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.

 

Creationism cannot be true

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No you think I don't understand because I didn't come to the same conclusion that you did. I understand very well how religion, especially the Christian one works and how Christians think. I was one after all.


NO
I dont think you understand because it seems that you think all Christians agree on creationism.
and no i dont think you understand because you dont see the criticism and theological arguments amongst Christians relating to creation

I was an evolutionist




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Apparently you need reading comprehension classes because I even acknowledged in the OP that there could be two ways to interpret the creation story, so really stop telling me what I do and don't understand. I think I can figure that out for myself.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 






Millions of people say it is divine because the bible tells them so. They wouldn't be saying so if it weren't for that. I already stated earlier in the thread that mass belief in a statement doesn't inherently make it true. So just because millions of people believe the bible is divine, it doesn't mean that it is. Again the ONLY evidence of the bible's divinity is within the bible. That is like defining a word by using the word in the definition. It doesn't work.


SO does other books, but the difference is, the millions of people who studied it (from time immemorial - including great men of science) have proven it to themselves that it is of Divine Origin. No other book - past, present and future can attest to this fact. And we can put it to the test (as you said) to confirm its validity.

Case in point:

1. Creation Of the Universe - "A Beginning"

It's now an accepted FACT that the Universe had a BEGINNING. I'm sure you agree with this. Many call this beginning as the "big bang" theory and also known as the Singularity.

This fact was discovered more recently using powerful instruments and spacecrafts. And it was also confirmed by meticulous calculations and higher mathematics.

Yet, before the advent of Cosmology or Astrophysics, thousands of years before the advent of modern science, the Bible ALREADY declared this modern scientific fact (in poetic manner).

To use your own source ("Creation account"):

Gen 1:1



1 In the beginning, when God created the universe

www.biblegateway.com...

Now, without the aid of modern science, how did the writer of Genesis knew accurately that the universe had a beginning or was 'created'?

Where did the information came from - if not from a Divine Origin?

(I have more but I'll use this one for moment).



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Have you read any of the writings by members of the Council of Nicea? They are widely available and detail exactly why some of the books were left out.

I understand how you can make such claims about Christianity and the bible because you really have no knowledge of those subjects and instead prefer to rehash old arguments based on the same lack of information.

Its incredibly easy to be a non-believer when you speak from ignorance. Trust me I was one. Why ask us why creation is wrong instead of looking to what the Bible says? Looking to what the compilers of the bible said?

You speak of Buddhism in the same ways. Buddhist fought wars with each other. Buddhist had corrupt leaders just look the lineage of the Tibetan royals and such. Buddhism is comprised of many sects often some are contradictory. Buddhism is divided into different schools of thought and is not practiced the same way everywhere.

People in the west like to take this Alan Watts approach to Buddhism but fail to see the multitude of primitive beliefs and customs. So you think a giant snake sat and protected the Buddha under the bodhi tree? Is that symbolic? Again these are things to consider when you make such claims.
edit on 6-12-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The book could easily have been the subject of confirmation bias. If you want to see divinity in a book that is divine, you will see it. Not to mention there is the centuries of oppression from the Catholic church and various inquisitions to stamp out any other religions. So if the ruling elite deem that the bible is divine, you will find some way to rationalize it so that some guy with a black hood over his face doesn't lock you in a dungeon and stick flaming pokers in your eyes. So the ruling elite have been converting by torture and ostracizing non-believers for centuries while repeating over and over again that the bible is divine. People grow up their whole lives hearing that the bible is divine, then tell their kids that. It is no surprise that it would be hard to look at the bible critically unless you decouple the divinity from the bible.

As to your comment about the bible addressing the beginning of the universe, that is easy to see. First off there are only two answers to this question. There either is a beginning or there isn't. So to start with, you have a 50/50 shot of being right. Second, EVERY religion has a creation story. So Christianity (or rather Judaism in this case) having a creation story isn't really that impressive since it is just going along with the crowd. Third, since infinity is so hard to understand for humans, it makes more sense that ancient humans would see a beginning and an end to the universe. The concept of infinity was lost on them.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Come on man. We are on a Conspiracy forum. Writings are one thing, but true intentions are rarely if ever written down and are either kept private or only discussed. I am well aware of the writings from the Council, but I withhold judgment on if those are the real reasons those texts were withheld from the bible.

Also I acknowledged when I first brought up Buddhism that the things you mentioned exist. I'm also well aware that without a centralized authority, OF COURSE there will be different ways to go about practicing the religion, it is only natural.

