientific research today.


What's the view according to you? Today science is too branched imo.


Science is about knowledge and discovery that's my view at least.


In any case, ID is not viewed as science because it offers closure without physical evidence, and that's something that science usually does not want.. With or without the physical evidence, the closure is not acceptable..


Why do you think it wouldn't be accepted if it had produced actual evidence? That's contrary to what science dictates. If evidence was actually produced for ID instead of god of the gaps arguments, then science would readily accept it.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 

Theories of origins of the universe cannot be scientific since they cannot be repeated.

Other issues are really more important than whether the "6 Days of Creation" were literal or figurative.

Does anyone really believe that on Judgment Day one of the questions will be: "Do you believe Creation was complete in 6 days?"



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
People on the right love to tout ID as a valid explanation to the creation of the universe.
But let's start saying that said Intelligent Designer was an extra-dimensional alien and not their God and see how quickly they lose their minds, lol.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I think this whole argument is fruitless... For one ID isn't considered science by many but that doesn't mean it may ruled out or be discovered in future endeavors. Certain subjects can't be proven by science but that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist. Take for instance we can say Julius caesar probably existed but we can never know what his weight or height were using the Scientific method. We can't use science to go to the opposite ends of the Universe and rule out that life may or may not exist there but we can assume that it is possible. These two resist scientific scrutinization but they do have certain truths which currently lay outside the scientific field. The same goes for ID. What if an ID created the laws and constants for the universe and let it evolve on its own. The universe can be akin to a giant Quantum Computer. Now let us say we create our own program on a Quantum Computer that is made to mimic our own universe. How would these beings we create know if they were created by an ID or not. So this ultimately this leads us with certain questions that may never be answered in it whole(at least my current knowledge or science.). This also leads us with the proposition that no being can ever rule out ID, or at least with current knowledge, it may be possible if a civilization were billions of years in knowledge and technological advancements. Even then it is questionable.

And why do people believe that if an ID exist that the universe would be any different. Why should it look any different then our own. Lack of physical evidence doesn't dictate a truth. The lack of evidence of there being a certain galaxy at the other end of the Universe doesn't mean that there may not be one there. Or let us use Mathematical truths, certain mathematics have no relation to the physical universe yet there truths still hold without the physical dependence. I do admit that ID is currently not a physical science but certain truth can't be ruled out based on physical evidence.

So let us rule in favor based on what we prefer since ID can never be proven or disproven.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   


Then the statement in question was just a pointless statement made for no apparent reason on your part?


Ok, well go with that.





My honest answer is, I don't know and that question applies to only closed systems and as I don't know of any closed systems I can't make any comment on where matter came from in our own universe.


Intersting.






No, you haven't.


I have clearly pointed out my views on infinity, end of story.





Actually you really cant prove otherwise, so yeah emm. ... There was no first cause, ITS INFINITY!!!
This is what you have said on the matter. Those are not explanations, they are statements.


Ah picking and choosing, great aint it?


Oh and if you didint even know about the results on the sphinxs age, which is a pretty old revelation at this stage, then how can I take your knowledge of Egypt seriously, sphinx is the smoking gun in my opinion for an advanced ancient civilization.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Ah picking and choosing, great aint it?


I went back again and I can find no explanation given for why cause and effect implies infinity to you. This was my question and it has still gone unanswered.


Oh and if you didint even know about the results on the sphinxs age, which is a pretty old revelation at this stage, then how can I take your knowledge of Egypt seriously, sphinx is the smoking gun in my opinion for an advanced ancient civilization.


As I said, I can find no information, peer reviewed scientific research conducted that can corroborate this supposed age. If you can provide sources other than a conspiracy slanted book I would be more than delighted to read it.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Key2life
 



I think this whole argument is fruitless... For one ID isn't considered science by many but that doesn't mean it may ruled out or be discovered in future endeavors.


Given the invented term to mean creationism by God, I'm pretty sure we can rule it out. They admit that it was never meant to set out and scientifically determine that a designer was present. As in the case for alien intervention, it should have been remarkably apparent by now.


Certain subjects can't be proven by science but that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist. Take for instance we can say Julius caesar probably existed but we can never know what his weight or height were using the Scientific method.


If we have his bones we can, not sure if we do or not, just saying.


We can't use science to go to the opposite ends of the Universe and rule out that life may or may not exist there but we can assume that it is possible. These two resist scientific scrutinization but they do have certain truths which currently lay outside the scientific field.


Sure, we can assume, but without actual evidence we can't run around screaming see I told you so like the ID crowd does.


The same goes for ID. What if an ID created the laws and constants for the universe and let it evolve on its own.


In what capacity? As a real physical universe or as a simulated computer generated one?


The universe can be akin to a giant Quantum Computer.


I disagree for various reasons, one being that from my understanding of QM, it doesn't show that at all. At least from some of the websites I've read that demystify QM, which as I mentioned there are plenty out there for anyone to look up.


Now let us say we create our own program on a Quantum Computer that is made to mimic our own universe. How would these beings we create know if they were created by an ID or not.


I suppose glitches in the program, even today we are incapable of constructing an entirely bug free computer program and any subsequent quantum computer code would be even more error prone. Even the best quantum algorithms aren't able to keep errors from abounding from what I've read on the matter.


