|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/8/2006 9:09:07 AM | | Hmmm.. John Lennons "Imagine" comes to mind...Veritas Keep looking on the bright side.The world needs more of those who see things as half full not half empty... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/8/2006 12:14:10 PM | The religious see the justifications of thier belief disappearing. Disagree. Some of the narrow minded among the religious see science as a threat to their belief system. Most religious persons I know don't have a problem with evolution. Its only the wackos that freak out and try to silence people who don't actually believe that the world is only 4 to 8 thousand years old or that stars are actually holes poked in a sky held up by angelic pillars.
Science has never been a threat to religion and does not aim to undermine the moral and spiritual justifications of religion. Science is about learning to appreciate the entirety of natural phenomena and the laws that govern it. It has nothing to do with theology.
The camps that create most of the controversy concering disputes between religion and science are both ignorant. One camp feels religion is a joke and overlooks its cultural significance and necessity in civilization and the other camp believes, erroneously, that science challenges religious moral tenets on the basis that it might undermine the theologically irrelevant historical accuracy of mythological fables. Such stories are designed to teach moral lessens as a guide to behavior (that is God's purpose for them), not to teach the scientific reality of the world. Any sane Catholic clergy in the modern world will tell you that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/8/2006 6:16:12 PM | Most people who DENY evolution as FACT rarely defend creationism because it's a pathetic story and its source, the bible, was written when the scientific method didn't even exist. Watch. They will always pick at evolution and preach the same crap that was told to them (like "it's just a theory"). There really is no other alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design is just another fancier term for Creationism because it alway ends with the belief that there was a "designer" aka. God.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/8/2006 7:32:02 PM | Creation vs. Evolution? How about both together....but not how anyone expects...
I've been doing a lot of research into the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia, which was the earliest human civilization, and it's fascinating stuff. Artifacts from that period are being unearthed and studied almost daily. And they appear to shed some light on our humble beginnings. Their mythologies were the basis for most of the Old Testament, which, of course, people who believe in the infallability of the Bible are going to have a problem with. But, there are parallels in their tablets to the Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, almost the entirety of Genesis.
In their creation of man tale, the rank and file gods who were mining what was later through mistranslation called the underworld and evolved into the concept of hell, but is now thought to be refering to the southern hemisphere, specifically Africa (where they've discovered mining operations carbon-dated to about 41,000 BC), got tired of their toiling and revolted. The council of 12 ruling gods decided to create man to work for the gods (and the word "worship" has evolved from "workship"). They did it by mixing human seed with their own. So, in other words, they took the creature that had evolved into cro-magnon man and mixed it with their own essence. So, it's both.
The gods put man in their garden of eden, somewhere in Africa. Most of the gods, including Enlil, who plays the role of Jehovah in most of the tales and ruled the earth, believed that humans should be mindless slaves, but Enki, who had first come to earth to initiate mining and set up camp, thought we should be self aware, and is portrayed as a serpent, which represented wisdom and knowledge in those days. There are also those who believe that the tree of knowledge represents the ability to procreate, as the biblical "to know" has sexual connotations.
What's mind boggling about them is that their creation story seems to tell of how a planet from outside our solar system was pulled in by Neptune's gravity and collided with the earth, creating the asteroid belt. And if this was a life-bearing planet, possibly the planet of the gods, the collision may have seeded the planet and made it possible for life to evolve on Earth. This creation story is why the planets are named after gods. The Sumarians knew the earth was a sphere and revolved around the sun. They knew of all the planets. There's tablets that show the solar system.
The planets each had a corresponding number. Earth's was 7. But we think of earth as the 3rd planet. But, it's the 7th planet if you're coming from outside the solar system...
There really is no dispute between science and religion, because they are finding that they can scientifically explain any of the events in the bible with discoveries that are barely a decade old. The laws of physics are being rewritten every day.
