Where do people on ATS stand on this?

Originally posted by maryjenkins
The Creation

According to an erudite book titled, The Holy Science, by Sri Yukteswar, Christian, Hebrew and Hindu scriptures are compared side by side.
For example, the universe was not created in 7 earth days. It was created in 7 stages. These are described as follows: “The universe thus described, commencing from the Eternal Substance, God, down to the gross material creation, has been distinguished into seven different spheres.
1. The foremost of these is the sphere of God - the only Real Substance in the universe.
2. The next in order is the sphere of the Holy Spirit.
3. The next is the sphere of spiritual reflection, the Sons of God, wherein the idea of separate existence of Self originates.
4. Then comes the sphere of the Atom, the beginning of the creation of darkness, Maya, upon which the Spirit is reflected.
5. Around this Atom is the sphere of magnetic aura, the electricities. This sphere is called the Great Vacuum.
6. The next is the sphere of electric attributes and is called the Vacuum Ordinary.
7. The last and lowest sphere is the sphere of gross material creation, which is always visible to everyone.
This is an abbreviated version so it will fit into the limits of a post. More later.

That's very good. I like that a lot. It seems to organize creation in a scientific shell which is very hard to do.

I used to believe in the theory of evolution until I realized it made no sense. This guy on Coast to Coast AM the other night who believes in creation had a few valid points. However, he should consider the idea of panspermia because him thinking the world is only 6000 years old makes him sound like an ignoramus -- which is sad for someone who is a scientist and has a vast wealth of knowledge under his belt.

But anyway, he made a good point. How could the human come together by chance? Let's say it did, and out of mutation came an organism with a heart. Well, if it hasn't developed lungs yet, how would a heart support itself? And if it hasn't developed a circulatory system, how would it support the lungs? And so on... But even better is the idea that the first proteins came together by chance. The odds of a protein coming together exactly as required for a human to form are 10 to the 520th power. Well, in science, anything that is 10 to the 50th power is considered impossible. So how can science therefore consider evolution a statistical probability? It just doesn't add up.

One more thing... The story of Noah and the flood. Someone here was saying how could Noah put two of every species on his ark? Well, how could aliens here today be collecting a genetic databank of all flora and fauna on the earth, said to be taking place so that they can re-seed us after a great catastrophe? It sounds to me like the ark was an alien craft that contained genetic information for all flora and fauna on the earth. A flood is very possible, just as they think the glaciers will melt today and cause massive floods. I think there are elements of truth in every religion, even if they are allegorical.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I prefer to go with PROOF rather than a STORY.

We have the fossils....simple enough... creationists cant disprove that which exists and has been proven....

Originally posted by pjslug
One more thing... The story of Noah and the flood. Someone here was saying how could Noah put two of every species on his ark? Well, how could aliens here today be collecting a genetic databank of all flora and fauna on the earth, said to be taking place so that they can re-seed us after a great catastrophe? It sounds to me like the ark was an alien craft that contained genetic information for all flora and fauna on the earth. A flood is very possible, just as they think the glaciers will melt today and cause massive floods. I think there are elements of truth in every religion, even if they are allegorical.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

in this case the fiction contained in Noah appears millenia older in stories from Mesopotamia which are in some cases word for word the same
there is one big difference
there arent two of every animal
that detail was added to the 1700bce edition of the Babylonian flood story
so you know what you can do with your alien theory don't you

Originally posted by pjslug

I used to believe in the theory of evolution until I realized it made no sense.

thats just because you don't know what the theory of evolution is
the fact that you are getting your research details from a creationist who you yourself labelled an ignoramous should go some way (mod edit)

Originally posted by jakyll
I don't believe in creationism or evolution.(from apes.)

thats just as well
the only people saying anything about man evolving from apes are people who don't know what the theory actually says because at no point has any scientist claimed that humans evolved from Apes
(mod edit]




