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.


The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by filosophia

you must be talking to someone else, because I never claimed to support the THEORY of quantum physics. I also never attempted to take the side of the stalwart scientist. I'm saying that you cannot use a man's ideas and opinions as proof of anything. If i wrote a book about how aliens make milkshakes for orphans, would 2,000 years turn it from something some guy wrote into proof? Just because philosophers have thought and wrote about God and creation doesn't make it true. What about all of the philosophy that contradicts other works? if they agree with you, they are evidence of god, but if they don't, they're just some guy's writings, right?

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:31 AM
I don't understand why evolution is brought up in every thread having to do with creation..... Since when has evolution ever claimed to know how life originated here??? I would really like to know this, can someone show me where in the theory evolution explains how the first life came to be?

edit on 13-4-2011 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by Exhibeo

right. we would all be better off if we just never talked about anything we disagree about? So there has never been a creationist who believes in evolution? a darwinist christian? people can't change their minds? spirited debate doesn't make you smarter?
I've learned things from this thread without a change to my original opinion on the topic, and I learned them from people who disagree with me! If you think that a discussion is pointless, why would you post on it at all?
By your own admission, you know that you're not going to get these people to change their minds or stop "arguing" (some of us call it debating). so why not just move on, and leave us to debate and argue and bicker and expand our own personal horizons in peace?

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by DaGremlin

the OP is saying that relegating your entire existence to "god did it" doesn't help us understand the nature of the world around us any better. So, do you have a comment on that topic? because the OP never said that evolution disproves creationism, now did he say that one can exist without the other. So what is your argument for the merits of creationism? how does it help us exist more efficiently in our current universe?

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM

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 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 are definately correct on this the problem is that science as we know it is almost absolute evidence of evil in the world and in control of most of science as we know it, which counters your entire arg.
I will give a short list,
Flouride, a petrolium by-product. What was science answer to getting rid of this poison? Give it to kids to drink.
Now we are coming into an era where crop diseases can be passed to humans...thanks science (the evolution kind)
Can you say M O N S A N T O ? The nemesis for all those that breath. Can we not understand that wheat rust is man-made by "scientists" that have an allegiance to their benefactors?
With the bee die-offs it's a good thing that mansanto has created crops that do not need bees to pollinate it.
The chemtrails and all the aluminum being dumped on the soil that destroys crops. Good thing Monsanto has crops that aren't effected by aluminum?????
But when it comes to my relationship with my Creator, I love life and appreciate every breath and am enamored by all life.
I grow food and raise animals and I love everything that breaths. ooooooo, and Sounds funny to even say it.
Now do not get me wrong, I love science and it is important to us to understand LIFE. It's when science becomes a religion that it gets seriouly strange and void of "life" It's proselytitites love to prech this gospel as absolute, until they change their conclusions and then they adjust and blame some creationsist for it ;-)

See the difference is in the results.
You see science in being important to make things easy for you to live within it's realm. I see Creation in a way that allows me to live my life far beyond science's limitations.
I get fulfillment even when things go drasticly wrong. Because I do not take my life for granted because life is something I cherish. Not just my life but all life.
I have a hard time thinking that someone who thinks they are a cosmic accident based on evolution "science" can ever understand life in it's beauty as I do.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:34 AM
I am not a proponent of creationism (nor am I an opponent of those who adhere to it.) I’m an agnostic skeptic, if I have to label myself something.

Nevertheless, it is my opinion that a belief does not have to have obvious utility, make predictions, describe properties, or offer a means of exploiting said properties, in order to be of value to the holder of the belief. There are perspectives, thoughts, feelings, and outlooks which can arise from a belief - however irrational or baseless it may on the surface appear to the skeptic - which are of value to the believer.

