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.


This is why I don't believe a "god" created us.

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen

4. You believe in the big bang? Kill yourself. It's just a THEORY, how would we know how the universe started? Plus it doesnt make sense, something can't be born from nothing, there was always something and there will always be something.

Christopher Hitchins, well known for his debates against god and religion, once stated that his daughter asked him how the universe got its start. If I remember correctly, he answered that all the matter in the universe came from a singularity that was no bigger than a ball (he said something along these lines). Then his daughter asked him what was outside of this ball. Christopher couldn't answer, and neither can I.

My opinion on the Big Bang - and it is just my opinion - is that when Hubble figured out that all of the galaxies in the universe originated from one point, he wasn't thinking BIG enough. If we could go to the furthest galaxy that we can see, and then use our telescopes to find the next furthest galaxy, and then go to that one and point our telescopes to find the next furthest galaxy, we could do this forever.

Point being, all of the galaxies in our KNOWN universe could very well have come from a point, but this "little' Bang would have only created our quadrant of the universe. We can't possibly know just how far out the universe goes, or how it possibly came into existence.

edit on 9/4/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Good thinking. I tend to agree more or less.

The one big area that I hold a different view on is this idea of a "beginning" of the Universe. Everything that we know about physics thus far tells us that Time is NON-linear. Thus...any "beginnings" or "endings" are purely subjective and exist nowhere except in how we PERCEIVE the PASSING of Time.

Time is the fourth dimension. The first three are Length, Width, and Depth. Now imagine that you are buying a bookcase. You go shopping and find the perfect model that is 6 ft tall, 2 ft wide, and 12 in. deep. Tell me...where does the bookcase "start"? Does it "start" on the top? The bottom? If it "starts" on the top and I flip it upside down...does it now "start" on the bottom...or does it still "start" on the top?

The answer is none of these. The bookcases dimensions simply describe the physical space that the item occupies. Whether I interpret the "start" being on the bottom shelf or the top shelf is totally up to me...and might very well even depend on how tall I am or whether or not I planned on mounting said bookcase on the wall.

However...if we think about it a little more carefully...the length, width, and depth, dimensions REALLY only describe the bookcase AT THIS SPECIFIC MOMENT IN TIME. Once, the matter consisting of the "bookcase" was really just a tree...and sooner or later the bookcase will rot away and no longer occupy the dimensions of 6x2x1. Therefore, in a scientific sense the bookcase would ALSO have to have two points (T1 and T2) to identify the "start" of when we would consider the arrangement of wood as being a "bookcase" and the "end" point of when it ceases to really fit that description anymore.

Yes...these are TECHNICALLY still "start" and "end" points...but the DEFINITIONS are completely arbitrary to what our SUBJECTIVE interpretation tells us what we "ought" to consider a bookcase to be. When applying this same arbitrary thinking to the "start" of the Universe it's nothing short of folly since the Universe is defined as the sum total of all matter, energy, and space and the Law of the Conservation of Mass tells us that none of these things can ever truly be "created" or "destroyed"...they just change forms or states.'s not that the Big Bang isn't a valid theory as to how the universe "started"'s that looking for a "starting point" itself is a byproduct of our limited human perceptions of higher dimensionality.

Wow! I'm amazed that I understood all of it. You have great writing skills.
And I agree with it. Good job!

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen
4. You believe in the big bang? Kill yourself. It's just a THEORY, how would we know how the universe started? Plus it doesnt make sense, something can't be born from nothing, there was always something and there will always be something.

A little harsh? Yes, its a theory - like most things we assume had happened in the past. The fact is, something must have started from nothing at one point in time. There couldn't have always been something. At one point 'something' triggered 'something' off. Again, that's just a theory - albeit a more logical one than 'there was always something and there will always be something' IMO

edit on 5/9/12 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by angryhulk

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen
4. You believe in the big bang? Kill yourself. It's just a THEORY, how would we know how the universe started? Plus it doesnt make sense, something can't be born from nothing, there was always something and there will always be something.

A little harsh? Yes, its a theory - like most things we assume had happened in the past. The fact is, something must have started from nothing at one point in time. There couldn't have always been something. At one point 'something' triggered 'something' off. Again, that's just a theory - albeit a more logical one than 'there was always something and there will always be something' IMO

edit on 5/9/12 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)

Listen to how you contradicted yourself, there couldent have always been something but something triggered something? See how that makes NO sense?

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by gortex

It was from Australia? Does that prove that life did not evolve in Africa first, or no?