ETA: One more thing the reasons that these old arguments are brought up is because the explanations religious people give for them aren't adequate in people like me's view. Also there is no such thing as a new argument about religion, the book is ancient and hasn't ever been updated (like it should be)
edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Yes, I have wondered about that very thing. I don't think I truly understand why they were left out though and seeing as how there are countless numbers of conspiracy theories postulating along those premises, I don't think anyone but the people who attended the Council of Nicea know why they were left out.

As far as reading the bible goes, I really don't think that is necessary. I won't get the same satisfaction you do out of it. I've always been one of those guys who reads things literally (made English class pretty frustrating for me while growing up). So when I read it, the inconsistencies pop out and make it just a mediocre story to me where half of it attributes natural disasters to God's work and the second half talks about a famous Buddhist (btw with your theory about reincarnation, have you ever entertained the idea that Buddha is also a reincarnated version of Jesus? I know I've seen it theorized on this website before). I just like following the Golden Rule as much as possible. I don't need a long dead spiritual person telling me how to live my life. I can be good and wholesome without it.


Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out and know why they left certain books out. I'm glad they did though because it requires a seeker to actually seek and find. I am the type of person that loves mysteries and to figure them out is challenging and fun. Control of the masses is the reason why they were left out and the very reason why reincarnation was no longer taught. Religion divides. Our leaders like to keep us divided as it's easier to control and conquer that which is divided.

The video I linked is very informative and could help your understanding when and if you have the time and decide to watch/listen to it.

Sure, Jesus reincarnated as the same soul as Buddha. No doubt it is possible. Hermes/Thoth is another that could have quite possibly been the same soul as well.

Word/DNA = Jesus/Hermes/Thoth

To me, there is no inconsistencies within the Bible especially when you have read the other books that were left out. It ties the confusion together in such a way clear understanding is had. Even without the other books, one can find the Bible consistent with the overall teaching. Don't get caught up with the little bits of mans collective thinking with God's nature.

Imagine a line. From one end to the other, the good, bad, and indifferent is .....God. The "bad" and not so good traits are human nature and we are to overcome them. One learns from "bad". One is needed in order to know the other. A mirror doesn't judge, only understands.

When you are down, you can open that book up and receive council. It's free and there is not one of us who doesn't at one point in our life seek another for help with our psyche. It can be used as a good tool in our life.

If you happen to believe in reincarnation then you believe "the long dead spiritual person" is alive today.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I understand your point about intentions but how will you know if you don't educate yourself on what they claim their intentions are? I know we are on a conspiracy site but if you are going to that extreme each time then I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

I don't trust the intentions of someone like Bertrand Russell when it comes to societal management but that conclusion was drawn from studying his writings! haha.


Matthew 7:15-17 King James Version (KJV) 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The book could easily have been the subject of confirmation bias. If you want to see divinity in a book that is divine, you will see it. Not to mention there is the centuries of oppression from the Catholic church and various inquisitions to stamp out any other religions. So if the ruling elite deem that the bible is divine, you will find some way to rationalize it so that some guy with a black hood over his face doesn't lock you in a dungeon and stick flaming pokers in your eyes. So the ruling elite have been converting by torture and ostracizing non-believers for centuries while repeating over and over again that the bible is divine. People grow up their whole lives hearing that the bible is divine, then tell their kids that. It is no surprise that it would be hard to look at the bible critically unless you decouple the divinity from the bible.

As to your comment about the bible addressing the beginning of the universe, that is easy to see. First off there are only two answers to this question. There either is a beginning or there isn't. So to start with, you have a 50/50 shot of being right. Second, EVERY religion has a creation story. So Christianity (or rather Judaism in this case) having a creation story isn't really that impressive since it is just going along with the crowd. Third, since infinity is so hard to understand for humans, it makes more sense that ancient humans would see a beginning and an end to the universe. The concept of infinity was lost on them.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?




BTW - 50/50 chance of being right that the universe had a beginning or not is a very convenient way of not addressing the question.

But honestly, as a person of science as you claim to be - Are you really doubting that the Universe had a beginning - 13.7 billion years ago?

That all the findings gathered my men of science (NASA/Astrophysics/Cosmology) throughout the age of modern scientific knowledge are "bunk"?

If so, the earth must be 50/50 chance of being flat then using your analogy.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

MamaJ
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I look at the entire Bible as if it is in layers. Meaning there are layers of meaning within the entire Book.

There is an "old" and a "new" creation story as well as testaments. An old way of thinking ( Adam/Atom) and a new way of thinking ( Christ-consciousness). A first Adam ( soul of Jesus) and the last Adam ( Christ)... but keep in mind.. the same soul.

