Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Because he loves us. In order for us to get read of sin Jesus had to die for us. We're actually demons till we give our life to Jesus.




posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
 



Maybe it is just me but I would think a omnipotent god could come up with a better plan then killing himself so he himself would forgive us.


Something like a stern talking to and a slap on the ass then he forgives us ?
Or maybe global genocide by way of a flood ? (hows that for a loving god)
BTW I think you trollin'


edit on 1-10-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Well God does care about all his children we just need to turn to him. That's what we need to do in life and what we were made to do.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
 

And with that I am off, this will go no where.


"The Bible tells me so."
In that one statement alone you showed you are a troll or completely ignorant to the real world.
The bible also tells you believers in Jesus can drink deadly poisons .. want to test your theory ?

Mark 16:18



Good luck with that.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 



In short :
If you are going to use the idea "The theory of Evolution has been "Created", otherwise no such theory would exist." then you have to explain where the creator came from.

I have read a few of your consciousness rants, Matrix. I am not interested in even commenting on them.
Nothing you have said shows being having souls or hints of a super natural world. I am assuming this is where you are going with it. Sorry if I am mistaking.


Perhaps you don't have the capacity to understand yourself or where you have come from.

A computer unfortunately doesn't have the capacity to know its operator...

So by your own admission you are Not living but are merely a "Biological Computer" which is a slave of its own ignorance...



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I know where you're coming from on this issue. But why do we need a creator; a specif one at that as well. From the ancient Gods, Aliens and what not they all run into the same issue. Where are they? I don't know what creator you believe in at the movement. But I can tell most creation stories are too similar to be a coincidence.
Creation Myths



The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren’t isolated from other cultures and they didn’t get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism.


Top 10 Creation Myths



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by nophun
 

Perhaps you don't have the capacity to understand yourself or where you have come from.


I think this is the first time I partly agree with you.

You are right on the level that I am not really sure where "we" came from in the very beginning. That said modern science has shown no creator is necessary. Science has shown Evolution is fact. Science has shown Abiogenisis is not unthinkable, in fact very likely. Scence has shown us the Big Bang . Before the Big Bang
I don't know


I have no problem with this. Obviously it would be super cool to know and understand what happened before the Big Bang. That is not likely to happen ... for apparent reasons.


Now you can say God did it. Then you have to explain where did God come from. The biggest issue here is when all these theists start claiming there God is the one to do "it".




A computer unfortunately doesn't have the capacity to know its operator...

So by your own admission you are Not living but are merely a "Biological Computer" which is a slave of its own ignorance..

How poetic


Quit putting words in my mouth I never "admitted" anything. I ignored your post because I don't even think it is worth time to give a long reply. You seem to be trying to push me into using "Biological Computer"so you can use the looks designed must have a designer bull#.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I know where you're coming from on this issue. But why do we need a creator; a specif one at that as well. From the ancient Gods, Aliens and what not they all run into the same issue. Where are they? I don't know what creator you believe in at the movement. But I can tell most creation stories are too similar to be a coincidence.
Creation Myths



The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren’t isolated from other cultures and they didn’t get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism.


Top 10 Creation Myths

___________________________________________________


As there is no clear definition of consciousness and no empirical measure exists to test for its presence,

en.wikipedia.org...

Belief doesn’t come into it at All.

The fact is YOU "Create" some things yourself don't you???

You "Created" the post I am replying to...

It is the other end of our "Consciousness", "Awareness”, Mind, LIFE, or whatever label you wish to give it; Collectively is the “motivation” behind evolution.

Without "Awareness", “Consciousness”, “Mind”, or “LIFE” we can do nothing at all.

I don’t see the Dead doing anything except decaying do you ???

All is made from “Opposites”.

For example without the “Left” the “Right” can't exist.
Without the “Larger” there can be No “Smaller”.
Without the “Outer” there can be no “Inner”.

There isn’t anything in existence which does Not have both an Inner and Outer..

Essentially We behave like “Comparators”.

Everything comes in pairs, so if your “Awareness” is Non-Dimensional, it has to be the “Centre” of your experience, as the “Centre” of anything has No size or Shape.

Dimension exists between the “Centre” and the “Outer”.

For example a pencil exists between Ends. (being 3D 6 Ends)
If we take anyone of these Ends away, that is if we could, it would become 2D.

So likewise we have an “Inner” (Centre) and “Outer” regarding “Awareness”, “Consciousness” or “LIFE”.

Imagine the “Awareness”, “Consciousness”, “Mind” or “LIFE” being like a huge Tree where one end of a Branch is separate from the other Ends, yet all are united at the other end as “One” (The Trunk).

You see "Evolution" can't exist without “Awareness”, “Consciousness”, “Mind”, “LIFE” or whatever you like to call it.

As you can see this has Nothing at all to do with “Belief”...

