It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

page: 4
20
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:27 PM

I will try to help you along one piece at a time.

WIKI

"A concept closely related to projection is the casting of shadows.

If a light is shone on a three dimensional object, a two-dimensional shadow is cast. By dimensional analogy, light shone on a two-dimensional object in a two-dimensional world would cast a one-dimensional shadow, and light on a one-dimensional object in a one-dimensional world would cast a zero-dimensional shadow, that is, a point of non-light. Going the other way, one may infer that light shone on a four-dimensional object in a four-dimensional world would cast a three-dimensional shadow.

If the wireframe of a cube is lit from above, the resulting shadow is a square within a square with the corresponding corners connected. Similarly, if the wireframe of a tesseract were lit from “above” (in the fourth direction), its shadow would be that of a three-dimensional cube within another three-dimensional cube. (Note that, technically, the visual representation shown here is actually a two-dimensional shadow of the three-dimensional shadow of the four-dimensional wireframe figure.)"

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:31 PM

These statements are fundementally flawed and are more specific for teaching associatative concepts rather than the reality.

In REALITY...there is no such thing as a three dimensional object in our Universal Space/Time. This is because Matter cannot exist in a three dimensional state.

But I can understand were you are going with this...but as usual...the reality of Physics and Logic keeps getting in my way.

Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:35 PM

Also...I find their statement that in a Two dimensional world a one dimensional shadow would be casted...is BEYOND FUNNY.

This is because Light or Photons as well as Matter cannot exist in a Two Dimensional world...as well as there is no such thing as a One Dimensional Shadow as One Dimension is a SINGULARITY where all points of position are one point thus again...no possibility of a shadow.

Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Also...I find their statement that in a Two dimensional world a one dimensional shadow would be casted...is BEYOND FUNNY.

This is because Light or Photons as well as Matter cannot exist in a Two Dimensional world...as well as there is no such thing as a One Dimensional Shadow as One Dimension is a SINGULARITY where all points of position are one point thus again...no possibility of a shadow.

Split Infinity

You have missed the basics of dimensional space. This is common knowledge.

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:06 PM

I should tell you I was going to go to MIT but changed my mind. I am VERY good at both Math and Geometry.

I have been pulling your leg here as I am well aware of the Geometric representation you have provided here...but remember...they are only REPRESENTATIONS and are described to use in our 10 or 11 Dimensional Universe.

The true reality of this is such representations cannot really exist as reality in the dimensional states they state.

Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:09 PM

I can tell you you are spot on. The advanced beings work for The Lord and seed planets and oversee development.

Let me fill you in some more the pa-tal seeded earth 500 million years ago and oversaw it until around 200 million years before moving on. Before you ask the pa-tal are 12d immortal race which is the oldest in this grand universe know as orvorton they are the children's etc of the father and his representatives.

Life still evolves but they give a hand they are off course not the only race to do this as they do it less in this Milky Way now. Every advanced bring if the light beyond 5d sometimes helps with this. Even we will be allowed to do this once we reach 5d again but need approval from the various councils and federations.

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:13 PM

O...K.

Ahh...OK.

Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:26 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Moses did not PART the RED SEA...Moses CROSSED the REED SEA.... a tidal marshy area between the Red Sea and Med. This is the ACTUAL TRANSLATION...and has been admitted to be so by every Christian Sects. Leadership. When the Vatican was asked why they would not change it to the original texts real meaning...the Vatican said...To change this beloved story now after so much time has passes would only confuse the faithful.

Really? I did not know this... Could you give out some links, as I thought the bible said that he used his stick to DIVIDE the sea. I would especially love to read the Vatican's explanation
Sounds ridiculous.

Originally posted by winofiend
god came much later consuming everything that had evolved the ability to think of the 'What If?'s and adhere an only explanation to the existence of a god and jesus as more than a possible man who lived 2000+ years ago..

Interesting though how we began to really evolve mentally when God came about. We started to think 'what if', and now here we are, in the 21st century (counted from the birth of Jesus), with all our technology.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Why do chimps and Man have about 98% the same DNA, why do we have DNA related to ever living thing on earth...including trees and grass?