The problem with the "christian" account of the Bibles meanings you hear in church is simply wrong. They leave out way too much and keeps the believer confused to a point of no return or blind faith with no clear direction.

Man was first thought of. A mere thought creates and sends it into motion/action. The thought is God and the Word is Christ (us). We are in motion having an experience.. and we ALL have a "his-story".

When the creation account speaks of water.. water means "spirit". "God hovers over the still spirits" .

"We created man in our own image". We meaning... our spirits. Like water we are reflected in matter here on Earth.

Look at the layers and really reflect on what you know in science as well because our creator is THE thought behind mathematics, which is ALL there is.


So you think your interpretation of the big book of multiple choice is correct and others have it all wrong? I think it is just a collection of writings written by some people a long time ago who had a very limited amount of knowledge of their surroundings. They didnt know anything about germs, or bacteria, or mental illness, or weather, electricity, what a hallucination is, so they ascribed all of these events to magic gods.

We now know that people dont come back to life. (They may appear dead but they are not.) We know that if a voice tells you to do something, then you are suffering from a mental disorder (walking aimlessly through the dessert for 40 years killing everything you run across except the young girls of course,because the voices tell you to, is not healthy behaviour. ) we know thats thoughts dont create anything.

We now have a pretty good understanding of the workings of our world and what to expect so i think it is time to put away the fanciful stories of ignorant ideologies. Study some science, learn what the word science means.

If you are allowed to interpret the bible the way you see fit, then everyones interp would have to be accepted. We know that cant be right. So all accounts are incorrect. It is just some old literature. And nothing in it is more important than any other writings attributed to the time. The bible stories borrowed heavily from other older texts and beliefs ( ie. the illiad, mithraism, and such) so much so that some are word for word. That shows lack of forsight and intentional deception. They could not forsee a world where all of these stories would collide and be translated so that we could hold them in front of us and compare them side to side.

Anyone with real interest in the bible should dig around in that rabbit hole.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 



So you think your interpretation of the big book of multiple choice is correct and others have it all wrong? I think it is just a book written by some people a long time ago who had a very limited amount of knowledge of their surroundings. They didnt know anything about germs, or bacteria, or mental illness, or weather, electricity, what a hallucination is, so they ascribed all of these events to magic gods.

We now know that people dont come back to life. (They may appear dead but they are not.) We know that if a voice tells you to do something, then you are suffering from a mental disorder (walking aimlessly through the dessert for 40 years killing everything you run across except the young girls of course,because the voices tell you to, is not healthy behaviour. )

We now have a pretty good understanding of the workings of our world and what to expect so i think it is time to put away the fanciful stories of ignorant ideologies. Study some science, learn what the word science means.


Each of us have our own personality and perception so OBVIOUSLY what I get out of ANY book will be different, but that doesn't mean it is truth. Come on already. Read ALL of my posts before assuming you know something.

I think you have no idea regarding history of man's knowledge and what was known verses what is known today and or proven to be true.. lol Have you not ever read ancient books??? Ever heard of alchemy? lol Ever heard of PLATO or Hermes? Surely you do not discount their knowledge of man and the Universe.

Where are our great thinkers today? Who are they in your opinion? We have become stagnant and content.

Obviously you are not open minded when learning science, philosophy, or physics and are unable to connect dots. Esoteric philosophy has been around for ages. Learn some things then get back with me.

From your edit:



If you are allowed to interpret the bible the way you see fit, then everyones interp would have to be accepted. We know that cant be right. So all accounts are incorrect. It is just some old literature. And nothing in it is more important than any other writings attributed to the time. The bible stories borrowed heavily from other older texts ( the illiad ) so much so that some are word for word. That shows lack of forsight and intention deception. They could not forsee a world where all of these stories would collise and be translated so that we could hold them in front of us and compare them side to side.


Anyone is allowed their OWN interpretation.


Religion is a divider. Simply put.

God has many names, pick one.

The biblical stories were not borrowed. They may be similar to say, Zoroaster or Neo-Platonism, but not borrowed. I've done my homework however maybe I missed something. Please show me the word for word you are speaking of.
edit on 6-12-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I dont have it in front of me but in the bible jesus meets a possesed man who is tormented by a demon who calls himself "legion" for he is many. Jesus saves the man by casting the demons into a herd of pigs, who then throw themselves from a cliff. The towns folk come out and are pived. I believe it is Mark 4 or 5

The same thing happens in the illiad almost verbatem. Some of the names are dif and the demon is cast into a dlock o crows i think.