If you want to check any of this out, because there's so much more, I'd recommend poking around this amazing site: http://www.halexandria.org/home.htm | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/8/2006 9:34:36 PM |
What's mind boggling about them is that their creation story seems to tell of how a planet from outside our solar system was pulled in by Neptune's gravity and collided with the earth, creating the asteroid belt. And if this was a life-bearing planet, possibly the planet of the gods, the collision may have seeded the planet and made it possible for life to evolve on Earth. This creation story is why the planets are named after gods. The Sumarians knew the earth was a sphere and revolved around the sun. They knew of all the planets. There's tablets that show the solar system.
The most widely accepted view of how the asteroid belt was created is that a ring of rocky matter that was left after the formation of the sun failed to coalesce into a planet because of Jupiter's gravity. This fits really nicely with our knowledge of how the solar system was created, that planets formed from a disc of matter left over after the sun formed, so there's really no reason to believe that the asteroid belt was formed by a planetary collision when the evidence doesn't support that.
Also, if such a collision did seed life on earth, there's no way anything more than bacteria could have survived the impact. Even just a comet was enough to wipe out the dinosaurs, a collision between planets would be so much worse. If the Sumerians were around to witness something like that, there's no way they could have passed it down through their mythology because they would all have been dead. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 8:20:21 AM |
Also, if such a collision did seed life on earth, there's no way anything more than bacteria could have survived the impact. Even just a comet was enough to wipe out the dinosaurs, a collision between planets would be so much worse. If the Sumerians were around to witness something like that, there's no way they could have passed it down through their mythology because they would all have been dead.
I think that if the collision of our planet with another is what seeded the Earth with life, it stands to reason that there was no life on the planet before then, so, yes, the Sumerians were not around at that point. They claim that the knowledge was told to them by the gods, who came from the planet, which they called the planet of crossing and was represented by a cross.
As far as evidence of a planetary collision goes, it explains the asteroid belt and also Pluto's erratic orbit. As well as the comets, which they say were originally 9 of Earth's 10 moons, which were knocked into their elliptical orbits after the collision. It's as likely an explanation of the origin of the asteroid belt as your "widely accepted" view, which I should point out is also just a matter of faith.
I submit that science is just another religion and its followers get just as outraged by things that question their beliefs as Christians or any other faithful do. Except for Buddhists and Taoists. They don't seem to get outraged by very much...
But many scientist and researchers don't cling to beliefs that they realize are only theories and many of them are looking to the ancient past to help determine our future... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 9:08:20 AM | That site is not a credible source. Its like something out of scientology. Though, I'll admit it is highly entertaining and well written. However, there is much truth about aspects of the Old Testament being an amalgam of older mythologies.
It's as likely an explanation of the origin of the asteroid belt as your "widely accepted" view, which I should point out is also just a matter of faith. Actually its based on data. The stuff from that site you gave us a link to is based on faith. As is the idea that the ancient Sumerians had knowledge of Neptune and Cromagnons. By the way your conjecture that modern humans were formed from a mix of alien and Cromagnons genes is very ignorant considering Cromagnons were already fully human. They were merely an extinct subspecies or even sub-subpecies of modern humans by current paleoanthropological views.
I submit that science is just another religion and its followers get just as outraged by things that question their beliefs as Christians or any other faithful do. Except for Buddhists and Taoists. They don't seem to get outraged by very much... This pathetic argument has already been refuted a dozen times in this thread. Science is based on hypotheses which are based on data and tested rigorously and even when developed into theories and laws can still be proven wrong if there is a substantial reason. Religion is based exclusively on absolute ideas that cannot be tested. There is no sound logic in the position you just submitted. Its complete nonsense.
Scientists don't get outraged at Creationists and there ilk, they simply try to avoid them like any intelligent person tries to avoid a fool. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 9:12:05 AM |
I think that if the collision of our planet with another is what seeded the Earth with life, it stands to reason that there was no life on the planet before then, so, yes, the Sumerians were not around at that point. They claim that the knowledge was told to them by the gods, who came from the planet, which they called the planet of crossing and was represented by a cross.
