It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This argument makes no sense. You and Hot-airsock will grant the possibility that everything, known and not yet known, in the universe may have been created by a deity, but you are hung up on the question of what it was made from?
Sounds like typical detemined atheism to me. Just as close-minded as the blindy religious that you so enjoy to ridicule.
As a Darwin worshipper stated in this thread, someone like this young biologist will have to fully develop a replacing theory before the scientific community acknowledges the fallacy of assuming that Darwinian evolution is the sole mechanism by which this world blossomed.
reply to post by AfterInfinity
You belittle the beliefs of others in a thread about evolution and creationism, and you don't expect that to be addressed? If atheists spent as much time thinking and educating themselves as they do laughing at the religious, threads like this would be a lot more interesting.
Not at all.
I could never be God. No one could, but that doesn't mean I can't begin to puzzle out how it works. That is part of having dominion.
"Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Genesis 1:28
And since God does not exist in this universe. He is not part of it. He pre-existed it. We will never find Him here no matter how much of its secrets we unravel. We would have to free ourselves from it to find Him. I've already stated - nothing we find here will prove His existence one way or the other, not definitively. Because He made it, He is not bound by it.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's not enough anymore.
For what Darwin saw in his day, OK.
But for what we see and know now? No. We need to expand. Imagine Einstein being constrained to shoehorn his theories into Newtonian physics because everyone would be terribly afraid that if he went further, tried to explain and understand more with his questions, it might go somewhere else other than comfortable old Newton.
I feel like there are so many who are so invested in Darwin as the anti-God that they cling to him with religious fervor. Understand that I don't believe that any scientific inquiries we make in this universe will ever do anything to either prove or disprove God. He is the author of that is and as such exists outside this universe we are defined by. The only way we will ever possibly scientifically come close is if we find a way to break beyond the bonds of this universe, IMO.
So for me, for us, tsting Darwin and looking for the next layer of our understanding in the process of life isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about a better understanding of the processes of how life and organisms work on the genetic level.
It is a simple way to demonstrate how evolution works, by showing that the genes for these primitive characteristics continue to reside in DNA -- even when they are of no particular use at the present, but when they might be useful in the animal's evolutionary future. The chicken-dinosaur is also an icon for genetic engineering in animals, providing a focus for discussions concerning ethics.
It is interesting, for example, that some people consider simple genetic engineering, such as the dino-chicken, to be unethical, while they find selective breeding -- potentially producing the same results over time -- to be an ethical endeavor.
I think of the dino-chicken as a tool to educate people about the extraordinary characteristics of evolution and give them the primer knowledge to make future decisions about these types of biological research. You can read more about this stuff in my book entitled "How To Build a Dinosaur." **