Who am I to argue against their adherence to it? Now, if they assert that I must adhere to their belief or attempt to persuade me to agree with it, then I will politely tell them I respect their beliefs but do not share their view. And if they persist, then I will endeavor to have a respectful discussion with them about our different points of view. But that’s another story entirely, and it is not my desire or mission to disabuse anyone of their beliefs.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by DaGremlin

the OP is saying that relegating your entire existence to "god did it" doesn't help us understand the nature of the world around us any better. So, do you have a comment on that topic? because the OP never said that evolution disproves creationism, now did he say that one can exist without the other. So what is your argument for the merits of creationism? how does it help us exist more efficiently in our current universe?

Well there are a lot of different angles you can come at it from. I'll offer one of them. Note I am not purporting this to be THE one... only A one.

Read through the Hidden_Hand interview that took place here on ATS. It is long, and please give it a chance to make it all the way through as he may start off on topics that make you go "WTF am I reading this for?" I don't know your variations of understandings so just covering my bases. Also, when you get to the part where he's making predictions, try to reflect and understand he's essentially telling a joke/playing a prank on those who kept asking for predictions.

The difference between a world with a "creator" or "original idea generator" and one which is utterly random is the potential for purpose. The "Why am I here?" aspect.

I have come to understand our purpose here is to evolve our consciousness.

If the Hidden Hand interview clicks with you at all (especially if you make it to the end), then consider diving into the "The Law of One". It's MUCH longer and less direct, but gets deeper into the aspects of understanding the nature of existence and the universe from a "creator" perspective that isn't the Children's Story version, but does still come with information that helps you more efficiently exist in your universe.

Now you may scoff at channelling and such... so I will simply offer this ATS thread that recently popped up. I used to make fun of people who considered channelling to be anything but delusion, but I decided rather than take someone else's word for it I would spend some time trying to understand *why* these people were deluding themselves. I came out the other side going "Well I'll be damned".
This from an ardent atheist Science and Materialism Uber Alles person just a few years ago, heh.


To offer another perspective on what the current couch potato science "debate" with creationism is like:

Take the story of Rudolf The Red Nosed Reindeer. The current approach the scientific fundamentalist mindset takes is to attack the story because it is absurd. It *can't* be true. It's about animals we know can't fly, biological effects we know can't happen, and a man we know doesn't exist doing an activity in one night we know is impossible.

But this misses the point completely of the TRUE METAPHOR being told, which carries with it foundational aspects to help us understand ourselves better, our relationships with others better, and to recognize these aspects of ourselves and the world around us so we can make it a better place to live.

This is true of virtually all metaphors embedded in stories. The story uses concepts which help us visualize abstract relationships between each other in an interesting and meaningful way. Clinical psychology is boring for most people... and they will learn more meaningful understanding of their own consciousness and emotions from Rudolf than from books on clinical psychology. The message on Rudolf is universal and always true. Clinical psychology is constantly changing and redefining itself.

Every idea you have, every concept you hold, is a metaphor (suggested reading: The Bicameral Mind: On the Origins of Consciousness... as well as The Master and His Emissary). The concept of "Tree" is not A tree... it is a metaphor. When you look at a tree, you aren't seeing the tree as it is, you are seeing it as the metaphor your mind constructs based on the patterns it has been conditioned to perceive. A dog sees a different tree, a bird sees it differently, and a bee sees it differently as well.

We are all the "blind scientists" touching different parts of an elephant and trying to describe what it is. To some it's a big cylindar (the leg). To some it's a hose (the trunk), to some it's a brush (the tail), to some it's a bellows (the belly), etc. We are frequently arguing at each other trying to convince the other what it is, rather than synthesizing all of our views into a larger coherent view of the elephant.

This is a handful of things to help someone see where the idea of a creator who has a "point" to this experience can change the approach and efficiency of your life vs pure randomness. Understanding that point can help greatly, but it requires understanding the metaphor of Rudolf, not the detailed analysis of the facts that can be described.

When you realize YOU are the creator, then you're really starting to get somewhere. This is what Buddhism, Hinduism, and all these other non-Organized-Christian teachings have been trying to explain for so long. Even esoteric Christianity and the true teachings of Jesus were trying to wake us up via metaphor to the true nature of reality and how your consciousness relates to it as a co-creator of "reality".