Good question. Are you ready for the answer? Perhaps because they were both created by God. Logically, if God made Earth and all its creatures, he would have made rules. Had he not made any rules, we probably wouldn't look like this. Its like asking why do both chimps and men have eyes, ears and a nose... If there was no unifying code, atheists would definately be arguing that God is impossible, since there is nothing similar in any beings, so they must have been made by completely different things.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Then again...there is much more in the way of evidence that no GOD exists at all. I hope one does...but I am not holding my breath.

I have never heard of any such evidence. Whenever I ask for that type of evidence I am told that you cannot prove that somethng doesn't exist. Which is usually my point. How can you be anti-theist if you can't prove something exists. I can understand being anti-church, or even anti-organized religion. But not anti-theist.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
they are only REPRESENTATIONS and are described to use in our 10 or 11 Dimensional Universe.

Which courses do you learn this in, and can you reccomend text books. I think its way above my knowledge, but it would be interesting to read about such science. It sounds almost as abstract as art, while being as concrete as science. Brilliant.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by salainen

Good question. Are you ready for the answer? Perhaps because they were both created by God. Logically, if God made Earth and all its creatures, he would have made rules. Had he not made any rules, we probably wouldn't look like this. Its like asking why do both chimps and men have eyes, ears and a nose... If there was no unifying code, atheists would definately be arguing that God is impossible, since there is nothing similar in any beings, so they must have been made by completely different things.

I guess that is my point. We don't debate whether EVERYTHING was created by intelligent design, just whether Man was created 6000 years ago by a snap of a finger or started a 4.5 billion year journey.

When one looks at it, I find it a stupid point to debate.

Also if we go the direction that there are unlimited universes blinking in and out of existence. then why can't ours just follow some random rules that just happen to work for OUR universe? Also if life started in some non-intelligent design it would still be evolution that drives it, and we have seen fossils that have many eyes, but at some point with our many resets of life the two eye pattern prevailed to the point that the alpha for ALL two eyed creatures pushed all life to be somewhat similar. It is hard to finger intelligent design when random occurrence could account for our universe AND life on our planet.

When one looks backwards it seems that it was all some linear path that intelligent design molded, but if one looked from the start forward we would see trillions of evolutionary life forms come and go into dead end branches of life.

I guess it is all how one looks at the process...

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess it is all how one looks at the process...

It is indeed.

And you can't really scientifically debate it, only philosophically, since you can't really prove God doesn't exist, and you can't prove that something happened randomly. And nobody so far has proven that God exists, or that everything didn't happen randomly. In my opinion the chances of this all being random is just too small to even imagine, and to me God makes sense. For others the mere possibility it could have been random means that, it could have been, and therefore God makes no sense.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:41 AM

Congratulations everyone on a good debate.

Interesting though how we began to really evolve mentally when God came about. We started to think 'what if', and now here we are, in the 21st century (counted from the birth of Jesus), with all our technology.
I would say it is interesting that when we began to evolve mentally god appeared to answer the gaps when we started to ask 'Why?'

Good question. Are you ready for the answer? Perhaps because they were both created by God. Logically, if God made Earth and all its creatures, he would have made rules.
This is where the conflict begins. Belief in a god is a very logical way to fill the vacuum in our knowledge but we do this without evidence. Science requires evidence and the scientific method is in place to nullify our natural tendency to invent answers (not the same as lying BTW)

Had he not made any rules, we probably wouldn't look like this. Its like asking why do both chimps and men have eyes, ears and a nose... If there was no unifying code, atheists would definately be arguing that God is impossible, since there is nothing similar in any beings, so they must have been made by completely different things.
Life is the 'unifying code'. The environment selects advantage and obviously two eyes are more of an advantage than one or many in this environment in most cases. I strongly disagree that if all life we found was unconnected other ways to justify evolution would be invented. If there was no connection with all other life then evolution could not be true and that is not what we see.

This is why the fundamentalists have to somehow separate humans from the rest of life and have such a hatred for evolutions explanation. As per the OP I see no conflict between evolution and creation.

