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.


Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

page: 36
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Techy
Both creationism and evolution are impossible.

Something needed to create God, but something needed to create matter. Until someone comes up with a theory to explain either of them, you can't prove them.
edit on 8/3/2011 by Techy because: (no reason given)

One of them has objective evidence backing it up, the other doesn't. So only one is least if you care about facts and base creationism on any of the world's religions.

Secondly, the theory of evolution makes no claims regarding how life started in the first place, so comparing creationism to evolution is silly

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

What you ask of me is impossible to define in this thread and involves knowledge from a full time occupation (plus other time outside working hours) in work I have been exposed to, over a period of about 17 years involving many others behind closed doors...

This has only been because of the nature of the work and the fact that this recent knowledge is still being compiled, let alone proving such theories.

There has also been much practical work done in this area developing new technologies, but we still require greater understanding with what we are dealing with, and the social implications of releasing what is known to date. However there will be some technologies released regarding "Interfaces" with the Mind.

Regarding the Mind this can be divided into two basic theories...

a. The Mind is purely the result of the Brains functions.
b. The Mind is NOT part of the Brain and the Brain is used as a Decoder/Encoder between LIFE crudely defined as "Awareness" by some, having a nature of that like not unlike a “Comparator”,
The brain as you know also manages some functions of the body we experience this environment through, which is also an “Iinterface.

From what I have seen, I go with the latter, but in saying this LIFE needs to be better Understood and most of all, redefined..

I can't see much literature coming to light, over the next 10 years anyway, as it is early days yet.
But a couple of us, are hoping to publish three books early in 2012 delivering the theory behind all this anyway.

These will only be of a very elementary nature, and only serves as an introduction to the work I am currently involved with.

The greatest hurdle being the English language… Requires additional words not yet in use… LOL.

As you said there are different theories and what I have come to know, requires words to describe, which don't appear in the English language….. Yet… LOL.

The god/s which the “Species” imagines to exist, I don't agree with, but there is a “Root” to all which we experience, such as sight, taste, smell, and hearing...

And involves a second story...

The first story is what you observe and interpret according to the perception of the “Species”.

The Other Story is Nothing at all like the First, but involves what produces the first story.

The Second Story involves “LIFE” and “Communication”.

As you know there are many different forms of “Communication” and is a very involved and Complex area.

Regarding the word or “Component” we call LIFE is certainly Not a simple subject and in fact, little is known today... We are learning though, even if very slowly… LOL.

What is commonly defined as Life, is from my perspective, “Active Biological Robotics” and Not the motive drive which is in the Root of all.

So this is where the debate stems from... "What is the Correct Definition of LIFE"?

As you well know this is subjective, and open to interpretation by or through the “Species”.

It is ones “Interpretation” which limits ones understanding...

I do accept EVOLUTION, but more to the Point the mechanism behind this, is yet to be fully understood and appreciated by Science.

But in saying this, Science is on the brink of discovering new areas involving this subject, and it is my impression, that it will take perhaps another 1,000 years or so for the “Species”, to even start to appreciate what exists.

Religion invented by the "Species" is certainly Not the answer, as Religion Corrupts knowledge, by the very fact it is the "Species" which manipulates the thinking of others in the view of political Control.

Once Religion is dumped or scrapped and the “Species” comes to accept first, the physical nature of themselves, then and only then, will they be able to explore those areas, which involve the production of what we experience and observe...

Although I often discuss Religious material, this does NOT mean I am Religious...

I am very much a Nuts and Bolts Engineer...

If we ask the right Questions we often get the right Answers..
But if we ask the wrong Questions we find the wrong answers…

Remember for exampleThomas Alva Edison improved the invention and based his improvements on a patent he purchased from inventors Henry Woodward & Matthew Evans who patented their bulb in 1875.
As he said he discovered a million and one different ways (or something like that) of how Not to produce the Light bulb, before finding the correct way… But that is one form of Science isn’t it?

Not sure if this helps or not?

I am not really interested in debate, as I don't have the time right now, and have only posted this to bump your thread...

new topics
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in