Then the same stands for that planet of the gods. The only way that they could have survived the collision and told the Sumerians about it would be if they had some really advanced technology that allowed them to escape their planet before the collision, settle on some other planet in a far away solar system, and then come back billions of years later to explain the situation to the Sumerians. Pretty far fetched.
As far as evidence of a planetary collision goes, it explains the asteroid belt and also Pluto's erratic orbit. As well as the comets, which they say were originally 9 of Earth's 10 moons, which were knocked into their elliptical orbits after the collision. It's as likely an explanation of the origin of the asteroid belt as your "widely accepted" view, which I should point out is also just a matter of faith.
It's not as likely an explanation as the widely accepted one because the widely accepted one is based on known facts about the solar system. By studying the formation of other stars in other parts of the galaxy we can see that they coalesce from nebulae, once formed they're left with a disc of material around them, and physics (plus the lack of that disc around mature stars) suggests that planets form due to collisions and gravitational attraction within that disc, except in special cases like the asteroid belt. This also explains the fact that all planets lie on the same plane and orbit in the same direction.
Pluto's erratic orbit is explained by the fact that it's really just a large Kuiper belt object (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt), there are way more than 9 comets (proof from wikipedia, they mention more than 9 different comets in their article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet, also the Kuiper belt article notes how short period comets are believed to originate there, long period comets are believed to originate from the Oort cloud, although that's more speculative). And here's the asteroid belt article just for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt, notice how the physics of Jupiter's gravity accurately predicts the boundaries of the asteroid belt, more strong evidence.
I submit that science is just another religion and its followers get just as outraged by things that question their beliefs as Christians or any other faithful do. Except for Buddhists and Taoists. They don't seem to get outraged by very much...
Science is based on facts, and a good scientist will happily change his/her beliefs when new facts come to light (although, when scientists see the theories they've been working on all their lives fall apart due to new evidence, many of them don't take it too well, but the overall scientific community moves on to the new theories without much trouble). Scientists do get outraged when ideas that are not based on facts, and can be easily disputed by looking at the facts, become popular. There's a big difference between testable theories and blind faith. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 11:36:46 AM | I suspect that you didn't delve too deeply into that site, Lizard...
"That site is not a credible source. Its like something out of scientology" seems like a shallow, hostile, judgement. If you actually searched around there, you should find a lot of new, ground-breaking science, both theoretical and tried and tested, which is what you claim to hold so sacred. Remember: open mind.
Yes, the "ancient astronaut" theory is the result of much speculation, interpretation and conjecture. And of course just begs more questions, if the Nefilim created humans, who created the Nefilim, or how long did it take them to evolve? But there is compelling archeological evidence...granted, again, open to interpretation, these people scratched and carved pictures in clay and stone to explain themselves...and also recent scientific evidence to back up the speculation, which you may have come across if you bothered at all to look at that site.
It appears that the Sumerians knew about a bunch of stuff that they had no business knowing in 4000 BC. They knew about monatomic elements and how to produce them, something we've only just rediscovered in the past decade. You need to have a functioning understanding of superconductivity to produce them. They had at least one superconductor...the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible is very specific in its instructions of how to build it. Scientific, almost.
Scientists and researchers, using observation, not faith, have found that monatomic elements appear to warp space/time, repell gravity and can resonate with deformed DNA, unlocking it's memory, it's written information, turning it into a self-correcting superconductor. They've cured terminal cases of cancer and even AIDS. This is actual fact. Many of them are predicting teleportation, anti-gravity technology and an end to the pharmeceutical industry within our lifetimes, which will be extended. Some of what they say is now possible is very difficult to give any credence to, it's like science-fiction or magic.