If "Awareness" does Not have at least another end, then it is “Non-Dimensional” and therefore can't interact with something which is Dimensional. But requires a “Encoding/Decoding” system (Link) such as the brain.

So I am Not sure how you arrive at this god thing or belief ???

There isn't a single member of your biological structure that is “Aware”...
The Only thing that is Aware is “Awareness” itself that is why it is called “Awareness”...

I would certainly not call “Awareness” a god, but others may wish to.

All our Motivations come from the “Mind”, “Awareness”, “Consciousness”, “LIFE” or whatever you wish to call it.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Underlining and bolding random words makes your posts so much easier to understand.



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
hippo, you did it wrong. Please allow me to assist you:


Originally posted by hippomchippo
Underlining and bolding "random" words... makes your posts so much easier to understand.


There you go...

I'm thinking about writing a quick macro that will turn any block of text into an MT post.



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
... There isn’t anything in existence which does Not have both an Inner and Outer...


Everything you've just said comes from human understanding and interpretation and is therefore inherently flawed. It's just a meme, a unit of information, a label imposed on something to split it from others based on human understanding.

At what point does space become space? At what are we 'on Earth' ... where does the galaxy begin and end? Where are the markers that show us this? Why is Germany even considered a country? These are just human inventions imposed so we can communicate some vague understanding of how things happen. The universe doesn't care about Germany. The universe doesn't think that everything has an inner and an outer. It's all just stuff. Stuff bound together by clever word games.

You can choose to impose an idea or concept on something you can't test. The fact that the imposed ideas and concepts are allegedly 100% accurate scares me. We should have moved beyond all this.

And evolution certainly could exist without a consciousness and in fact there is evidence points in that direction. Look at all our copies of DNA contained within cells. Would an intelligent creator have left all that junk behind? No. But DNA and genes exist to replicate. The ones that replicate the most 'win'. Some of the traits that we've developed most ... well would they really be the traits an intelligent creator would have instilled in his creation?

When it gets right down to it ... I think 'I don't know' is a fair response. However, there are far too many creationists with a poor understanding of science and theories in general. IE the false assumption that science says we came from monkeys. Either way it comes down to this ...

Science has created theories that have helped us understand and make progress in our world. That's what evolution is.

Creationism is an untestable belief which belongs nowhere near Science. As soon as Creationism can provide a point of refute ... a point where a Creationist person says ... 'if you can prove or disprove this point right here it will prove or disprove creationism' it isn't a science theory, it isn't useful, it's just a thing the exact same way I believe in space pirates comprised only of gas.



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sykickvision
 



Originally posted by sykickvision
I never totally dismissed the scientific method as hogwash, I merely asserted the fact that we don't know everything.
Yes, our knowledge is increasing. Yes, science has accomplished great things.


You also implied that being 'just a theory' is a bad thing, showing a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and you also asserted that it would be impossible for science to actually produce anything near an accurate answer



I credited evolution as being "a series of random events....." which is the gist of it.


No, it isn't. Evolution has the nonrandom element of natural selection. If a species produce X random mutation and X random mutation creates a greater chance of survival, then X random mutation continues. If Y random mutation makes survivability less likely, it will not continue.

That's not random, that's consequential.



I did state that we should endeavor to be the best we could be, and do all we can with what we have. Whether that is a scientist or a ditch digger.


So at best you're admitting that you're being insanely off topic?



I'll do no stuffing of replies to your inbox or whatever - you can do the stuffing yourself. I'll provide the "what" you can stuff "where"


And instead of providing anything of substance you provide something that's a vaguely veiled insult.

Bravo for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.


 


Well, it seems nobody who supports ID/Creationism wants to provide any actual proof.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


1. Thought has a direct influence on the transmission of energy/matter. In your mind, you think of typing the letter "T." That thought becomes a cascade of chemical and electrical movements, ultimately resulting in your physical finger moving on the keyboard to touch the letter "T."

Sorry, no dice. The chemicals come first, then the thought. Consciousness isn't real-time; conscious perception always lags brain activity, sometimes by as much as half an hour.

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

Brain Dynamics Underlying the Nonlinear Threshold for Access to Consciousness, PLoS Biology 5(10), Sept. 2007


Conscious perception of masked stimuli corresponded to activity in a broadly distributed fronto-parieto-temporal network, occurring from about 300ms after stimulus presentation. We conclude that this late stage, which could be clearly separated from earlier neural events associated with subliminal processing and mask-target interactions, can be regarded as a marker of consciousness.



2. Quantum processes are not bound by linear time. Review some of the explorations of Feynman-Kac formulas for further clarification.

It is not established that consciousness is a quantum process (except in the sense that everything is). Most neuroscientists consider the work of Penrose and that 'microtubules' fellow to be without merit.


3. Some expressions of thought, via their direct influence of quantum and electromagnetic processes, manifest themselves in negative time, and can exhibit an effect-cause relationship.

Prove that such influence exists.


