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.
by melatonin
The point is, we can all make stuff up that has no basis in reality.
Originally posted by RANT
No, the poster can't. At least not any more than one can scientifically prove Katie Holmes didn't create the universe.
Science and ID/creationism mix like oil and water. IDist are the ones that need to stop pretending they can prove Katie Holmes is the Alpha and Omega (metaphorically).
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Agreed, and at this point it would seem atheists are 'making stuff up' about the beginning of life. The only thing they can say is 'We Know that it happened, Non-Life turned into Life'. Somehow a bunch of genetic code was lying around and 'poof', it decided it was time to get organized. I would ask the question, Which piece of the code took charge and what methods did it utilize to convince the others that it's plan was the best one? What's the old saying, It's like having an explosion in a print shop and coming out with Webster's Dictionary.
As far as the 'usefulness' of evolution, still don't find any practical uses for it. I get far more peace and satisfaction out of relationship with my Creator than a trillion articles on fossils will ever give me.
I've noticed that you like to shift focus to 'shamans' quite a bit. Fact is, a relationship with one's Creator does not require the involvement of anyone other than you and your Creator. Finding fault with Men is easy, we all have failings. But to use them as an excuse is a cop-out IMO.
Originally posted by shrunkensimon
But has science made any attempt to analyize the other side of the argument? No.
Just because we can't see "god" or measure it, science deems it not to exist...
Science also says telepathy and telekinesis are impossible, yet both have been demonstrated by many people on many different occasions. There are also many other people with bizzare talents which defy science.
Think of it this way, that we are participating in an experiment known as "life". Can one measure outside of that experiement if he is within that experiment?.. Do you not wonder why all mathematical and physics equations brake down and give illogical answers when trying to equate the big bang?
Science is not the answer because (so far) it has only attempted to observe whats on the outside of the human experience. More to the point, can you observe consciousness or measure it? No, but we all know it exists because we are infact conscious, we are self aware!
Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think science says any such thing. I think it is more a case that it has not been shown in testable and repeatable conditions.
James Randi is still waiting with a million pounds for someone who can show these things to be true.
Yup, classical physics breaks down at a singularity. However, quantum mechanics may well give us the answers we are seeking. The LHC may push us on the way.
You seem to be talking a bit like the philosopher Chalmers (if you don't know him, you'll like his stuff - I tend to Dennett myself). He claims that the universe itself is conscious, he is almost a panpsychist (but never defends this position). Maybe he is right, maybe not. Until we can test, it is all just speculation, like most philosophy.
Maybe science will answer the questions of consciousness. I think it will. Mysterian approaches are all well and good, but they have no success in giving real answers, just speculation.
[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]
by melatonin
we do not have enough knowledge to claim we know how it happened. we just know it did
Cool. When these drug companies do make this new drug for protecting against cholesterol that is sourced from an evolutionary perspective, particularly beneficial mutation, don't use it. Also, you should never use a flu vaccine. Just pray to god like Gene Scott.
I don't think I mentioned it first. I think you need to raise this with someone else.
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Using an awful lot of Faith. Atheists and Faith, interesting........
Not sure Evolution plays a big role in pharm companies. I definitely don't mess with their drugs though. Look at the problems they're having with statins in their cholesterol drugs, just another pharm fad.
This isn't the first discussion where you've sited 'shamans'.
Originally posted by selfless
why would you make a thread like this? oh i know.... you're a troll.
defeat? no one views anything as a defeat or a victory... that's just people like you who likes to troll and only contributes to the message board for ''winning''
it's not about winning it's about infinite possibilities....
this thread is a waste of time and no one should even reply to it.
Originally posted by selfless
.... you're a troll.
by zooeyglass14
Evolution plays a huge role in pharmacy. Disease causing bacteria and viruses can evolve very rapidly to avoid being killed by the drugs.
by melatonin
At one point no life, then life. Abiogenesis occured.
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
This brings up a point which has been on my mind. If a land creature evolved into a flying creature, wouldn't the useless appendages (wings) that weren't fully developed, cause the land bound creature to become extremely vulnerable to predators? Even to the point of Extinction?
by melatonin
Ostriches do quite well with a pretty much useless wing. So there is no reason to believe that a therapod with 'half a wing' would be at any extra threat.
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Ostriches are quite large thus the extra defenses, running, kicking. In order to get airborne, the creature would need to be much smaller and lighter. Which would take away the extra defenses, leaving it somewhat vulnerable I would think.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by selfless
why would you make a thread like this? oh i know.... you're a troll.
personal attack much?
Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Originally posted by selfless
.... you're a troll.
While I personally lean toward creationism, and I must say that the original post does not uncover some new and shocking conspiracy, I must say that your comments are simply uncalled for.