It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Evolution is your mother telling you not to put your hand in the fire because it will burn you...

Creationism is your mother telling you not to put your hand in the fire because she said so!

One teaches you something and allows you to apply that knowledge in the future and to understand the past.

The other...well... not so much help.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
8 pages to debate creationism? I'd think people would've realized by now that these kinds of topics can go on for hundreds of pages, regurgitating the same "facts" ad infinitum. Seems rather silly, folks. Everyone is always going to be "right". o_Oa



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by uscitizen859
My problem with the evolution theory is as follows:

If we evolved from apes or monkey's or whatever than we would still be whitnessing it everyday. How come there aren't any apes or whatever in the process of evolving to a higher being such as ourselves? When did the evolution stop for the rest of the monkey's and apes?

Your problem with the theory of evolution is that you don't really know what it says. If you did, you wouldn't say that "we evolved from apes or monkey's or whatever". We share a common ancestor with apes and, going back further, apes and humans share a common ancestor with monkeys. In other words, the apes and monkeys you see now evolved from those common ancestors. Evolution doesn't mean movement toward a "higher being" - it means better fitness for one's environment. If there's no environmental pressure for a population of organisms to evolve the same features that we have, that population of organisms won't.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
If God is immaterial, then God cannot interact with physical material.
The universe is made of physical particles, each type of particle interacts with the others around it.
THUS God, not being able to physically interact with physical material, could not have created the universe. Sure, I agree that God probably exists in a non-physical form. God is probably the collective gathering of all intelligent thoughts being pulled to the center of the universe, but this just means God is able to communicate through the mind.

The universe, as it has been proven, is moving faster and farther from the original point of origin. This is observable evidence to be able to dismiss the idea that God created the universe. Organisms on earth date back nearly 3.9 billion years ago. This, again, is proof against creationism, in which it is believed that God created the earth and everything that ever has been on it in 6 days (rested on the 7th).

Say what you want about evolutionism, but the truth is pretty obvious. If you wish to remain stuck in the dark ages with your beliefs, I won't stop you. All I ever ask people it to attempt to look outside of that vantage point of life and existence. If you don't like it, you get scared, or you honestly need that religious crutch to get through life then go back to it.

That is all religion really is. A crutch for the weak-willed, and it is a tool to be wielded by those in power. Look at what happens when someone declares a holy war... everyone jumps on some side of that bandwagon, be it for or against. If God could intervene in the physical world, then don't you think God would attempt to stop people from killing in his name? Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by daggyz
 

There are species of birds that have underdeveloped wings that use them to aid in climbing. Your argument is sort of a macroscopic version of Behe's irreducible complexity - that a structure must have all of its parts, or be fully formed in the example you present, to be useful. Transitional morphologies can be just as useful.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Creatism dont do jack... that was funny



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by infojunkie2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


If science can absolutely tell us how humans were created,then it seems that a scientist
with that knowledge should be able to create a human too,if one knows how something is made then they can remake it, right? This looks like that there is a scientific problem with science,
edit on 12-4-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)


hmm thinking thinking ! making a human ! hmm

your Partial Answer!



(CBSNEWS)

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2010
Scientists Make Synthetic Cell With Manmade DNA
www.cbsnews.com...

(Scientific American)

Man-Made Genetic Instructions Yield Living Cells for the First Time
Scientists create the first microbe to live under the instruction of DNA synthesized in the lab
www.scientificamerican.com...


In the Near Distant future maybe 9 years! ?? 2019 ! We will see this

Replicant
en.wikipedia.org...



For the OP! We are Both ! Start from Evolution and a Boost of Creation ! by Another Highly Developed Evolution Being !
The Evolution can be Seen from our Useless left over parts you know PARANASAL SINUSES ,VOMERONASAL ORGAN(pheromone-detecting) , EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES,(Like dogs rabbits) THIRD EYELID,NECK RIB(reptilian ) ,PALMARIS MUSCLE(tree hanger APE) APPENDIX (eating more plant matter ) ETC check the lick below for more !

