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.

 

Arrogant scientists: Creation was not science.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Many scientists said Creation was not science. If so, why don’t they create an inhabitable Mars, or a bird or a grass? Answer: No one can ever do those things. The reasons are:

1.No humans can create a magnetic field for Mars.
2.No humans can create a soul for a bird or a grass. The souls of humans, birds, grasses are within the bodies of such organisms just as energy is within petroleum. Animal cells/organs are just physical expressins of the souls. Living animal organs cannot be separated from souls, which are unknown to scientists. Likewise, DNA is just like a typewriter expressing the souls.

If there is no science in creation, why do we need any scientists to create things? If there is no science in creation of life, how can created beings fit into ecosystems for hundreds of million years? All life exists owing to mutual help, not mutual warring.




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Not to say I agree or disagree with the topic, but your argument is flawed at the outset with the idea that humans cannot do it.

Sure... We cannot do it. That does not mean we never will be able to. It simply means we cannot. Yet.

Just saying... If you're going to argue a topic like that, you're going to be doomed to failure before you even begin.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 



Many scientists said Creation was not science. If so, why don’t they create an inhabitable Mars, or a bird or a grass? Answer: No one can ever do those things. The reasons are:


I effin hate the word can't. I think everyone needs to unlearn this damn word.


1.No humans can create a magnetic field for Mars.


Can we do it now with current technology, no, in the future possibly. Just need to restart mars' core, get that sucker going again and sustained and you've just got yourself a brand spanking new magnetic field.


2.No humans can create a soul for a bird or a grass. The souls of humans, birds, grasses are within the bodies of such organisms just as energy is within petroleum. Animal cells/organs are just physical expressins of the souls. Living animal organs cannot be separated from souls, which are unknown to scientists. Likewise, DNA is just like a typewriter expressing the souls.


Garbage, utter utter utter garbage. We've already created from scratch brand spanking new bacterial cells. It's a small step from a bird, but it's a start! There is no evidence of a soul, and I thought souls were for human use only? First time I heard grass has a soul!


If there is no science in creation, why do we need any scientists to create things? If there is no science in creation of life, how can created beings fit into ecosystems for hundreds of million years? All life exists owing to mutual help, not mutual warring.


Mutual help?! Are you seriously saying that the Antelope offers itself up peacefully to the lion so it can feed it's young? No, life is an all out war for survival. You don't understand that point because your in a comfy home with comfy beds and couches and all these wonderful gadgets to entertain you. Try living in the wild bringing nothing with you but yourself alone and whatever clothing you're wearing and survive for a month off this fantastical mutual help concept of yours.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Explain to me what the "soul" is since its the basis of your statement?

IMO its an illusion. Well not even that... Its just a lie.

Science is involved in what you call creation. The theory of evolution...



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I think what you mean is creationISM is not science.

While scientists sometimes create things, creating things is not the purpose of science

Also, there's no evidence of "souls"



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcsteve
Explain to me what the "soul" is since its the basis of your statement?

IMO its an illusion. Well not even that... Its just a lie.

Science is involved in what you call creation. The theory of evolution...


We can reassemble things that are already here.
We don't create living things and we haven't the slightest idea why all of it is here, how it got here, we have only small clues as to the order in which it was done.
Creation is not science but science is not creation either. Creation is art.

As for the soul, there are a couple of convincing re-incarnation stories that have no other explanation other than the existence of a soul.

When asked whether the consciousness enters the fetus at the time of conception, Tucker pointed out that the Earth’s carrying capacity has been predicted to max out at 10 billion people. About 150 billion people are estimated to have walked the Earth, leaving plenty of consciousness to be recycled. If that’s true, there should be 150 billion living human beings on Earth. Tucker suggested that a possible reason there aren’t one 150 billion people currently walking the planet might be explained by some children's reports of spending time in heaven-like places between lives. Tucker speculated that our consciousness may act by free will and decide to return at varying times. Read more at Suite101: Evidence for the Soul and Reincarnation: Psychiatrist Studies Cases of Past Life Memories in Children www.suite101.com...


Here is a different view from another man who takes this as evidence of a soul.
www.planetwisdom.com...

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn't be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, "It wasn't me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago." No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

edit on 15-4-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Did you mean creationism was not science?