(I guess this question is still on topic since we are discussing the origins of humans)

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM
1. Dirt is silicon-based and we are carbon-based.There is no POSSIBLE way we came from dirt.
2. Evolution can be--and has been-- studied in detail. It is only a theory in name. It has virtually been proven.
3.The big bang cannot be proven but can be inferred with mathematical measurements that track known objects back to a central starting point.
4.If aliens are here,where are they? There would be some physical proof that they are here. Even advanced civilizationswould have trouble travelling the extensive distances. The idea that alien life exists is quite logical. One only needs to observe the night sky and see the millions of different stars out there to assume that life may well exist elsewhere.
5.Posts such as the original here prove that evolution is not as widespread as we first thought. Most of the misconceptions listed in the original post are the type of stuff most people learn in grade school.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:50 PM
Macro-evolution has not been proven. According to Google and wiki, fossils for hundred of thousands of species have been found, yet only 118 of them are (supposedly) transitional species. There is something wrong with that.

Show me a set of fossils where you can infer that macro-evolution has occurred, for example, a set of fossils where fins gradually turned into legs.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by np6888

There is no difference between "Macro" evolution and "Micro" evolution, except that "Macro" evolution takes more time than macro. So if micro is true, then macro is true

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by arpgme

No, there is a difference. Micro says that wings can get bigger and smaller, macro says that wings can eventually become arms(assuming that mammals really come from birds).

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:05 PM
Ever heard of Theistic Evolution?

Not every person who is a Christian believes the world was created in 7 days. Some believe this is a parable like many other stories in the bible for early man to understand the basic concepts of creation and to focus what he could then understand towards faith.

I've had moments in my life that have made God as real and evident as the sky being blue. My faith isn't plucked out of thin air. It's strengthened by life experience and seeing the world around me and seeing far to many coincidences to be a simple twist of fate.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:06 PM
Why couldn't got have created us, and aliens have manipulated us?

The bible actually talks about us being manipulated, not only by fallen angels but by demons.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen
We are too complex to be the product of a magical god, or the product of dust for that matter, we seem more like a science project to me then anything.

In case you're unaware of it, we are made of nothing but stardust.

Physicist Finds Out Why "We Are Stardust..."
Every element on earth, except for the lightest, was created in the heart of some massive star. And the heaviest elements -- such as gold, lead and uranium -- were produced in a supernova explosion during the cataclysmic end of a huge star's life, says LSU physicist Edward Zganjar (pronounced Skyner).
"Those elements were ejected into space by the force of the massive explosion, where they mixed with other matter and formed new stars, some with planets such as earth. That's why the earth is rich in these heavy elements. The iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones were all forged in such stars. We are made of stardust," Zganjar said.

Pretty keen insight from people who had no inclination that there were any microscopic particles smaller then the eye can detect, eh?

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen
How the [SNIP] did god create eve from adams rib?

Its significant in that man and woman are to be of one flesh.

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen
Also the fact that Adam and eve were the FIRST AND ONLY at the time, they had kids who had kids who had kids, sooo we must be the product of incest according to the bible right?

Its not in the Bible, but according to several Pseudepigraphal works and Jewish tradition, both Cain and Abel were both born with twin sisters. Cain was to marry Abel's twin, and vice-verse. The problem was that Cains sister was more attractive of the two, and Cain was mad that he wanted to marry his own twin. This is what supposedly bred part of the jealousy that lead to the murder of Abel. Eventually Seth was married to the sister of Abel, despite her being much older then him in age.

Regarding the “incest” remark. Obviously God allowed certain things to occur out of necessity, at various times in history. It is not the only time that this happened in the Bible.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by iKnowWhatISeen

Funny how smart you people try to sound, must be the only time some of you get to shine lol.

Wow. You know, you could certainly stand to be a bit nicer. Catch more flies with honey, if you know what I mean.

You are condemning others' beliefs, while simultaneously presenting a personal belief that to many of us, is just as outlandish. Even more so, in certain aspects.

People may have wrongly assumed you meant the Judeo-Christian God, because of the example you used. Not because we are "trying to sound smart." You specifically pulled a line from the Bible to explain why you think that theory sounds outlandish and proceeded to discuss Adam and Eve. You did not pull from any other religious text, nor did you specify in your opening post that this applied to other religious theories.

And if you really want to get technical with the Bible, or any religious document for that matter, you have to understand these were written thousands of years ago, most likely by numerous authors operating under an individual set of values and perspectives, at different time periods. These were not what we would consider the most scientific of people and they used what they knew to describe what was happening.