( Discover Magazine)

Useless Body Parts
discovermagazine.com...

and for Creation Well Chromosome 2 fusion



Ken Miller on Human Evolution (Evolutionist )


Lloyd Pye version of the chromosome 2 (Creationist )

Lloyd Pye - Ancient Genetic Engineering


God is a Genetic Scientist! We are created by science and technology

it not Hocus Pocus Magic ! Either from another dimension to a another World!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by letmeDANz
 


How about there is nobody here, not even you. You are just watching a dreamer have a dream. All there is, is the dream. No control over the dreamer or the dream.



sorry i have lucid dreams all the timie so i have control over my dreams and i just did a reality check and this is not a dream



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
There has always been something here. Kinda hard to wrap your mind around it but even if you believe that there was nothing and the universe just popped into existence one day than you should have no problem believing there has always been a creator here. You can't believe one and deny the other.

As for our understanding that's just silly. A creator will be on such a higher level that there is no way you could expect to have their level of comprehension or understanding of the reasons they do such things.

Your dog doesn't know why you leave each day and return, only that you do. It's beyone their level of comprehension. Trying to apply your little human knowledge to the motivations behind a God is utterly pointless.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
Ah, I just looked, and user "idontcollectstamps" didn't get anything verifiable/scientific either...he had to "help you out"...I guess we're all being ignored then.


Yes, when you don't understand the concept being presented, it is easy to call it "unverifiable".

You and idontcollectstamps are acting out the part of the scientists who refused to accept plate tectonics because you can't wrap your minds around the principles being presented.

This is where we are at in this conversation. We both like geometry... we both use geometry to calculate areas, etc. I have gone off and learned calculus. I've come back and said "Hey... Geometry is cool... but here is another way that you can *also* use to calculate areas and it is a whole lot more flexible for certain operations!". You want to be told how calculus works in a few moments (aka forum post) rather than going off to spend the year learning calculus. You get annoyed because a whole lot of symbols you don't understand are used and it all looks like gibberish. I keep trying to offer the basic principles, show you articles from other mathemeticians explaining *their* support for it... yet you keep asking for a full on proof of calculus itself. A proof that if you can't see the principles, you won't understand the proof.

I guarantee you don't know the proof of what current pop-sci arguments tell you. However you've decided to put your faith in them. A faith in a group that for hundreds of years denied meteors existed. Denied plate tectonics. Couldn't conceive of quantum mechanics. Said it would be impossible to fly. Came up with bizarre theories to explain things that were later revised when more data was acquired.

You STILL LIVE in a time where science is making the best estimate it can based on what it knows now. This is a closed loop logic system... I provided the Incompleteness Theorems for you to consider the limitations of closed loop logic. I am trying to show you that science is right now... arguing this very perspective. idontcollectstamps got huffy about the fine tuning argument in Biocentrism... which shows he has no clue that the debate is one physics is engaged in.

I'm skeptical you read the PDF I provided, but instead just took idontcollectstamps response as gospel and regurgitate it, because it conforms to your world view.

Another poster here tried to use Kenneth Miller as proof to argue against creationism. This is a good one because Kenneth Miller is also a Christian. He is saying what a handful of us in here are trying to get you to wake up to... that the creationism of Children is NOT the only story... and that they can (and do, once you have raised your awareness level enough) exist together. You are upset about the Children's Story version of creationism, and that is rightfully so. However you truly do not understand the principles being provided. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

We are at the point of the bigger picture of the universe understanding that is similar to when Plate Tectonics was being discussed in academia... but had not reached the public at large yet. So you won't get an easily digestible pop-sci article spelling it out for you in the way you want. That's ok... you can just sit back and wait for the people you've but your faith in to finally say "It's ok to believe this now", or you can use your talents of discernment and get out there to research for yourself and start pulling all the threads together. I can't pull the threads together for you... I can show them to you and how they cross.

Multiple people in here are trying to say the same thing in different ways to jar your perceptions loose. You've been tricked into a limited way of perceiving and understanding and it puts you at the mercy of others and a closed loop logic system that can only expand when something from the outside knocks it over completely. The linear material world view is getting knocked over... it's your choice to dig into it to see it as its happening or to be surprised after it happens.