There are several sites that lay these comparisons out for anyone to see.

There are also about 100 other similar comparisons taken from other beliefs like mithraism, budhism, zooroastra, sumerian cuniform, the epic of gilgamesh, the baghavad gita, egyptian ( isis, osirus, horus)
I can really go on and on. In fact when you lay these stories out you can plainly see the chronology and evolution of these stories and why and how the bible was edited by the catholic church (universal church) to reach the broodest market. Even taking over the pagan holidays now littered with christian theology. (Ever wonder what trees have to do with christmas? Or rabbits have to do with the story of christs rebirth?)

I dont mean to pick on you but it seems you have taken a lot for granted and have accepted a lot with out enough research of your own. The truth is there is no magic, only things that we dont understand yet. There is no such thing as supernatural, as soon as something "supernatural is experienced in this physical world you could no longer consider apart from this natural world so the word itself is a misnomer.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Im not a big proponent of the "aliens did it" theories. But if you read the bible literally, that is the story that is being told. God, as such in the story, does not originate from this planet. He comes here with his angels, makes man from the materials of this planet. Some of these angels then interact with and share knowledge and interbreed with us creating some odd hybrid usually described as giants? Thats the story of genesis in a nutshell. Thats pretty odd but who am i to judge peoples interpretations of things.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

edmc^2

Krazysh0t
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The book could easily have been the subject of confirmation bias. If you want to see divinity in a book that is divine, you will see it. Not to mention there is the centuries of oppression from the Catholic church and various inquisitions to stamp out any other religions. So if the ruling elite deem that the bible is divine, you will find some way to rationalize it so that some guy with a black hood over his face doesn't lock you in a dungeon and stick flaming pokers in your eyes. So the ruling elite have been converting by torture and ostracizing non-believers for centuries while repeating over and over again that the bible is divine. People grow up their whole lives hearing that the bible is divine, then tell their kids that. It is no surprise that it would be hard to look at the bible critically unless you decouple the divinity from the bible.

As to your comment about the bible addressing the beginning of the universe, that is easy to see. First off there are only two answers to this question. There either is a beginning or there isn't. So to start with, you have a 50/50 shot of being right. Second, EVERY religion has a creation story. So Christianity (or rather Judaism in this case) having a creation story isn't really that impressive since it is just going along with the crowd. Third, since infinity is so hard to understand for humans, it makes more sense that ancient humans would see a beginning and an end to the universe. The concept of infinity was lost on them.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?




BTW - 50/50 chance of being right that the universe had a beginning or not is a very convenient way of not addressing the question.

But honestly, as a person of science as you claim to be - Are you really doubting that the Universe had a beginning - 13.7 billion years ago?

That all the findings gathered my men of science (NASA/Astrophysics/Cosmology) throughout the age of modern scientific knowledge are "bunk"?

If so, the earth must be 50/50 chance of being flat then using your analogy.


I think you may be misinterpreting what I said. All I'm suggesting with the 50/50 comment is that when pondering the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" there are only two answers. Yes or No. Then I went on to say that due to all the other religions having a creation myth, it isn't surprising that Christianity has one too. You originally asked how this story could come about, and I was just outlining a few logical deductions that could help to give the backbone of the story. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to come to the things I said. I also NEVER suggested or hinted that I don't believe the universe has a beginning, I'm not sure why you keep saying that.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?


The writer, most likely Moses, just jotted down what the Hebrew elders told him the story was. Before that it was passed down orally. Oral passing of stories opens doors for misinterpretations and leaving stuff out (which is probably how the contradictions I brought up in the OP came about). Not to mention if you, as the holder of the lore of your people, are the only one who knows these stories inside and out, you kind of have domain on what you tell your people since no one can confirm if that is the story or not.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


So you read all of this?

DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA

But really this thread isn't about conspiracies around the Council of Nicea. I generally don't enter into those threads and speak on it because like you say I'm not fully informed about it. I was just commenting that just because there is written documents saying the reasons for things doesn't mean that was the true intention. Though considering the literacy of the general public (practically 0) they didn't have much to worry about with people reading those documents and discovering any hidden truths, so maybe they are true.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

edmc^2

Krazysh0t
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The book could easily have been the subject of confirmation bias. If you want to see divinity in a book that is divine, you will see it. Not to mention there is the centuries of oppression from the Catholic church and various inquisitions to stamp out any other religions. So if the ruling elite deem that the bible is divine, you will find some way to rationalize it so that some guy with a black hood over his face doesn't lock you in a dungeon and stick flaming pokers in your eyes. So the ruling elite have been converting by torture and ostracizing non-believers for centuries while repeating over and over again that the bible is divine. People grow up their whole lives hearing that the bible is divine, then tell their kids that. It is no surprise that it would be hard to look at the bible critically unless you decouple the divinity from the bible.