So this ultimately this leads us with certain questions that may never be answered in it whole(at least my current knowledge or science.).


I disagree, I believe that we should see some sign of significance that show's beyond probable doubt that there is or was a designer. Even if we assume the universe was designed, we have no way of ascertaining that it was any more for ourselves or for black hole research as both require the same variables to exist.


This also leads us with the proposition that no being can ever rule out ID, or at least with current knowledge, it may be possible if a civilization were billions of years in knowledge and technological advancements. Even then it is questionable.


So, we instead just concede to being designed and leave it at that? But then where did those beings come from? You see the problem there? We're taking away the problem of where our universe came from and placing it elsewhere without any actual real explanation of where everything came from. With design by higher beings, it need not matter where *they* came from, only that we know where we came from. If we exist in a computer, then we can never know where they came from or what they are made out of or anything about the universe in which they exist. You create more problems than you solve.


And why do people believe that if an ID exist that the universe would be any different. Why should it look any different then our own.


There should be something that is irreducibly complex, that is the whole argument for ID. Unless you want to redefine ID, I've been assuming that this is the same ID that exists by today's definition. As we haven't studied everything nor know everything we thus haven't seen any evidence of irreducible complexity yet. Poking holes does not make something IC.


Lack of physical evidence doesn't dictate a truth. The lack of evidence of there being a certain galaxy at the other end of the Universe doesn't mean that there may not be one there.


Nor is there any reason to assume that there is one at any arbitrarily picked point in the sky. In order to claim that it exists where ever you arbitrarily pick you would need evidence to substantiate that claim. The point of science is to stop people from claiming whatever they so please as truth without evidence of.


Or let us use Mathematical truths, certain mathematics have no relation to the physical universe yet there truths still hold without the physical dependence.


Can you give me an example?


I do admit that ID is currently not a physical science but certain truth can't be ruled out based on physical evidence.


It's not even a science period, never mind physical. You can't just assume something and call it truth either. You need evidence to back up that truth, assumptions are not truths.


So let us rule in favor based on what we prefer since ID can never be proven or disproven.


I disagree with that assertion and if I'm not mistaken so do most scientists that I've read about on the subject.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vasaga

…Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You forgot to mention why the scientific community split from the church.

Remember what happened when the scientific community started finding evidence for natural processes that appeared to conflict with the churches preferred perception of reality? The church started attempting to censor and persecute members of the scientific community.

Remember earlier in this thread when I mentioned Galileo?

Galileo found overwhelming evidence that pointed to the idea that the Earth actually revolved around the sun. The church didn’t want to hear that. It went against their preferred perception of reality. That WANTED to believe that EVERYTHING revolved around the Earth.

So, what was the churches response to Galileo’s evidence? They told him to shut up and demanded he retract his idea.

Galileo was a man of integrity and refused to back away from his stance.

The church excommunicated Galileo for refusing to refute his discoveries and overwhelming evidence.

The churches desire to moderate and censor science is the reason why the church and the scientific community are still at odds to this day.

That will never change; as long as the church continues their philosophy of inflexibly clinging to a 2,000 old worldview, even in light of evidence pointing towards a slightly different worldview than the churches preferred worldview.

Take a lesson from nature. What happens to a static body of water that has no motion to it. Well, it stagnates.

At least science is moving forward.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



I believe in IT, not ID (Intervention Theory vs Intelligent Design) - just replace 'god' with 'aliens'.

[Now... to read the rest of the thread - good lord!]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by hlesterjerome
 



Excellent reply.


To add to that, isn't the Vatican completely recanting, now? (to a degree) Just last year they made a proclamation acknowledging the possibility of the existence of ET life... 'but that such a belief did not necessarily negate a belief in God.'

Yeah, riiiiight. When you realize that all those great stories across every culture/religion - whom all share the similar stories, basically - were talking about the same thing.

Think about it...

"When all of those [biblical] stories were written down, writing was a fairly new invention. The very first thing they wrote down, is something that actually happened to them. It was SO important, so compelling, so significant to them, that they had to put it in writing. Why can't modern society come to grips with the fact that these stories might be true... after all."
- Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

I am a firm believer that many/most of the stories of the bible are true... for scientific reasons.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 



Yeah, riiiiight. When you realize that all those great stories across every culture/religion - whom all share the similar stories, basically - were talking about the same thing.


Well, technically this is a half truth and half wishful thinking. The middle eastern area religions are similar, but worldwide mythologies differ immensely from biblical stories. Even some mythologies such as Greek, Roman and Egyptian who had contact with the biblical people are different from the biblical account of creation. Only flood myths that exist are by people who live around bodies of water, so not all mythologies speak of some flood occurring. The only flood myth that I am aware of remotely similar to the biblical account is from the Sumerians, in which the biblical account is a plagiarized copy of the Sumerians. None of these mythologies suggest aliens from Tau Ceti creating us as none of these mythologies neither agree with their accounts of creation nor were written down at the same time. Some mythologies developed well before or well after other mythologies.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Think about the impact of a flood back then and now. Mobility was much easier, and moving [inland] was not nearly the quagmire it would be (and will be) today.

[But, then I think of lost cities like Alexandria, and obviously some were unable to escape the inevitable - History channel just ran a sweet show on that]






top topics



 
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join