Some suggested reading: The Master and his Emissary, The User Illusion, Biocentrism.


Originally posted by Helmkat
Evolution is your mother telling you not to put your hand in the fire because it will burn you...

Creationism is your mother telling you not to put your hand in the fire because she said so!

One teaches you something and allows you to apply that knowledge in the future and to understand the past.

The other...well... not so much help.


You have been tricked into believing there is only one concept of creationism. When you can understand true infinity and consciousness within it, quantum mechanics and the current verifiable tests regarding the universe basically existing only in our minds, the nature of consciousness regarding linear vs non-linear processing, and the subconscious knowing what you are going to do before YOU know what you are going to do... you can start to approach a more complete understanding that stops this silly debate with the Children's Story of creationism and is ready to discuss the deeper metaphors intended in those ancient texts.


Originally posted by Seitler
If God is immaterial, then God cannot interact with physical material.
The universe is made of physical particles, each type of particle interacts with the others around it.
THUS God, not being able to physically interact with physical material, could not have created the universe. Sure, I agree that God probably exists in a non-physical form. God is probably the collective gathering of all intelligent thoughts being pulled to the center of the universe, but this just means God is able to communicate through the mind.


You are about 100 years out of date on science. What is material? It's nothing... it doesn't exist. QM experiments are getting more and more detailed in proving this. Matter is nothing but light... and light isn't even as real as you seem to have been led to believe.

It's all immaterial. Science is verifying this, but most people are refusing to accept it.


Originally posted by Seitler
The universe, as it has been proven, is moving faster and farther from the original point of origin. This is observable evidence to be able to dismiss the idea that God created the universe. Organisms on earth date back nearly 3.9 billion years ago. This, again, is proof against creationism, in which it is believed that God created the earth and everything that ever has been on it in 6 days (rested on the 7th).


Stop limiting your mind to one version.... which is really meant for Children. You are arguing against something that is 1) Meant to be understood as metaphor for a process and 2) So distorted that you are wasting your time even thinking about it. Yes it sucks that there are grown adults who believe the children's story version of the origins of the universe... but if you stay trapped thinking that's the whole story you will never find the deeper discussion that *is* happening in science right now. Just not in the public at large.


Originally posted by Seitler
Say what you want about evolutionism, but the truth is pretty obvious. If you wish to remain stuck in the dark ages with your beliefs, I won't stop you. All I ever ask people it to attempt to look outside of that vantage point of life and existence. If you don't like it, you get scared, or you honestly need that religious crutch to get through life then go back to it.


Hear my words. Evolution is true. The Children's Story of creationism is absurd.

A form of creationism that has been spoken of in metaphor by various people in al times and places, but is now bearing itself out in our understanding of Quantum Mechanics, infinity, Consciousness, etc is "evolving" right under your feet.

Do *you* want to be the one stuck in the dark ages? We seem to keep forgetting what the world view was before relativity and quantum mechanics. We sit here thinking "We've pretty much got it all figured out" and thinking it would be impossible for everything to be flipped upside down *that* hard.


Originally posted by Seitler
That is all religion really is. A crutch for the weak-willed, and it is a tool to be wielded by those in power. Look at what happens when someone declares a holy war... everyone jumps on some side of that bandwagon, be it for or against. If God could intervene in the physical world, then don't you think God would attempt to stop people from killing in his name? Just a thought.


All the scientific "Don't believe until we TELL you it's ok to believe" establishment really is as well. A crutch to prevent people from thinking for themselves. I am not religious. Nor do I believe in God even in the detailed way you purport to. Yet I can still see and understand how both evolution and "creation" work.

You have simply chosen to sit on the other side of the holy war. Stop throwing stones and start trying to understand. Your own masters of science are actually putting everything out there you need to see it, but it's not something that is being bandied about publicly because it *is* hard to wrap our minds around and involves shedding a whole lot of yelling at people. Mea Culpas don't come easily. Both sides are going to be doing it though... and for the handful of us in here who have put in the effort to find this out just have to wait and patiently watch the yelling about which side of the coin is right to slowly resolve.