Hope that helps, joyful journeys!


posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:48 AM

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

TheUniverse came to be therefore it is submissive to time.
The creator is responsible for time... therefore the creator did not come to be,
But rather simply is.

The universe is proven to not be infinite... thus its subservience to time.
And yet time is said to exist as a dimension within the universe...

What else is also considered within and without the universe and also before and also a part of the universe?
Couldn't be...

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:57 AM
Let me break this down, and type as I think...;
(this is no allegations nor claims - just close to nonsense -ramblings)

Nothing can be created from nothing, and creation does not work without time.

Time is the effect of an ever continuously expanding universe. It does not grow in size; it's only the effect of the time-span between everything which increase! (I have no source for this other than: a cat told me)

The power of "God" is neither a cause or an effect, not "to be" but "the opportunity to become"...
Therfore "God" can not be explained with using scientific terms, but rather by using creativity's own language; "art"! Defining God as anything else than the nature of art would be - I guess... insane!

Religions is defined by beliefs concerning cause and purpose; complementary to politics it can be combined with drugs
(I do not trust a religious man which is not under the influence of hallucinogens) if I got this straight/right; Creationism is a religious belief based on a theory that everything was created from nothing by something/someone outside of (or before) time... - in other words they believe it all started with a "ONE"!
....-hmmm... when do the creation-process end and where do the destruction start?
Well---, personally, if it has to be a "start", I rather lean towards a belief of time, existence, being, or whatever -started with "NUL"!

The topic of this thread really remind me of the soul vs. ego paradox!
So what do you value the most; your soul or your (current) life? this also apply to your pet?
(sorry for the shortfall of logic; I just ate too much strawberry icecream!)

-When one think of of the amount of ancestors who contribute to the fractal chain of lives down to one individual, and the unbroken chain of daughters becoming mothers - time becomes of lesser importance, and if there ever is a cause (creation), it's not of any significance....

--But then in the light of evolution;.... monkeyman ate a shroom, and become aware of existence, and asked why? It went viral and people is still asking...

Those who not only have evolved on the surface of earth in the same way which mold spread it's spores but whom also have enhanced themselves beyond evolution; may recon that the answer to this "why" would be that the mushroom wanted to be eaten so that it could live on in symbioses with your spices - "that's the nature of fungi..."!

Monkeyman has just barely awaken, and stepped out from the woods; the question now is "soma or no-soma?"!...
edit on 13-4-2011 by nakiel because: unwanted typos

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
I have a biology professor friend that once sported a bumper sticker on his truck which said
"God Created Evolution".
No logical person would deny that organisms adapt and 'evolve' to better adjust to their environments.
By the same token, MANY top-notch physicists, mathematicians and biologists concur that some superintellect has toyed with, or had a hand in, physics, chemistry and biology.

To quote Fred Hoyle:
The notion that the operating program of a living cell was somehow fashioned by random chance or error in the primordial organic soup here on the Earth is nonsense of a high order. The random emergence of even the simplest cell is comparable to the likelihood of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:19 PM
Here is my basic understanding of both sides (evolutionary teachings, and creation teachings).

1) Both work on faith, with virtually no real imperical evidence to support either one. Thus they are both believed by faith of their followers.

2) Both are determined to be "correct" by its proponents, almost solely based upon their starting prepositions: Evolution starts with "there is no 'God' ". Creation starts with "there is a 'God' ". And those starting points cause each side to begin their search for answers at that point.

3) Creation teaches that God - as creator - created everything we can possibly name as being "understandable" within our limited and finite minds. It teaches that God originally created us to be in fellowship with Him, and that man was perfect. But man broke the covenant and has basically de-volved since then, until God comes again to correct things once and for all.
Human history taught by science basically teaches that man "came to be" after millenia of planets, stars and space gases coagulated into something living and primitive, and then higher levels of evolution produced humans, and that man has no need for a higher being/deity, as he is quite capable of taking care of himself.

4) so that leaves us with this topic....