Your claims for what atheists would do are unfounded and really do not add to this discussion

I have never heard of any such evidence. Whenever I ask for that type of evidence I am told that you cannot prove that somethng doesn't exist. Which is usually my point. How can you be anti-theist if you can't prove something exists. I can understand being anti-church, or even anti-organized religion. But not anti-theist.
I think you are getting hung up on labels. The spectrum that makes up those that see no evidence to support the argument for the existence of a god is just as big as those that do. That does not default to being anti theist.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:05 AM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Then again...there is much more in the way of evidence that no GOD exists at all. I hope one does...but I am not holding my breath.

Split Infinity

You can achieve contact with something that is outside our human limitations if you seek it. Or at least that is my view of what happens when you get the chakras opened (or something that exists in the body that seem to at least be close to the ideas of chakras).

Or what are people who experiancing extreme synchronicity really doing? Are their unconcious playing a trick on the ego mind by controling the actions of the mind so that the ego mind finds these instances of synchronicity. The timing is increadably precise and it is very funny to observe.

Or is it an external source playing a game with ous. What is the cap on the head and the bodylly bliss that people are experiancing over the whole world in different cultures?

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Xtrozero

It is interesting that it took the universe about 6 billion years to convert a universe that was like 99% Hydrogen to one with 92 elements allowing for the creation of solar systems and then life....So how long is a God day?

I assume it is a function of His perspective outside the system he creates. How long is a Sims day on your computer? What you say it is. From your perspective, it can be increased or decreased, yet the characters have no way of measuring the difference. This is a truth Rumi the Sufi noted here:

"The opposite of light shows what is light,
Hence colors too are known by their opposite.
God created pain and grief for this purpose,
To wit, to manifest happiness by its opposites. 12
Hidden things are manifested by their opposites;
But, as God has no opposite. He remains hidden.
God's light has no opposite in the range of creation
Whereby it may be manifested to view.
Perforce "Our eyes see not Him, though He sees us."

Playing hide and seek is part of the game souls and god play with each other. But when the games turns really sour god comes running like a concerned child who is upset that you are hurting. It is up to the soul and god to choose the level of connection they both want.

The Black Eyed Peas - Meet Me Halfway

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:09 AM

While i have to agree that i would fall into the agnostic atheist
camp as well, i can say for sure that as far as i have seen there
is no evidence that suggests intelligent design is correct in any
way, how can we possibly test the involvement of a deity, the
only way i have ever seen this attempted is the classic "well
you cant explain this so hey lets insert god", we see this throughout
the history of science until it, after a long time, takes hold that
religion is not the answer and there is a very real scientific answer.

The orbits of the planets, flat earth, many other things such as
that are great parallels to the evolution debate that rages
now, the church claims one thing and science says different,
the church has fought and fought to remain relevant introducing
a claim of intelligent design as if someone looked at an atom
and noticed a signature or something, yet the real meat of their
claim cant even be tested so far as we know.

I will have to say though that i am always open to evidence that
would prove a god did exist, i have no idea what that would be as
i cant really fathom a way to test it..... however intelligent design
is simply not actual science and should never be taught in a science
class, if they would like to teach it in theology or philosophy classes
i for one wouldn't mind at all, everything in a school has a proper
place and context, or should i guess, blarg our schools suck.

Anywho that's how i feel about it, i have no problem with the idea
in proper context.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:27 AM
May have missed this type of response, but here is mine.

I say they are conflicting and here is why.

Creationism states that all life was created in its present form. If this is the case, from what did evolution grab onto and run forward? There would be nothing.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Daemonicon because: spelling

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:34 AM
Personally speaking I find the concept of creationism to be severely flawed.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:45 AM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

I should tell you I was going to go to MIT but changed my mind. I am VERY good at both Math and Geometry.

I have been pulling your leg here as I am well aware of the Geometric representation you have provided here...but remember...they are only REPRESENTATIONS and are described to use in our 10 or 11 Dimensional Universe.

The true reality of this is such representations cannot really exist as reality in the dimensional states they state.