[edit on 9-7-2007 by Marduk]

``````````````````````
Edited for personal attack

[edit on 10/7/07 by masqua]

Ah, what great timing and great fate has led me to this wonderful discussion.
I was reading the second epiloque of War and Peace and a similar theological has arisen.

A locomotive is moving. Someone asks: "What moves it?" A peasant says the devil moves it. Another man says the locomotive moves because its wheels go round. A third asserts that the cause of its movement lies in the smoke which the wind carries away.

Creationism is saying God has created everything. To disprove this you would have to disprove god, a disproveable idea. Or say someone in the future created a time machine and went back to with all the animals and put them in their respective places. (Ever thought of Noah's Ark being a time machine? I haven't until now.... A chapter that should have been put in the beginning and the end of the bible.) How did God do it? When did he do it? Who created God? Did he create himself? Or herself? Did a god create God? What happened to that god?

This is similar to the man who says the devil moves the train.

I do however lean towards evolution. An experiment where two men put water, gases that were on earth billions of years ago, and then sent tiny bolts of electricity on to the water. What formed was the beginnings of protein...the name escapes me. (Hazy memory of experiment, this is the basic idea, it was years ago when I read of this famous experiment.... those who remember let me know.) Anywho, I could kind of see how over time if it took long enough, probability will tell us (though slim it's possible, and all it would take is one formation of a single celled organism) the protozoan would put it self together.
However, how did the gases come to form? And the water? And earth? And the universe? And the time it took? How did time form?
(What does time consist of?)

This is similar to the man saying the wheels move the train.

But the man who says that the movement of the wheels is the cause refutes himself, for having once begun to analyze he ought to go on and explain further why the wheels go round; and till he has reached the ultimate cause of the movement of the locomotive in the pressure of steam in the boiler, he has no right to stop in his search for the cause.

We would have to proceed and come to the conclusion that nonliving things also evolve. This is partially true, in the sense of evolution being a form of change. And if it is changing, how can it be denied the label or title of life or living. Nonetheless matter exists as does energy so how can we deny it the possibility of conciousness as we cannot detect conciousness. If the first single celled organism was capable of questioning it's existence, it must have been perplexed at it's own existence. Nonetheless the first one to reproduce as it created another, without having another to create itself. Many living organisms must have came before and after the first living organism to reproduce. I am speaking of the living organisms that did not have the inscribed genetic material to reproduce. These organisms would have just came to be, died, and that was the entire life of them.


Neither explaination does the whole job completely....

Source



Off topic: We need a law of time similar to Newtons law of gravity.... Something along the lines of Matter changes in a process.....No.....Matter deteriorates matter at a rate that is measurable.
*'s Law Of time.


Off Topicer: Tolstoy is part genius.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Jvillezbank]

But anyway, he made a good point. How could the human come together by chance? Let's say it did, and out of mutation came an organism with a heart. Well, if it hasn't developed lungs yet, how would a heart support itself? And if it hasn't developed a circulatory system, how would it support the lungs? And so on... But even better is the idea that the first proteins came together by chance. The odds of a protein coming together exactly as required for a human to form are 10 to the 520th power. Well, in science, anything that is 10 to the 50th power is considered impossible. So how can science therefore consider evolution a statistical probability? It just doesn't add up.

No No No No No. It doesn't add up because that's not what Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is. That was his point?! He IS an ignoramus.


Organisms are very slowly becoming more complex.
Chart of Life

Where to start?
(Look this up!)
Evolution is survival of the fittest. Fit not meaning the ape with abs, but fit being the organism who is best suited to his enviroment. It is he will have the best chance at surviving and reproducing.

Check this out: We're birds. Chirp Chirp. Whee I can fly.
There's some nuts on the ground that we eat. My DNA mutated in a way that made my beak a little thicker and narrower. Sure the chick-birds make fun of me, but I can crack nuts better than anyone else. Now as we compete for these nuts, I get more, you get less. A year passes, weather is a little screwy. It knocked most of the nut-bearing trees over, before they could bear any food for us. There isn't enough nuts in our community for everyone to live, and most will starve to death within a few weeks. Of these birds that starve.... will I be one to die? Of course not, my beak was better at cracking open nuts so I had access to more of them...... so I will reproduce. And there will be more bird with beaks a little thicker and a little narrower, and the species slowly begins to change as we compete for resources.

Survival Of the Fittest.

Now as for how it all began, scientists hypothesize that the small chemical units of life formed gradually over millions of year's in the ocean. Some joined to form larger chemical building blocks, and eventually accumulated and became the building blocks for the first cells. Evidence of this is in fossils, that you hear these other members speak of. The oldest known fossil is 3.5 billion years old. Plenty more than 6000.

Also another scientist (forgot who) conflicts the 6000 year old notion with Pangea and "Observable processes that take place over large amounts of time" or something. Basically the continents fit in with eachother and fossils show the same species on the coastlines of continents....the continents are slowly 'drifting' blah blah blah.

Look up Evolution please.....

To the person I quoted:
This manner of this post is not condescending, it's just a hard topic to explain off to topic of your head and that's why I gave such a basic example and spoke the way I did.

EDIT: Very basic representation of Darwin's Theory.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Jvillezbank]

Originally posted by Jvillezbank
There isn't enough nuts in our community for everyone to live,

thesedays of course there are far too many nuts in our community for everyone to live

Check this out: We're birds. Chirp Chirp. Whee I can fly.