Just so you all know, as for me personally, I am absolutely of the creation camp. I totally believe the teaching of God's Word that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. I cannot "PROVE" God to you that dont believe. Thats not my 'job'. God doesnt task me with proving Him. He takes care of that. My task is to tell you of Him, and what He has done in my life, and how He saved me. Nor can you prove that God DOESN'T exist.

So one is free to believe as you choose. But remember all choices - made by your own free will - have consequences, sometimes fatal consequences.

If what I believe and teach is NOT correct, then I am a pitiful fool and wasted this - then - temporal life when I could have been doing many things different. And if scientific/evolutionary teachings of the origin of man and the cosmos is correct, then when we all die and there is some kind of afterlife/reincarnation/exostential conscienous...then feel free to laugh at me and tell me I was wrong.

But then....what about if the creation/God teachings are correct?

Peace to you all.

edit on 13/4/11 by TrailGator because: forgot to add something.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by DrChuck

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

If you really did know about chromosome 2, you would know that it does prove evolution occurs.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The story of creation wasn't meant to explain very much. It basically just says, "God did this. Go explore on your own".

How fantastic is that? How boring would it be if the Bible was a 20-million page book of tedious explanation? It's far better to figure it out for ourselves. Every new discovery should be a point of wonder for anyone with a brain.

AND far better that we have free will. That I can believe God did it, and you can believe in a master alien race, or cosmic accident, or whatever.

Science is humanity's attempt to explain for ourselves the inner workings of the universe. And study on! I love every minute of it. Whether your belief system is right or mine is -- IS TOTALLY BESIDE THE FACT.

So get off it. And get on with learning more about this amazing world we live in. Leave your belief system at the door.
edit on 13-4-2011 by Schkeptick because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by DrChuck

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

If you really did know about chromosome 2, you would know that it does prove evolution occurs.

It proves *change* has happened.

This is the fallacy inherent in assuming evolution as it is currently understood is the end of the story. Yes, a change happened, and yes, we can pinpoint the time. But no... it does not PROVE that it happened by chance, by divine intervention, or by alien genetic manipulation. It only demonstrates a change happened.


posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by samaka
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.

How does science support "creationism" examples please. provide actual evidence, not hokey psychobabble about how "god is infinite and the infinite is conscious" and all the other various nonsense that's so often spouted by creationists. Evolution has nothing to do with "faith". Science it not a religion. It seems you have your terms confused.

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. (wiki)

Faithfrom Latin fides, the notion of "trust" or "belief"; the belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation; the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (wiki)

Religiona cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. (wiki)

Again, very typical trying to redefine words to suit your own means. Doesn't make what you are saying "correct".

Originally posted by samakaEvolution is not science fact, nobody has ever proved it, as today it remains a theory.

Another case of Creationist not understanding what the theory of Evolution actually says.

Claim: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.

Reality: The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Originally posted by samakaThere 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.

Another standard Creationist claim that again, speaks toward their misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually says.

Claim: Many mainstream scientists point out serious problems with evolution, including problems with some of its most important points.

There are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution. Claims that there are fall into two (overlapping) categories:

Some supposed problems are questions about details about the mechanisms of evolution. There are, and always will be, unanswered details in every field of science, and evolution is no exception. Creationists take controversies about details out of context to falsely imply controversy about evolution as a whole.

Some supposed problems are misunderstandings, ignorance, or fraudulent claims about what the science says.

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.

Yet another one. Again misunderstanding of the facts and of reality

ClaimThe theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.

Reality# Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it....

...Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:

* Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
* Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
* Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
* Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness (see more)

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:

* enzymes (Arnold 2001)
* pigments (Arnold 2001)
* antibiotics
* flavors
* biopolymers
* bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.

Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

Originally posted by samakaIf 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?

...the idea that because it's complicated or because YOU don't understand it, means it was "created intelligently". This is simply an "argument from incredulity" and it doesn't work. If you want you can check this out to see why (here, here, here)

Originally posted by samakaevolutionist 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...