4. Anti-temporal observation via thought (imagination or retro-cognition) may cause a collapse of quantum wave functions ( a la Schrödinger) in the past, essentially drawing reality from virtuality. Which could loosely be defined as "creation."

Prove that this happens.


Please reference the remote viewing studies to verify the statistical significance of their work in this area. Although, no fuzzy psychic stuff is really necessary here. Just a natural and ongoing reverberation and reflection of energy patterns forward and backward in time.

'No fuzzy stuff,' eh?




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Just to bump this thread:

I have yet to see provided any evidence to support the position of Creationism. I am open to examining it and will not dismiss it outright, though it will be subject to the same intense level of scrutiny I would show to any scientific claim.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



Everything you've just said comes from human understanding and interpretation and is therefore inherently flawed. It's just a meme, a unit of information, a label imposed on something to split it from others based on human understanding.


Can you show me just one thing in this world that isn't said or written about by anyone, which isn't of human understanding ???

So are you sugesting that all is Flawed, including what you say or write ???
edit on 8-10-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

With regards to the OP, evolution is a theory or a thought.

Thoughts originate in the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

The consciousness of the 'thinker' rests on the assumption of the metaphysical duality--that is, of a fundamental separation between consciousness and the physical reality--a dualistic thought or belief that cannot be proven, but can only be accepted on faith.

All of science is based upon the metaphysical duality and the assumption that, for all practical purposes, the consciousness of the 'thinker' is the only consciousness capable of attaing the "Absolute Truth". To the scientific method, the consciousness of the 'thinker' is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the Creator Himself.

In other words, the scientific method categorically denies that there is any other dimension of consciousness through which information can be obtained about reality.

Inasmuch as the findings of the Jungian and archetypal analysts deal with what is referred to as the 'unconscious' rather than the consciousness of the 'thinker', such findings occur outside of the framework and paradigm of the scientific method itself. That is, the consciousness of the "self" is another dimension of consciousness entirely, which exists outside of the paradigm of science.

But, in the Eastern estoteric tradition, there is another dimension of consciousness which is not only beyond thought (and logical proof); it is also beyond the findings of the Jungian analysts with regards to the "self". That dimension of consciousness is referred to as the non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

Oh, by the way, the religionists make precisely the same error as do the evolutionists/scientists.

They, too, assume that the consciousness of the 'thinker'--that is, the theologies of the theologians--is (are) capable of attaining to the "Absolute Truth". To the religionists, the consciousness of the 'thinker'--and its ability to understand and re-formulate Revealed Truth--is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the Creator Himself.

In other words, to the religionists, the consciousness of the 'thinker' is the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27).

But this is an error.

Both the dualistic consciousness of the "self" /"not self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker'/'doubter' are elements of the 'fallen' consciousness; being referred to as, respectively, the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and the "beast of the sea"; and the "fig leaves" and the "beast of the earth".

So, it all comes down to what you want to have faith in.

Do you want to have faith in the metaphysical duality underlying the scientific method--something which cannot be proven?

Do you want to have faith in the lies of the theologians, which turn Revealed Truth upside down--and which also cannot be proven?

Or do you want to have faith in those Revelations themselves--which also cannot be proven?

Michael



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Not to be rude. But evolution is a fact. Why is there countless evidence to support evolution?
How could it still be a theory?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here's a thread I created explaining evolution.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Not to be rude. But evolution is a fact.


Not to be rude. But the Vision of the "Son of man" is a fact. The Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives are facts.

In other words, the definition of "fact" is relative to the frame of reference in terms of consciousness.

You say that evolution is a fact--according to the frame of reference of the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

But, from the frame of reference of the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God', the Vision and the Revelation of the "resurrection" are facts.

It is similar to the different perceptions depending upon frame of reference of a person who drops a ball on a moving train.

To the person on the train, the ball drops in a perpendicular line to the floor of the train.

To the person in the train station observing that ball drop, it is clearly a curved path with motion along the "x" axis due to the motion of the train, as well as motion along the "y" axis--the distance the ball drops to the floor of the train. In other words, the person on the train is incapable of perceiving the path of the ball as a result of the motion of the train.

Both the person on the train and the person in the train station can swear on a stack of any Revelations you mention that the path of the ball is either straight or curved; precisely as they see it. Both descriptions are valid even though they are fundamentally contradictory.

They merely originate in different frames of reference.

Similar to the facts of science as compared to the facts of Revelation.

Michael



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Well that is your faith and your logic. I don't believe in Jesus and there is no proof or support for Jesus. So please don't try to scare me with the book of Revelations.
New Revelations



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Right, I am a creationist-evolutionist.

I believe everything was created to evolve.

The question is kind of moot though. From what did everthing evolve? A single cell? An amoeba?

And where did the amoeba come from? The sand? And where did sand come from? Etc. etc, etc.

See where i am going with this?

Something was created, and this started the evolutionary process.

vvv





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join