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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

IS Science becoming Religious???

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:09 PM
The quest for fossils of "the ancestors of a man" have been especially intensive, Pithecanthropus, Neanderthal, Sinanthropus and in the recent time - Australopithecus have been setting forth as "the ancestors". Without going into details one can say with full certainty that the offered fragments of skeletons (most often separate bones of cranium) of all mentioned "ancestors" belong either to monkeys or other animals or to men close to modern people or to more or less successful imitations. The most famous imitation is "Pilthdown Man" which for over 40 years was considered in the entire world to be the most proved link between monkey and man until it was asserted that the found bones had been forged with a help of mechanical and chemical treatment of the fragments of skeletons belonging to monkeys and people, their grouping and digging into the ground on those plot where the excavation works had been made by the English archeologist-amateur. Numerous researches of those semi-detective story showed that those imitation had been carried out by "philosopher and scientist" French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin.........


posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:32 PM
I don't know about the evolution vs creationism debate and whether or not it proves/disproves the idea of God. Personally I can't see why the two camps cannot be reconciled.
Quantum physics certainly seems to have upset a few apple carts in the reductionist/materialist camp though. There are many scientists who find this whole area as mystical and esoteric as some of the eastern philosophy's

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 07:38 PM
The thing that bugs me about those who can't seem to reconcile religion & science is that they claim God made Man from the dust...When that is not what the real translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate. The real translation is that God made Man "from the earth", which most Christians have interpreted as meaning from the dirt itself.

Yet all species of plant or animal that ever existed could be said to have come "from the earth" because the earth itself is what spawned us all. All primates came "from the earth", so that means all of our ancestors "came from the earth"...What they don't realize is that this means that God, in creating this planet, gave it the capacity to create life from itself. Physics & biological sciences have confirmed that the earth itself is what spawned life. But those people misunderstand & take it to mean that God picked up a handful of dust & formed us whole in a moment of time.

Another scientific interpretation of the scriptures seems to indicate that the Garden of Eden with Adam & Eve was a metaphor indicating a period of time rather than an actual place on Earth...The eating of the "Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge" metaphorically indicates the time when mankind turned away from nature & started developing tools & technology to change the environment to suit his own needs. It was the "knowledge" gained that got us kicked out of Eden, while before that time mankind had no more "knowledge" & "invention" than any other species. This would be that point in anthropological history in which the ancestors of mankind gained the ability to think in abstract terms...This is the single biggest difference between us & the animals. Without that ability to think in abstract terms, to plan ahead & make tools, we would still be living in caves & trees. This is why other animals never evolved intelligence...They could only think in terms of "act & react" to the environment & never gained the ability to think abstractly & begin to act *on* the environment rather than react *to* the environment.

posted on Mar, 15 2003 @ 09:47 AM
Every attempt to claim an earlier form of human has later been found to be an extinct ape, only you'll not hear that from any normal sources of information. Science need not be a religion, and it shouldn't be as that a bias and adds an agenda that shouldn't be there. But, I guess we humans being what we are...


posted on Mar, 15 2003 @ 10:00 AM
I also cannot understand why religion and science cannot be reconciled in modern times. Just because a scientist makes a discovery or promotes a theory about the creation of the universe or the evolution of man, in no way distracts from the 'miraculous' nature of either. I remember the first time I was introduced to fractal mathematics and the equations that generate the structure of leaves and nautilus shells - it still did not remove the sheer sense of awe I felt that nature could operate in this way. If anything it added to it.

posted on Mar, 15 2003 @ 10:19 AM
I agree 100%, Arc. Science is the study of the universe around us. Concepts change as time and better technology pass.
I am Christian and have always been fascinated with science and technology, and am trying to steer my son toward having a keen curiosity about the world around him. Science is the key. Where's the problem? I see no conflict. As a matter of fact, Solomon, while not being the most faithful of those one may read about in the Bible, was a scientist and naturalist, too.

top topics

log in