It is possible that what they saw as "angels" and "demons", or God for that matter, were indeed aliens. It is possible that aliens created the universe. It is possible the big bang occurred and created the universe. It is HIGHLY likely that evolution is real. ( I personally hate that it's still a theory because we have so much observable evidence for it..but that's another story )

Many things are possible and it will benefit you to keep that in mind when discussing your views. Especially when you haven't put forth the effort to research what it is you so strongly condemn.

If nothing else, you'll make more friends that way.

edit on 5-9-2012 by jacktorrance because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by iKnowWhatISeen

Read genesis chapter 1, verse three; That is when God actually created man and all living things. Its just that it took a long time for man and all living things to appear.

Science describe verse three with the; Big Bang Theory.
And it took a long time before all living thing appeared from it.

The singularity that science speak of is like a seed. As the singularity expands, room is given for things to appear. The singularity have all the properties needed to form all life. Its just that it needs to expand/grow to give space for life to appear.

In the BIble it does state that God Said; Let the earth and sea bring forth all life and all living things. God planted the seed/Big Bang/Singularity that made life and all living things possible.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by iKnowWhatISeen
Your correct on every thing you speechless. Whats your zodiac sign. Gemini Sagittarius or Aquarius ?

Aqaurius O_o , so you must know we are moving into the age of the aqarius, I feel that's the reason for my newfound view of the world. Didn't really commit to radical thinking till around 11/11/11 of last year, creeps me out. I can't remember an exact date but it all started around that time.

Its only three signs in the zodiac that understands a lot of information that most other signs do not really understand. Aquarius, Gemini and Sagittarius are all air signs, so we get information from the winds and frequencies faster than most because we are air and we are all over the world. As I said, you are very correct in what you mentioned.

Lol…its evolutionary impossible for apes to live with their ancestor in the same time frame…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that part out ‘evolution’.


This thread is proof people don't understand what an opinion is.

Air signs never talk in opinions; we talk in facts because our information is not of this realm. It’s a gift to understand information from…‘THEM’.

The only sign in the zodiac that might have the gift we do is the Pisces, and in some cases they know much more than us air signs do..
I’m a Gemini by the way.

Here all this time I thought it was a Youngstown, Ohio cultural thing.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by gurudsmer
reply to post by Ghost147

Here is an example on what I mean by "kind".

Take the bear.

Ah, so by "kind" you are referring to 'Family' in scientific classification terminology? Bears fall under the family Ursidae, so essentially you are saying that there cannot possibly be any ancestors of the family Ursidae would not fall under our classification of what a Ursidae species would resemble?

Some say that since they are different, this is proof of macro evolution.

No, not some, but all evolutionary biologists would consider speciation to be a form of macro evolution. It is not a matter of opinion, that is literally what the definition of macro evolution begins with.

But what you are missing is the fact that they are still bears. They didn't evolve into deer or anything else.

This is why you're label of "kind" is not reliable. We have a plethora of step-by-step species that lead Ursidae, Amphicyonidae, Canidae, Hemicyonidae, Ailuridae, Enaliarctidae, Odobenidae, Otariidae, Phocidae, Mephitidae, Mustelidae, and Procyonidae (these are all the families that reside under the Suborder Caniformia) back to a common ancestor.

Here's a family tree to make it a bit more clear.

And here's an entire scientific paper on the evolution of bears. /Vol_9/McLellan_Reiner_Vol_9.pdf

They are still bears. this applies to every living creature we have observed.They may have variations, but they are still the same kind of animal.

Yes, bears are still bears because you're referring to a family of genera. If they were anything else they would be classified as such. You are also looking at the end of the branch of their evolutionary history. So obviously they have not evolved into anything else as you already know the Genera (eight still alive today). Your point is rather irrelevant. Try saying that about a suborder and you'll find a different story.

Macro evolution is the assumption that one "kind" can evolve into another "kind". Which has NEVER been observed so how is macro evolution even a viable theory?

once again, your understanding of macro evolution is incorrect. Macro evolution applies once speciation occurs, and this has been observed hundreds, if not thousands of times. The fossil record is evidence that it goes beyond that as we have species-to-species reference of changes all the way up the latter on many orders.

Once again, no one disputes micro evolution.

Right, yet you still dont understand that do you? Macro evolution is made up of micro evolution. Just as an hour is made up of minutes. It is only a term which defines a larger time scale, not a different event.

It's the assumption that fish turned to reptiles, reptiles to bids, ect., that I disagree with.

Not that you disagree, its that you don't understand or refuse to.