Joy and fun on your ride through life!
Namaste

edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Typo fixes.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.

Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.

Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.


This post seems trollish to me quite honestly. Believe it or not...theories of creation can be scientific. Also, "science" can exist with "creationism." One does not at all preclude the other.

It takes a leap of faith to believe in evolution. To some not a huge leap...but still a leap. It also takes faith to believe in creation. There are also people that believe in both. To believe in the big bang theory is a different thing than to believe in evolution.

What next...a thread about if abortion is wrong or right?

No one has ever (okay...I'm assuming here) changed their stance on something as entrenched as this type of thing based on a thread on a website. People do however get angry and fight or be rude over this kind of stuff all the time...which is why I am calling this a troll thread.
edit on 4/13/11 by DaGremlin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.

Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.

Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.


You have forgotten the pursuit of a little thing called truth. Truth is not scientific; science can never prove a thing to be true, only "rigorously tested", "extremely likely" and/or "fact based".

In this way, your argument is a philosophical blunder. Just because a certain explanation is more useful than another, it does not invalidate the "weaker" argument while unequivocally proving the "stronger". Furthermore, who is to say which explanation has more "power", or which is more "useful"?

Everything that you mentioned - antibiotics, agriculture, etc. can all be applied within a Creationist mindset and model, to achieve the same end.

I believe that the Truth always has explanatory power. Therefore, if Creation is true, it will bring forth exactly what you desire, albeit quite different in appearance from pursuits of modern evolutionary biology.

Cheers,
Cody



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I wrote this on another thread:
The Big Bang Theory.
It is accepted without question that the big bang happened a very, very long time ago, millions of years ago.
My theory turns it all around.

Before the big bang there was nothing, no time, no space, no gravity, nothing.
In deep sleep, there is nothing, no time, no space, no gravity, nothing.
From nothing came everything.
In the dreaming state and in the waking state, from nothing came everything.

Now, this is not just a fanciful theory as quantum mechanics are saying this, but not quite the way i'm saying it.
Quantum Experiments are showing that all things are just waves of possibilities until someone looks at it. There really is no solid physical world out there. Particles, which make up all so called matter, are waves not solid until it is viewed.

So what i am suggesting is that each moment there is something like a chemical reaction; conscious observer + waves of possibility = this life experience. This equation is the big bang.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niccawhois
Why do children get sick and die if God is Goodness?


If you *really* want to know, you need to start looking into things like the "Law of One". Death and suffering are a fundamental part of the illusion of duality we are all experiencing.


Originally posted by DaGremlin
No one has ever (okay...I'm assuming here) changed their stance on something as entrenched as this type of thing based on a thread on a website. People do however get angry and fight or be rude over this kind of stuff all the time...which is why I am calling this a troll thread.


I didn't change my stance due to a single post. But I did have people say things that wound up planting seeds that later got me to see more... even though I argued against them at the time in the same way the "evolution and only evolution" side of the coin are now. Haha.


That's all I'm truly doing here because having been on both sides of the coin, I can completely understand where they are coming from. I'm simply returning the favor that others gave to me that finally helped me break out of it and see the bigger picture and expand my science foundation for understanding.

Glad to see you here!

Namaste
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Typos... always zee typos!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
OP your impression of creationism is wrong usually most evolutionist do. If you really gave creationism a chance you would find that science supports creationism, in fact science is becoming creationism biggest ally. If you think logically you'll find creationism makes far more sense than evolution because in reality evolution is a RELIGION, you must have FAITH if you want evolution to work for you, just like everything else.

Evolution is not science fact, nobody has ever proved it, as today it remains a theory. There are so many things unexplained in evolution that's why many scientist have conflicting data. As time progresses, scientist are beginning to alter their view in evolution and the whole idea that Darwin brought to the table is swept under the rug.

You are right, science gives us many things however evolution doesn't do anything for us we can go as far and say it's useless. Creationism gives us hope, it gives us a way of guidelines to live by, it doesn't do us any harm if we believe it or we don't.