The Sumerians knew about and used this stuff. The most reasonable explanation of how the Egyptians built the pyramids is that they levitated the blocks. Yes it is...otherwise they had to build a ramp roughly the same size and mass as the pyramids themselves. And that would be silly. It was called various names by various cultures,...sha-manna, the spittle from the mouth of God, the Tear from the Eye of Horus, the Philosopher's Stone...etc...
They claimed that it was a gift from the gods, and really, I don't have a better theory as to how they knew about it...do you? Did they just accidentally stumble upon it?
As for Cromagnons being fully human...did they have self-awareness, consciousness? Is it not possible that extraterrestials genetically engineered humans to be conscious? Or, as some scientists now believe, were monatomic elements responsible for human consciousness? And were they introduced naturallly or by design?
"Scientists don't get outraged at Ceationists and their ilk, they simply try to avoid them like any intelligent person tries to avoid a fool." Yep, no outrage there...just some healthy indignant bitterness and resentment...
Shwa---I will check those links out...thank you for backing up your position with sources instead of with vitriol...but as far as the collision affecting the Annanuki's planet, it's been speculated that the collision with earth was actually with one of it's satellites, or that the Planet of Crossing, or Marduk or Nibiru, depending on the culture, was some kind of dwarf sun with it's own mini-system and it was one of those planets that collided with Tiamat (Pre-collision Earth).
Let me be clear that I'm not presenting any of the ancient astronaut theory as gospel truth, but it is fascinating because it does make sense of various mysteries regarding the Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Egyptians and early Israelites. And they drew some weird pictures and statues...flying chariots with wings, submarines, people wearing fish suits, beams of destructive force emitting from towers...what do you make of that? Those stories that appear in so many mythologies had to originate somewhere. Maybe the Sumerians just had really good imaginations...they didn't have TV back then....
Or did they...? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 4:30:27 PM |
Let me be clear that I'm not presenting any of the ancient astronaut theory as gospel truth, but it is fascinating because it does make sense of various mysteries regarding the Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Egyptians and early Israelites. And they drew some weird pictures and statues...flying chariots with wings, submarines, people wearing fish suits, beams of destructive force emitting from towers...what do you make of that? Those stories that appear in so many mythologies had to originate somewhere. Maybe the Sumerians just had really good imaginations...they didn't have TV back then....
Or did they...?
I like to explain the behaviour of past cultures using our knowledge of people alive today (or recently enough that we can trust the recorded history).
We know that cultures, past and present, have used hallucinogenic drugs and other means to go into trance-like states where they have visions (eg. shamanism). Some of these visions involve feelings of flying, encounters with spirit beings, etc.
We know that some people have mental problems that can cause them to have spiritual visions (eg. epileptic seisures). Here's an interesting link that suggests some important religious figures (Moses, Muhammed, St. Paul) may have had epilepsy (http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm).
So my opinion on pictures and statues of strange, out-of-this-world things from ancient cultures is that they are probably a result of some altered state of the mind. It just makes more sense to me because it doesn't involve invoking something for which we have no hard evidence (aliens visiting the earth). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 5:20:09 PM | Why might a Scientist become a Christian:
-the intelligibility of the universe in terms of mathmatical physics.
- the astonishingly high information content in even the simplest self-replicating biochemical system.
-the extrodinary fine tuning of the universe. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 7:26:42 PM | Hey, all:
Why might a Scientist remain very happily a Scientist for an entire lifetime, and not ever have to embrace foolish, ignorant, bankrupt, absurd, unsupported mythology and become a Christian:
-the intelligibility of the universe in terms of math[e]matical physics.
- the astonishingly high information content in even the simplest self-replicating biochemical system.
-the extr[a]o[r]dinary fine tuning of the universe.
Why is it that some think intelligent, rational, thinking, trained, professionals will suddenly throw their hands up, shout "Hallelujah, it must be JAYSUS!" Get real. Religion is mythology, and all it supports is useless, full of distortions, falsehoods, and rampant hypocrisy.