Again, showing your ignorance. Why don't you try reading about what the theory of evolution actually says.
edit on 13-4-2011 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
No reason to assume human evolution occurred through some other agency when we know the cause, the source, and the mechanisms of chromosomal and molecular change in all other species, and when the same evidence is found in humans.

Did aliens preserve trans-specific MHC alleles in primates too?

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by TrailGator
Here is my basic understanding of both sides (evolutionary teachings, and creation teachings).

1) Both work on faith, with virtually no real imperical evidence to support either one. Thus they are both believed by faith of their followers.

Incorrect. See me response in the last post about the assertion that "evolution is not proven".
Also the idea that "evolution required faith" here, here, here

Facts: evolution has been proven. It is not a "religion", nor does it require "faith" (again, see/read above links)

Originally posted by TrailGator2) Both are determined to be "correct" by its proponents, almost solely based upon their starting prepositions: Evolution starts with "there is no 'God' ".

This is simply a lie, evolution says no such thing. Again, total misunderstanding of what the theory actually says. (here, here)

Originally posted by TrailGatorJust so you all know, as for me personally, I am absolutely of the creation camp. I totally believe the teaching of God's Word that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. roponents, almost solely based upon their starting prepositions: Evolution starts with "there is no 'God' ".

I said this before to another person. Science and verifiable truth are totally different than "faith" "religion" and "dogma" and misrepresenting the theory of evolution is certainly one of the many dishonesties that persist among anti-evolutionists / creationists. Again, why don't you try reading about what evolution theory actually says:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
No reason to assume human evolution occurred through some other agency when we know the cause, the source, and the mechanisms of chromosomal and molecular change in all other species, and when the same evidence is found in humans.

Did aliens preserve trans-specific MHC alleles in primates too?

Please consider what I was stating. I was pinpointing the difference between PROOF and reasonable conclusion based on the current understanding. There was no reason to suppose the atom was divisible until the understanding increased. There was no reason to suppose increased speed increased mass and decreased space until understanding increased. There was no reason to suppose quantum supposition and entanglement through time and space were solid until understanding increased.

There is no reason to believe a conspiracy until understanding increases. No reason to believe in life on other planets currently, only a supposition based on a lot of threads that make it seem "pretty possible". There was no reason to believe there was such a thing as a "master cell" that could become "all cells" and that skin cells could be turned back into a stem cell until our understanding increased.

There were a lot of reasons to not believe what we believe now... you only have the benefit of happening to live after the people already did the work and for some reason want to believe you live at a time where we've pretty much got all the big questions figured out and we're now just working out the details.

History demonstrates there is no reason to believe this either.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by DaGremlin

Did you really call me a troll? Wow... personal name-calling is awesome ☺

As for an attack on Christianity, no. It is not an attack. My POV on religion is this: ALL monotheistic religions need to STFU about how their God is the right one, because their God is the same as the next. They are all the same God! MONO-theistic means ONE GOD. I don't care what you call him/her/it.... its the same as mine, as a Muslim's, as a Jew's, a Christian's, a Baha'i's, ect,....

If you want to toss out a reference to any holy book, I can toss out a scientific theory that better explains that religious claims. I'm not against God, I am against people's "need" for religion.

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Albert Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited...". You can say I have evidence and I have facts but with a new discovery those facts and evidence goes out the window. We shouldn't limit our understanding of the world because of religion and we shouldn't be limited to this world because of science. Sometimes we need to think outside the box to find the answers.

We don't know jack**** about our planet nor our universe so how can we sit back and claim the universe was made by chance or a creator? The difference between the two is that religion says they don't know so they say a creator did it, science claims they know but can't find a consistent analysis to the universe we are in, not to mention the hundreds ob billions of other ones.

All I am saying is that we need to think outside the box sometimes, you shouldn't be limited to thew knowledge that has been written in stone. If you rely solely on that you won't get far, I am talking about religion too. If you stick your nose in the bible and not evolve than you will be stuck in the last century.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in