Split Infinity

I agree with you on this. Our descriptions do not describe what is really going on, but we are able to conceptualize it when nature is used as a reflecting point to see from below. This is the genius in a presupposition that has been known for ages:

As Above, So Below.

This is something we can count on. We cannot see God directly, yet the image he provides renders a version we can learn first. It's an image and we look in a mirror. This is some of the best evidence of all that the Bible can be trusted. Do we agree with the morality of killing whole nations of people by David? No. But then again, "You must be born again." But then again, the Spirit that suffers is God behind the veil. Does he have the right to do this to Himself so that we can live free in autonomy? Yes. We cannot separate God's decisions with our own. Heaven affects Earth and Earth affects Heaven. We are the ones that can bind or loose our future reality.

As you consider the fact that God gives you the future in word, be assured that He already knows where this present suffering is leading. It's an image and the true reality is not fallen. Paradise IS there. The image we view is a reflecting point to lead us there as adults and not children.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Love cannot fail and God is Love. Love keeps no records of wrongs in the end. We are all going to make it. The universe will outlast our ability to resist this Love.

edit on 24-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:57 AM

Playing hide and seek is part of the game souls and god play with each other. But when the games turns really sour god comes running like a concerned child who is upset that you are hurting. It is up to the soul and god to choose the level of connection they both want.

The Black Eyed Peas - Meet Me Halfway

Your post is brilliant for many reasons. This video, as well as most of pop culture, is a commentary on love for the female aspect of life. Who did the fall come through? The female. This is supported in the Bible throughout. When we consider our own history, one side of religion worships the Female and one worships the Male. The Bible demonstrates the hierarchy of both. Most people do not recognize that the Spirit that we receive in the last 1000 years (Holy Spirit) is female. The spirit the Freemasons worship is the female. Churches worship the Male and Son. In reality, they include all three. The error in creation is there as the Spirit falls into matter (Involution). The Spirit does not return. Instead, the groom returns for His Bride. It's a consummation (Marriage) of two new creations becoming one. Before they can become one again, the separate (Adam and Eve).

What we will witness in the next 1000 years is the groom coming from his bride. This is the Hebrew conception of the Groom building the wedding chamber and new home first. Christ is building Earth II for us to leave for after we are married (joined to the Spirit fully).

Did you know you were alluding to this?

Age 1 is 2000 years of the Father. Adam to Abraham

Age 2 is 2000 years and the age of the Son. Issac to Jesus

Age 3 is 2000 years and the age of the Spirit. Jesus to the restored Son coming for the Bride

The final Age is 1000 years as the marriage takes place. After this, we depart to the new home.

edit on 24-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Personally speaking I find the concept of creationism to be severely flawed.

Personally I find it outrageously misinformed and no different to believing into Santa Claus..

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by salainen
It is indeed.

And you can't really scientifically debate it, only philosophically, since you can't really prove God doesn't exist, and you can't prove that something happened randomly. And nobody so far has proven that God exists, or that everything didn't happen randomly. In my opinion the chances of this all being random is just too small to even imagine, and to me God makes sense. For others the mere possibility it could have been random means that, it could have been, and therefore God makes no sense.

If I look at the possibilities of you being born today going back 4 billion years and planning everything forward to make you come into the world of course that is an impossibility that only God could do, but then we also have the part that someone or something would be born no matter what with the same impossibility view as you have if we planned it by looking forward from the start.

Go outside and pick up a rock, what is the possibility that the rock you have in your hand would be there after 14 billion years of the universe expansion. You might suggest that is a stupid question to ask since there are rocks in the universe and this just happens to be one of them...and I agree. There is life in the universe and you just happen to be one of them, there is most likely unlimited universes blinking in and out of existence, where time doesn't exist, all with unlimited different types of physics, and our just happens to be one of them.

For me when I try and wrap my brain around the idea of infiniteness it starts to hurt, and that is why the chicken or the egg scenario is so frustrating, but when I think about a being that is outside of our universe creating all this infiniteness in an intelligent design scenario we are right back to the chicken or the egg.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

new topics

20