Right back atcha.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 8:20:03 PM | Why might a Scientist become a Christian:
-the intelligibility of the universe in terms of mathmatical physics.
- the astonishingly high information content in even the simplest self-replicating biochemical system.
-the extrodinary fine tuning of the universe.
Welcome back, Slick!
Well, you had me until that last one you tried to slip in there. The fact that something can be discerned through rigorous scientific observation aided by mathematical instrumentation does not come close to proving that it was intelligently designed.
That argument also logically presupposes that one cannot be a Christian and a scientist and simply keep his or her theological beliefs seperate from his or her scientific observations. Your premise is flawed.
Its only when the theology and the science get mingled that it becomes a farce. There are plenty of scientists who go to church every Sunday and are not Creationists. Creationists think that God has to fit in their box. Scientists leave the theology to the theologens and philosophers. The fact that a scientist does not allow religion to enter into his studies does not preclude he or she from living by the moral precepts of the Christian religion nor does it preclude such a person from allowing the faith to be a guide in his or her personal life. There are many credible scientists who practice the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths. They retain their credibility because they don't mix theology with science.
Slick, you are unlikely to find anyone in this thread who will be persuaded by your arguments. They are always articulate yet drawn from obfuscated and yet flawed premises. These tactics work with weak-minded people, not with rational minds.
As always, I appreciate your civility as it is rare for someone with your views. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/9/2006 10:25:57 PM | I just find the conflict between science and the bible ironic. Throughout the Bible, knowledge of God is compared with the wonders of nature. As stated in Psalms 19:1, "The Heavens tell of God's glory and the sky declares his handiwork."
Also in Romans 1:20, "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
The basic tension between religion and science is biblical literalism. Literalism is simply not an effective way to extract meaning from the bible. In the first three days of creation there's evening and morning without a sun. The sun and moon wern't created until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-16) . Having an evening and morning without a sun might have encouraged the adult reader to look beyond a simple reading of the text.
In another example, Adam is told, "Of every tree in the garden you may eat freely. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:16, 17). The verb in the Hebrew text is doubled to emphasize the certainty of the punishment for transgression, hence "surely die." So what does Adam do? As typically human, he eats of it. And then he lives another 930 years.
Jesus also taught in parables, physical truths with spiritual meaning. | |
|
tekrok
|
Joined: 6/28/2006
Msg: 3640 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 12:10:36 AM | Mc square.
energy = mass times the speed of light, [bang] bad.
now reverse it.
LIGHT travelling at great SPEED developing MASS creating ENERGY you GOOD. | |
|
Jam301
|
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 3641 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 2:16:39 AM | Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition. It is commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object (real or imagined), person (real or imagined), or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1] In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.
Occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restrictive sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization).
Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[1] The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense.
Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.
Ok so your saying the evolutionary theory at its roots ex. (Big Bang theory) is not supernatural seeing as though a massive ball of materials used to create life comes out of nothing. hmmmm. doesnt make any sense. at least creatonism
has the wits to see that life doesnt come from nothing. and actually if evolution is so emersed in scientific fact how come it defies the unbunked scientific law of thermodynamics.
and occording to evolution we evoved from apes. that is bullshit seeing hoe there are still apes today much to the dismay of evolutionist extremely similer if not the same as our so called ancestors. Stilling searching for that non-existent missing link to fill in the void of your utterly ridiculous cause to avoid having to be responsible for your own selfish ambitions and
having to be responsible for your own sins against your fellow man. If natural selection is true then why are humans wasting there time trying to find and discover outer space and our own origins when it isnt relavent to our survival. Damn quit talking all this shit when you cant even back up your own theory at the root of its cause. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 2:41:38 AM | Slick:
Jesus also taught in parables, physical truths with spiritual meaning. The physical reality of parables is completely irrelevent, that isn't the point of the parables. If you think the historical accuracy and physical reality of the parables is necessary for them to have meaning you have no grasp of what religion is and no faith. I sincerely hope that is not the case.