[quote]To say micro evolution proves macro evolution is also very foolish of you.

I'm not saying it proves it, i'm saying it is it. Why is this such a difficult concept?

Your saying that variations within a "kind" somehow prove that an animal can change "kinds".

No, I'm saying that the process in which produces variation within a species (not family or anything above, just one species) is the same as the process that occurs when we extend the results of the process and look further down it's generations. Once again, accumulation of seconds makes a minute, accumulation of minutes makes an hour. Yet an hour is just a mass accumulation of seconds, how? it's the same process!

Since such a thing has never been observed or recorded, it is indeed an assumption that requires has much faith as creationism.

Once again, we have observed macro evolution, and we have literally millions of records that show a step-by-step speciation that leads to further divergence into more families, orders and so on.

Thank you for spending some time for a reasonable response. I will touch base on your topics when I get home since doing this on a phone is quite tedious.

edit on 5-9-2012 by gurudsmer because: (no reason given)

Right back at you, although I would prefer private messages, finding your posts in a large topic is a bit of a time-spender.

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:44 PM
Elites are controlling the world

Elites push evolution as the answer.

That is enough for me to think we were created by some kind of divine being or intervention

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:00 AM
yeah i agree with u on the evolution thing, if we evolved from monkeys why did they stop evolving? its just their theory which has no proof to ppl with common sense, u have to have common sense to deal with this subject

i do believe in god though but its not some old white man as all the art werk from along time ago, i believe we were genetically modified over time by our gods (plural) and those gods are what we call et or aliens or whatever

dont get me wrong ive seen ppl who look like monkeys and known ppl who have the same intelligence as monkeys but no were not their decendants sorry

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:35 AM
reply to post by iKnowWhatISeen

What is this nonsense? What happened to intelligent debate on ATS? I'm sorry OP, but this is most definitely not up to the intellectual standards of this community.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by iKnowWhatISeen

2. Evolution is a lie, it's only to give atheist something to believe. We came from monkeys so why are monkeys still here? When are they gonna turn into humans? Wheres the missing link? Monkeys can't talk, how did we change so drastically in such lil time?

1. We did not evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor, the last one being approximately 10 million years ago.
2. We can observe evolution.
3. #1 explains why monkeys are still here, you do not understand what evolution actually is.
4. There isn't a missing link.
5. We didn't change drastically over time, try millions and millions of years.
6. Monkeys can't talk because their evolutionary path hasn't given them the ability to do so.

4. You believe in the big bang? Kill yourself. It's just a THEORY, how would we know how the universe started? Plus it doesnt make sense, something can't be born from nothing, there was always something and there will always be something.

1. In science, "theory" doesn't mean what you're implying it does.
2. We can know all sorts of stuff about the universe by observing it.
3. It makes perfect sense, it wasn't something from nothing, yet again you do not even understand the theory.

Please educate yourself on a subject before talking about it.

Why did you have to ruin what started off as a good point by talking crap?
edit on 4-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

I like the idea of evo, but doesnt make sense to me either.

How does person OBSERVE something that happened Millions of years ago. While the idea of EVO, just came to be not long ago. Did he time travel? How can people say Millions or billions of years ago, these scientists were not there at that time? Just because a group of smart people came together and agreed on something. Reminds me of religion, group of people came together. Religion seems kind of messed up as well if you really think about it.

Why are we alive anyway, since Space is so dangerous. MIllions of black holes wander around,, and yet we are still here. Why hasnt a single star died near our planet? BIg ass asteriods are right next to us and yet we havent been wiped out, there has been quite a bit of NEAR MISS's(we are still alive still?). Why were dinosaurs wiped out but not humans along with them? Our planet seems to well planed or laid out for us, somewhat odd. ITs like the planet is protecting us, while we are raping it.

WE should do is EXPLORE the depthes of our oceans. NEver know wtf is hiding beneath our noses. No one bother to
Try to explore the ocean depths

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:55 AM
I think you only stand with a very few other individuals with your reasoning. By and large, others Do Not believe or subscribe to your 'Theories' nor do they see much commonality with you.

So suppose you are one hundred percent right ?............... what have you won..?

Thank GOD you are only a person with a rant. Because you could scarcely fathom a 'GOD' and HIS abilities, were you confronted face to face, in which case you would be vaporized into this 'Nothing' you speak of.

I'd really suggest some Quantum Mechanics education before you proclaim these enlightenments. Even Theoretical Physicists are only on the cusp of understanding the mechanics of the Universe we live in.

new topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in