If you want REAL SCIENCE fact, try studying DNA. The more you study DNA the more you'll find that DNA couldn't have created by unguided events, the DNA is so complicated that it's more logical to think that it was created intelligently catch my drift?

Ask yourself this... evolutionist tend to believe that 2 GIANT rocks at the perfect dimensions, perfect speed, perfect rotation, perfect timing collided form the perfect round earth and the perfect size, distants from the sun, rotation, orbit the sun at perfect gravitation force, the collision debris gave us the perfect moon at the perfect distance of the earth, then the conditions of the earth were perfect to combusted life out of nothing... and literally this goes on on all the way until you end up with a human. Does this seem logical that coincedental unguided events took place that are nearly impossible to even happend?

Just for 1 event to even occur would have billions of billions of variables that could alter the outcome of the event which makes next to impossible, then stack with other billions of events...
edit on 13-4-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be? If both options are equally as probable, then I will go with the universe spontaneously coming to be, as there is absolute evidence of the universe, but zero evidence of a creator.

my 2-cents


Good explanation.

I do despise this idea of there being a creator, it holds nothing but an ignorant view instead of searching for a more real answer. Also I despise that scientist use this term of things being created from a certain defined point in time, I neither feel this is a clever explanation either. This seems like a very obvious human trait, to think that everything comes from something, maybe that is not true, maybe things are created in and within this endless universe. More like a sandbox for creation of natural events.

It has no end and no beginning, no colors to its blackness and no real difference to its continuous black void. So why cloud our views even more by pushing the question back further, just deal with what we can detect in the universe we can reach and start there.

I feel our views of our world and universe need to be radically advanced into new ( at the moment ) unimaginable thoughts, so that we are not constrained by our ignorance of what we now know, as that may not be as on point as we first thought.
edit on 13-4-2011 by DenyStupidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by DrChuck
 




There is absolutely no evidence that we have been "evolved", apart from some random remains found that can be explained a plethora of different ways. It is PURE speculation, nothing more, it is based on faith just as religion is. Which is why I don't consider either schools of thought(Creationism & Evolution) the whole truth.


I think you should have a word with chromosome number 2

Human Chromosome 2


Yes, yes, yes, I know about chromosome number 2. Its very interesting, but it neither proves or substantiates evolution.

The most integral part of evolution is reproduction, which means, if there was a common ancestor that had a fusion of chromosomes effectively reducing the count from 48 to 46 then reproduction would be impossible within its species, eventually killing off the aneuploidy as it cannot be passed on.

The only way for this anomaly to survive is if a male and a female of the same species had the same fusion at the same time and found each other, courted and got freaky (maybe Adam & Eve? Just kidding). And if that is what happened we would still, to this day, see the aneuploidy of 46XX/XY from a 48 arise in primate populations. But we don't.
edit on 13-4-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
If God is immaterial, then God cannot interact with physical material.
The universe is made of physical particles, each type of particle interacts with the others around it.
THUS God, not being able to physically interact with physical material, could not have created the universe. Sure, I agree that God probably exists in a non-physical form. God is probably the collective gathering of all intelligent thoughts being pulled to the center of the universe, but this just means God is able to communicate through the mind.

The universe, as it has been proven, is moving faster and farther from the original point of origin. This is observable evidence to be able to dismiss the idea that God created the universe. Organisms on earth date back nearly 3.9 billion years ago. This, again, is proof against creationism, in which it is believed that God created the earth and everything that ever has been on it in 6 days (rested on the 7th).

Say what you want about evolutionism, but the truth is pretty obvious. If you wish to remain stuck in the dark ages with your beliefs, I won't stop you. All I ever ask people it to attempt to look outside of that vantage point of life and existence. If you don't like it, you get scared, or you honestly need that religious crutch to get through life then go back to it.

That is all religion really is. A crutch for the weak-willed, and it is a tool to be wielded by those in power. Look at what happens when someone declares a holy war... everyone jumps on some side of that bandwagon, be it for or against. If God could intervene in the physical world, then don't you think God would attempt to stop people from killing in his name? Just a thought.