Cussing person:
if evolution is so emersed in scientific fact how come it defies the unbunked scientific law of thermodynamics. This pathetic argument has been soundly refuted about 20 times in this thread. Evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics; its an absurd misapplication of a scientific law.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Damn quit talking all this shit when you cant even back up your own theory at the root of its cause. You are the one who cannot back up his own position and stoops to using childish vulgarity to blattantly insult everyone that happens to disagree with you. If I thought you were intelligent enough to understand any field of science I would suggest you did earnest research and came back to the thread when you could make sense. However, your fourth grade level mastery of logic and diction clearly illustrates that would never be possible. | |
|
Jam301
|
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 3643 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 3:00:11 AM | | i still didnt hear anything about the so called missing link theory? | |
|
Jam301
|
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 3644 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 3:02:44 AM | | And how did Advanced intelligent beings formed by natural selection become enthrolled in there own origins and the far reaches of space. This without a doubt prooves natural selection is a sci-fi science | |
|
Jam301
|
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 3645 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 3:09:26 AM | | Oh and im still waiting for the Answer to how a massive ball of materials created itself and then exploded to create the universe from seemingly nothing. oh and by the way i made fun of you for the sole purpose of showing how you blatantly contradicted your own statement by returning harsh comments back SLICK | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 8:03:10 AM |
Ok so your saying the evolutionary theory at its roots ex. (Big Bang theory) is not supernatural seeing as though a massive ball of materials used to create life comes out of nothing.
The big bang theory and its variants are based on observed background radiation in the universe that otherwise has no explanation (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html). It doesn't have a lot of evidence to support it because of the nature of the problem (so long ago, can't be observed, etc) but it's the best theory we have so far.
Also, scientists can't provide a theory for what caused the big bang, or what came before it, because there is no evidence whatsoever in that area. Any explanation is just wild speculation, so its not a part of science.
and actually if evolution is so emersed in scientific fact how come it defies the unbunked scientific law of thermodynamics.
It doesn't (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html).
and occording to evolution we evoved from apes. that is bullshit seeing hoe there are still apes today much to the dismay of evolutionist extremely similer if not the same as our so called ancestors.
No scientists ever said that a new species must replace the one that came before it. Imagine one animal lives over a wide range. Something happens that separates the two populations (continental drift, climate change that renders part of their range uninhabitable, etc). The two populations of the same animal then continue evolving separately in two possibly different directions, both surviving as different species. See island dwarfing for some perfect examples.
Stilling searching for that non-existent missing link
The term 'missing link' was coined a long time ago. Since then scientists have continued to discover more and more fossils of prehistoric humans, yet people still like refering to the missing link for some reason. The truth is, there is no missing link anymore, the gaps in the fossil record have been filled quite well over the years.
If natural selection is true then why are humans wasting there time trying to find and discover outer space and our own origins when it isnt relavent to our survival.
Humans have succeeded as a species by gaining knowledge, it shouldn't surprise anyone that people still try to gain knowledge today, even if its not directly related to survival or reproduction. There are plenty of examples of things people do that don't relate to survival or reproduction (eg. guys who play video games all the time and never talk to women). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 8:04:11 AM | No need to keep waiting Jam. Just read the the thread all of your questions have been dealt with.
But I can save you the effort. It is your Questions that are in error. You're parroting something you read somewhere with out giving it any thought. Your questions about apes and the "missing link", only show you don't now what it is you're aruging against.
And the Question possed for this thread was not "What is wrong with science", But rather "What is it that creationism wants to teach?" Where is the Science? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 9:29:28 AM |
So my opinion on pictures and statues of strange, out-of-this-world things from ancient cultures is that they are probably a result of some altered state of the mind. It just makes more sense to me because it doesn't involve invoking something for which we have no hard evidence (aliens visiting the earth).