As to your comment about the bible addressing the beginning of the universe, that is easy to see. First off there are only two answers to this question. There either is a beginning or there isn't. So to start with, you have a 50/50 shot of being right. Second, EVERY religion has a creation story. So Christianity (or rather Judaism in this case) having a creation story isn't really that impressive since it is just going along with the crowd. Third, since infinity is so hard to understand for humans, it makes more sense that ancient humans would see a beginning and an end to the universe. The concept of infinity was lost on them.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?




BTW - 50/50 chance of being right that the universe had a beginning or not is a very convenient way of not addressing the question.

But honestly, as a person of science as you claim to be - Are you really doubting that the Universe had a beginning - 13.7 billion years ago?

That all the findings gathered my men of science (NASA/Astrophysics/Cosmology) throughout the age of modern scientific knowledge are "bunk"?

If so, the earth must be 50/50 chance of being flat then using your analogy.


I think you may be misinterpreting what I said. All I'm suggesting with the 50/50 comment is that when pondering the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" there are only two answers. Yes or No. Then I went on to say that due to all the other religions having a creation myth, it isn't surprising that Christianity has one too. You originally asked how this story could come about, and I was just outlining a few logical deductions that could help to give the backbone of the story. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to come to the things I said. I also NEVER suggested or hinted that I don't believe the universe has a beginning, I'm not sure why you keep saying that.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?


The writer, most likely Moses, just jotted down what the Hebrew elders told him the story was. Before that it was passed down orally. Oral passing of stories opens doors for misinterpretations and leaving stuff out (which is probably how the contradictions I brought up in the OP came about). Not to mention if you, as the holder of the lore of your people, are the only one who knows these stories inside and out, you kind of have domain on what you tell your people since no one can confirm if that is the story or not.


No, I did not misinterpret what you said.

50/50 is an unsure answer. To me it's a YES. No doubt about it as indicated by all scientific findings. The universe had a beginning (13.7 billion years ago according to estimates). This is also born by the fact that the earth is around 4 billion years old - indicating a beginning. There's no if and buts or 50/50 chance.

Thus in this case - there's ONLY one answer:

The universe had a beginning.

NOT as you stated.


"there are only two answers"


Contradicting your next statement, namely:




I also NEVER suggested or hinted that I don't believe the universe has a beginning, I'm not sure why you keep saying that.


Now, why you're bringing in religion into this discussion, I'm not sure - but I have an idea.

As for the information about the beginning of the universe, sure, Moses was the writer and obviously got (some/many of) the information from his forefathers. But still, the question is - where did the space age information came from?

How is it possible that to have this information without the aid of modern science?

Did they just made it up?

Or did they guess it?

If so, how far reaching is their knowledge then?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Ok so you think everyone is allowed thier own interpretation of the bible? How does that help in any capacity? Should we also allow everyone's interpretation of math, or cosmology, how about biology? Or medical practices? Should we allow everyone their interpretation of what is allowed to be sold as food? This is why we set standards. And the standards should be the same across the board. What if someone reads the story of abraham and his child and interprets as abraham would have really won the ultimate favor had he gone through with the murder of his child.

We cannot just accept peoples interpretations of the bible. There are as many interpretations of it as there are people who have read it. It is a book that may have been meant as a collection of historical events, but those people had no idea what was actually going on. So... You get a story of magical providence. Which in no way matches what we know for certain is possible.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Creationism cannot be true


To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created?


edit on 6-12-2013 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Thats not a good metaphor because we know where dictionaries come from. In fact every example of a dictionary that we have, we know where it came from. That is very similar to the watchmaker story. It would be very odd indeed if something like that manifested on its own.

As for life? We know that it is self replicating some things dont even need a partner. Cells split and reproduce of thier own accord. It is a natural function of the chemistries involved. This is across the board with all forms of life.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Did you just utilize the watchmaker fallacy for the creation of the universe? I mean if you follow the science it all makes sense. Everything starts out small then builds on itself as gases combine into stars who create heavier atoms and explode which combine to former more complex structures and so forth. It's not like the Big Bang happened and whole galaxies popped out fully formed or anything. Your analogy is terrible.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join