There's some nuts on the ground that we eat. My DNA mutated in a way that made my beak a little thicker and narrower. Sure the chick-birds make fun of me, but I can crack nuts better than anyone else. Now as we compete for these nuts, I get more, you get less. A year passes, weather is a little screwy. It knocked most of the nut-bearing trees over, before they could bear any food for us. There isn't enough nuts in our community for everyone to live, and most will starve to death within a few weeks. Of these birds that starve.... will I be one to die? Of course not, my beak was better at cracking open nuts so I had access to more of them...... so I will reproduce. And there will be more bird with beaks a little thicker and a little narrower, and the species slowly begins to change as we compete for resources.

Yes, exactly, but birds will mutate into other birds. Where is the fossil evidence to substantiate the claim that one species mutated into an entirely different species? We find fossils of distinct species but none of animals that are half and half, such as half bird / half pig. This wouldn't happen because if one animal were to do so, how would it reproduce unless another animal mutated exactly the same way at exactly the same time? The mutated animal wouldn't be sitting there twiddling its thumbs waiting for the next animal to mutate so they could procreate.

Originally posted by pjslug
Yes, exactly, but birds will mutate into other birds. Where is the fossil evidence to substantiate the claim that one species mutated into an entirely different species?

I don't think you understand biological classification of species. Here's a basic rundown. Within life, you have a categorical breakdown of every species, and it looks something like this.

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Lets take the example of the pigeon. It's classification would be

Animalia (Animals)
Chordata (having a spinal chord)
Aves (Bird)
Columbiformes (a more specific type of bird)
Columbidae (including doves and pigeons)
Patagioenas (Specifically new world pigeons)
Columba livia domestica (Domestic Pigeon)

You are correct that you would never see a bird/pig because birds and pigs are an entirely different class within the phylum chordata (way up the line). However, you might find pigeons mutating slightly to form different types of pigeons. These branches could continue on to form drastic differences over periods of millions of years.

For example, long long ago as reptiles were changing slightly, there was a branch that went off to form early mammals, while the rest of the reptiles stayed as reptiles. The reptiles that stayed as familiar reptiles (over a period of millions more years (grammar?)) started to look more and more like birds, while the mammalian branch was already well on it's way to forming pigs.

Does that make sense? If not, which parts are confusing. Maybe I can clarify a bit for you.

I wanna have a time machine and see Noah trying to catch a male and a female mosquito and put them to somekind off stone container( what eveer container where used? )
And then I wanna also see how did Noad deal with hermaphrodites ( species that dont need two sexes to reproduce ). Did he take only one of them or two just to be sure?
And how in the hell did he get all the microscopic animals to the boat? I presume he didnt have a microscope with him.
Because what I´ve heard ( according to bible) every living thing on Eart today had to be also in the ark.

Rasobasi420, your awesomeness in your post on the classification of living things makes me sad.... for i am no longer able to give you a way above.

i guess this just shows you how horrible the biology education has become.

Thanks madness. It just makes me realize that anger in the face of ignorance only leads to more opposition and further ignorance. Education is the only option.

Originally posted by DisabledVet
I prefer to go with PROOF rather than a STORY.

We have the fossils....simple enough... creationists cant disprove that which exists and has been proven....

OK I will bite what does a fossil tell you? See a fossil only tells me one thing and one thing only, so I am extremely interested in what they tell you.

There is no proof of evolution, if there was it wouldn't be called a THEORY.

Originally posted by finallianstallionBecause what I´ve heard ( according to bible) every living thing on Eart today had to be also in the ark.

That's what "YOU HEARD", oh so your really talking without any knowledge of the facts, thanks for clearing that up for us that do know what it says, we were wondering where you got your information. But now we know, YOU HEARD that it said that.

Let me be the first to say to you, NO IT DOESN'T SAY THAT...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I am wondering where ATS'rs stand on Evolution and Creation and the Age of the Earth. [...]
I will go first and say that I believe the Bible's account of our Origin.
[...]

Which of the Bible's two versions of the origin of man do you believe? Oh, you thought there was only one? Well, I suppose you would think that if you never actually read the book, which would be typical of your ilk.

Otherwise, good for you. I guess you get a cookie. Good luck trying to convince anyone that you're right. And on the other hand, why would you even want to try? Do us all a favor and rest easy in your superior belief, and don't bug us with it. We'll never convince you otherwise, and you'll never convince us, so let's just avoid a long, boring, pointless "discussion" of it. Thanks.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by SuicideVirus]

I believe everything in science + God created it all. 'nuff said

the earth, our universe and us(humans) were created by the material god. The material god is somewhat similar to the catholic devil in that he is pure malevolence. However he is not a fallen angel. He is simply part of the original duality.

Originally posted by Gorman91
I believe everything in science + God created it all. 'nuff said

no, not " 'nuff said"
there is no need for god in the system. god adds no additional understanding of the processes that have eventually created human life.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is no need for god in the system. god adds no additional understanding of the processes that have eventually created human life.

without understanding the gods, you will never understand the true meaning of your life.

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy

without understanding the gods, you will never understand the true meaning of your life.

That's not necessarily true. God may have given meaning to your life, but it isn't an absolute for everyone. And no, God doesn't add anything to the facts of life. And for those who are so upset that evolution is a "Theory" (which just shows that they don't know what a theory actually is) Isn't God really the biggest, and least proven theory out there?