Sure, that's a possibility, but it's also suggesting that an entire culture was based on people tripping out on mushrooms or whathaveyou...and to me that doesn't seem very likely...but that could be because I'm influenced by modern society's mainstream attitude towards drugs, which would have been different back then, less hang-ups...
And I'm familiar with the epilepsy theory...I don't really buy into it, it just seems like grasping at straws...but again, it's a possibility...except for maybe Paul, him I'd accept as an epileptic, he was a wacko that James and the rest of the Qumran community apparently kicked out because of his views on Jesus' divinity, which weren't shared by the Essenes, unaware that sending him out to an unsuspecting world gave him a huge audience to spred his vision while the people who actually worked with Jesus tended to trying to protect Hebrew culture from the Romans, healing people, political agitation, whatever they got up to...(Sorry...tangent, but I can seldom resist the opportunity to stick it to Paul, the guy responsible for the formation of the Catholic Church, and I mean no disrespect to people with epilepsy)...
As for Moses, they figure he was a deposed pharaoh, King Akhenaten, kicked out of Egypt, and the Ten Commandments were given to him by the Lord of the Mountain (who could have just been a human being) and all they were was the laws of the community they were about to enter, the early Israelites.
But Moses evidentally also had knowledge of monatomic elements (which supposedly do alter perception) for you'll notice that when he come down from the mountain, he gets mad and burns the golden idol which becomes dust...not molten slag, which is what gold usually become when burned. But, if gold is superheated with a superconductor, it transmutes into monatomic gold, which is a fine dust...and then he feeds it to them...! The process also creates a blazing white light, which does no damage to anything around it (like a burning bush?) So, there's nothing with Moses that can't be explained scientifically.
It's been convincingly shown that use and production of monatomic elements, mostly gold, but also any other platinum group metal, was in evidence from the Sumerians to the Egyptians and to the time of Christ and the healers at Quamran, who used them to heal people and levitate himself across water.
Many of the ancient temples that were later assumed to be places of worship were actually places of work, where they produced monatomic powdered gold for the gods. They've been finding traces of the white powder in all kinds of archaological sites since they started digging around that defied analysis, until recently.
The Egyptians baked the stuff into white cone-shaped bread, and that's the origin of "give us this day our daily bread" which Christians assume comes from the last supper, unaware that Jesus was just performing an older ritual whose meaning was lost through misunderstanding and mistranslation later.
They understood the precautions to be taken when entering a Meissner Field...the priest approaching the superconductive Ark of the Covenant had to first consume the monatomic gold so that they'd be in resonance with the field, as well as remove all metalic objects from their person.
So, tripping on hallucinogens or epilepsy doesn't explain how the ancient folk knew about this shit.
It also doesn't explain why the first humans appeared in Africa (where the gods were supposedly mining for gold) but the first human civilization appeared very soon afterwards in Mesopotamia (where the gods supposedly first landed and set up base camp). Or why one of the earliest human endeavors was mining for precious metals.
There does seem to be some guiding hand in all this. And since I don't believe in a supernatural deity who did it all out of love for us (albeit a rather petty and very conditional love) it makes far more sense to me that it was extraterrestrials who were motivated by self-interest. I know at first it seems a crazed and whacked-out idea, believe me that was my first reaction when I first came across the theory (genetic engineering in 4000 BC, that's the missing link, yeah right...) but the more I look into it, the more it makes sense, no matter how fantastic...
Look, NASA is working on a warp drive, using platinum metals as a power source, which will bend space. If the Annunaki or Nefilim had this technology, they could easily go anywhere they wanted to, right? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 12:52:52 PM | Hey, all:
i still didnt hear anything about the so called missing link theory?