Science does create on the other hand. Not least it creates new possibilities where our knowledge once limited us.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I find it so annoying this spiritual warfare on science.Like science's only goal is to negate the existence of any form of god. Seriously people get over yourselves. Science's only job is to answer questions that we all have.Finding out the earth wasn't flat didn't make god existence any more or less true. Discovering that our bodies are made up of tiny little cells. Didn't make god's presence anymore or less possible.We as humans have an unalienable need to feed our curiousity. IMO Science and religon are the exact same thing. Finding the answers we are all looking for. If people would stop attacking the two and imagine the possibilities the human race would be unstoppable in the things we could accomplish. Maybe just maybe god wants us to use the science to find the answers or else he wouldn't have given us such imaginative brains.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
As for the soul, there are a couple of convincing re-incarnation stories that have no other explanation other than the existence of a soul.


On the contrary, anything relating to reincarnation is a good argument against souls. It's a simply matter of mathematics. If we start out with a single or pair of humans - the first humans - and they reproduce, where do the souls of the offspring come from? And the souls of their offspring? Are the 7 billion "souls" on the planet right now just subdivisions of the souls of the first human?

Also, I'm not convinced that there are "no other explanations" for reincarnation anecdotes other than the existence of souls.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Co-Create... NOT Create.... NO MAN has created anything... as in ANYTHING.... co-create yes... but ZERO creation.. Take anything you want to consider here... physical... mental ( for those who don't believe there's no such thing lol ) and of course Spiritual..... NOT ONE thing has ANY MAN created... ONLY co-creating with what has been CREATED... and NOT CREATED by any man.....

It will be interesting to see who doesn't understand this.....

Anyway.... enjoy



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Why do we constantly keep getting suckered in by the agenda posters time and time again, especially the Christian ones?

Most of the time, this time is no exception, the posts are poorly written to incoherent and generally have serious logical flaws. There's no way they stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny.

Please Deny Ignorance.

Peace
KJ



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Until religion can present empirical and testable evidence (no, the Bible or other dogmatic texts cannot be considered that evidence, and I would hope you would understand why); and unless the scientific method can be used to prove any religion, then it cannot be considered science. I don't see what is so hard to understand.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 

The great prayer experiment already showed at least that: 1: either prayer doesn't work, or 2: the Christian God is not the correct God.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 


Science, or the scientific method, can't "prove" a science. And the "scientific method" is what? Now think about your response.... I can give you a hint... is the "scientific method" a science? or a philosophy? or...?

Our readers want to know!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Do you know what is meant by the first word in this subject?
]



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Do you know what is meant by the first word in this subject?
]


Yes I do, but thanks for asking. I really try not to feed the trolls and I encourage others not to as well.

I really don't see what your point is with this op. There's no meat to your thread, no back up, and not even any kind of decent logic. After many years on this site, I've seen oceans of threads just like yours and they always end up the same way.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 


Science, or the scientific method, can't "prove" a science. And the "scientific method" is what? Now think about your response.... I can give you a hint... is the "scientific method" a science? or a philosophy? or...?

Our readers want to know!


You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. I said: until religion can be scrutinized using the scientific method, then it is not science -- which is why creationism is not science. The scientific method is a method (yes, right there in the title for you!) to test and prove (with the most accurate testable data available to us) observations about the natural world. It is neither a science or philosophy, but a tool that allows us to deduce facts about reality.

Obviously nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can understand -- with empirical evidence -- a lot about the universe.

Now go troll somewhere else.

It is depressing how much a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty this forum has become.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
If you think you need eyes to see? Go talk to a blind person.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
If you think you need eyes to see? Go talk to a blind person.



Eyes to see is an expression which means actually "heart to feel." You can tear it apart literally and make it refer to anything you want to however, people often do. Tear the heart apart.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 





It is depressing how much a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty this forum has become.


Are you speaking to everyone equally or addressing the forum in general. I think ATS is one of the most intelligent forums on the web. Everyone is not a rocket scientist but these are only people with opinions and some of them are bizarre but that is what life is all about. Everyone contributes what they can. Maybe the poster who is intellectually "dishonest?" will do a bang up job changing a transmission for you. I get depressed myself sometimes and I just hate to see anyone go through it. Buck up!







 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join