So this is just an attack on Christianity...only? There are ridiculous amounts of creation theories other than what Christians think. If you want to start an "i hate Christian" club then go do it somewhere else. Creationism is not just for Christians. To acknowledge the possibility of a creator takes as much of a leap as to acknowledge the work of past scientists that you do not know personally. Your bible is their scientific tests which could have easily been flawed...just like a Christian's bible.

I guarantee you do not know every facet of the evolution theory or big bang theory. It is impossible. You just accept some parts of it without investigating it completely. The truth is...you have already made up your mind about a "creator" and are now constantly seeking out backing for your lifestyle choice.

Your choice in beliefs is your choice. Quit being rude about it.

A crutch for the weak willed? Troll.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyStupidity
It has no end and no beginning, no colors to its blackness and no real difference to its continuous black void. So why cloud our views even more by pushing the question back further, just deal with what we can detect in the universe we can reach and start there.


In order to make progress, you have to imagine something you *can't* detect. And then see whether it holds up or not.


Originally posted by DenyStupidity
I feel our views of our world and universe need to be radically advanced into new ( at the moment ) unimaginable thoughts, so that we are not constrained by our ignorance of what we now know, as that may not be as on point as we first thought.


I've offered one aspect of this via Biocentrism

Another is to consider infinity... TRUE infinity... not a portion of infinity. Understand that consciousness exists within infinity because we have consciousness. This is the leap of imagination: Within TRUE infinity... an infinity with no bounds, there must exist, by necessity... an awareness within said infinity that is aware of all of infinity. There must also exist an infinite number of awarenesses that are aware of subsets of infinity.

Kinda like how in the Mandlebrot set there are an infinite number of similar, yet different number of "baby brots". No two are exactly alike, yet there are an infinite number of them.

Time has been scientifically shown to not be a fixed item, but is just a measurement of change... or "what we measure with clocks"... just as space is not a fixed item and is flexible based on perspective.

Within TRUE infinity is contained the potential for exploring itself, much like how you can explore the Mandlebrot set. Allowing one portion that is "unaware" of another portion to experience the portion it wasn't aware of. However since there is no "past/present/future"... only a giant infinite "now"... an illusion is "created" that gives the sensation of movement/experience. One portion of infinity basically takes itself and invites other portions of infinity to enter into it.

Of course in our linear view of time this is hard to wrap our minds around because all of these things happened "at once", but we are willing to accept what Quantum Mechanics says about time sooo...

The equation... aka "The Word"... aka the "Creation" of the Mandlebrot set is an immaterial equation... which we can then create a *way* of representing it by setting certain limitations on it. These colors, these boundaries, etc. The Mandlebrot set is always "there" yet not really there, and we use some tools to visualize it. You can "travel through" it... yet even if your monitor is only showing you one part, the rest of it is still "out there" as a possibility, even if it hasn't been visualized.

For those who already get this, it's trivial to see... but it is a pain in the ass at first for those still very very attached to Matter and Time and the limitations of this portion of infinity we have the fortune to be able to experience.

Joyful travels through your personal Mandlebrot Set!!!
Namaste
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: You know the drill.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by uscitizen859
My problem with the evolution theory is as follows:

If we evolved from apes or monkey's or whatever than we would still be whitnessing it everyday. How come there aren't any apes or whatever in the process of evolving to a higher being such as ourselves? When did the evolution stop for the rest of the monkey's and apes?

Your problem with the theory of evolution is that you don't really know what it says. If you did, you wouldn't say that "we evolved from apes or monkey's or whatever". We share a common ancestor with apes and, going back further, apes and humans share a common ancestor with monkeys. In other words, the apes and monkeys you see now evolved from those common ancestors. Evolution doesn't mean movement toward a "higher being" - it means better fitness for one's environment. If there's no environmental pressure for a population of organisms to evolve the same features that we have, that population of organisms won't.



Well, what you just said is a problem if evolution. Fitness for one's environment. Primates and man live in the same environment, yet 2 very different outcomes from the same ancestor.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join