And how did Advanced intelligent beings formed by natural selection become enthrolled in there own origins and the far reaches of space. This without a doubt prooves natural selection is a sci-fi science
Oh and im still waiting for the Answer to how a massive ball of materials created itself and then exploded to create the universe from seemingly nothing. oh and by the way i made fun of you for the sole purpose of showing how you blatantly contradicted your own statement by returning harsh comments back SLICK
A knee-jerk reaction of ignorance if ever there was one.
It is hard to understand this, much less respond, to help sweep back the ignorance.
"Missing links" have always been a criticism of evolution by natural selection. As such it is specious. There are missing links in anything 4.5 billion years old (age of Earth) or ~2.4 billion years (age of life on Earth) with an imperfect fossil record, and infinite detail to decipher. That we have such a complete record as it is, is a tribute to luck and hard work by dedicated professionals who didn't just throw up their hands, and shout "Hallelujah!! It must be JAYSUS!!", which must be the mode of behavior of the creationists. As has been said, most of the links have been eliminated, but the creationists just won't move on, a characteristic common to their mentality. Missing links have occurred, but are characteristically placed at the point of rapid change in natural selection. It is easy to illustrate: many of us grew rapidly at some age in adolescence--but how many pictures are there of us with pants on that are 2 inches too short? It is simple--this is a period of rapid change, and the opportunity to capture change in action is more difficult. How about capturing a car accident in progress with a camera not already there and running? Or a dog fight? Or ANY short-lived event? Try this: stand in one place for one minute. Then, take one minute to move elsewhere. Stand there for one minute. What is the evidence that you were in transition? Even if you videotaped it or took snapshots, the evidence of transition is ALWAYS less than that of a static position. But you practically always know, or can reconstruct the before and after. Do you still believe the transition is a miracle or some similar nonsense? Beyond your powers of understanding? Do you WANT to understand?
Evidence of rapid change--transition, such as when adaptive radiation occurs in a newly adapted taxon, is always less. In the past, often all we have had is sketchy fossil evidence, but with DNA sequencing and matching we can confirm and adjust the evolutionary relationships among organisms. About the only problem has been convergent evolution, in which related organisms were thought to be more closely related, due to the influence of natural selection.
The question on "advanced...beings...own origins...and...space" is just too stupid to respond to. Well, I just did in a way. Do you understand self-awareness?
The Big Bang and the Singularity and cosmology are right at the cutting edge of science. I don't understand it and I started college in math and physics. We do know there is the back ground radiation which makes up much of the mass and energy of the universe. But how can creationists understand it if they don't get simple biology? Everyday, they just throw up their hands, and shout "Hallelujah!! It must be JAYSUS!!"! What can you expect of them, in such circumstances?
Maybe in time the mythology of religion and all such parochial, narcissistic mysticism will be understood as such, and we can put it aside. Until then...sometimes patience and sometimes not.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 7:20:14 PM |
Sure, that's a possibility, but it's also suggesting that an entire culture was based on people tripping out on mushrooms or whathaveyou...and to me that doesn't seem very likely...but that could be because I'm influenced by modern society's mainstream attitude towards drugs, which would have been different back then, less hang-ups...
You could look at the Yanomamo of the amazon, who were pretty much untouched by modern society until the late 20th century. They used hallucinogenic drugs during their religious rituals to communicate with spirit beings. This is pretty similar to some other Native American cultures that used peyote or tobacco for similar purposes, recently enough that its well documented. It's also known from other parts of the world, usually tribal societies.
It doesn't mean they were stoned all the time. The drugs were severely restricted, they could only be used during special rituals and by certain people (eg. shamans, elders), and were considered to be of high religious significance. This might seem strange to us today since we know that drugs work by screwing with the mind, but cultures that don't understand that have to come up with another explanation for their experiences. But still, even today I know people, some pretty smart, who believe that psychedelic drugs give them deep spiritual experiences.
As for the stuff about monatomic elements and mining in Africa, I don't know enough on the subjects to argue, so I won't. Maybe somebody else can dispute that for me  . | |
|
|
| Page 146 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
