Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

reply to post by Christian Voice


I think they could teach ID - but not creationism. And even then, they'd have to walk on egg shells not to choose is responsible.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I just don't really don't think any one specific God needs to be taught in school.

reply to post by Howie47


No, we just can't teach about God in school. That is, unless you want this country to end up like the Muslim ones everyone is so scared of.

Why act is if evolutionary theory is so far off? Have you ever visited a museum? It may do you well to visit a Museum of Natural History, so you can see some history other than what you read.

And you should embrace it - as I've said before. Seems like a respectable idea that a God would use evolution instead of just adding animals one by one like a Sims game.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]

There should be no arguments on Creationism vs Evolutionism because believe it or not, they both work hand in hand. The dawn of Evolutionism was brought forth by Creationism (1). (I believe that the universe was created by a higher diety and the galaxies are the end results of the blot of ink thrown at a wall, slowly moving) - the blot of ink being the universe - and it being thrown at the wall is the moment of its creation. - an example by Alan Watts

The process of Evolutionism (2) was also born (do you understand what I mean?). I believe that Evolutionism started with many unique single-celled organisms that evolved through time to where we currently are in the universe.

- on the end streaks of the ink blot

Science to be valid must be reproducible.

reply to post by Ameneter


You can tell that to the Evolutionist!

“Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.”

From article on, News Blaze

My opinion is that if you don't believe in a creator is because you don't want to... Man knows he is sinful but does not want to repent of his sins Therefore he denies God so he does not have to answer to anyone or be held accountable for his actions to the ""CREATOR""

Well, when you find "Him", you know, that mystical man that had no creator himself (how ironic and illogical? When and where convenient use the God aspect, even if it contradicts itself, huh?) , you let me know, okay? Until then you have no proof Okay?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal



" Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
The Universe had a beginning.
It had a cause, which we call, "God".
God did not have a beginning." author unknown
Now what is so ironic and illogical?


[edit on 29-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Howie47]

Originally posted by Howie47
Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

Okay. Just know that energy is eternal; it spans eternally both space and time. Thus the universe had no beginning cause.

Then Universe had a beginning.

Well that's quite a mighty jump. I'll bet you all of my money, my house and my life that I can prove logically that the universe never had a beginning and that the furthest you could ever get me to agree to is that the universe "ever" had a beginning, which would be the same as not being able to find that beginning. BTW, that is a serious offer and bet for all ATS members to see. (Is that against the T&C? *Trembles*)

It had a cause, which we call, "God".

Again, you're making gigantic leaps of faith here. For something to have a cause it must have a beginning. You're yet to show the beginning of the universe. And God had no cause? Well then why can't the universe have no cause and we can very easily intellectually and logically settle that since God is omnipresent and that God is therefore the universe, and thus the universe had no beginning and will have no end.

God did not have a beginning.

Very well, then the presentation above fits perfectly with the minds of theology and their definition of God, specifically the Christian sects and branches thereof.

Now what is so ironic and illogical?

Well the way that you attempted to present it? Yes.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[ I have dyslexia]

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

The atheistic "gotchya" arguments against a creator so widely used here on ATS are parallels of some theistic arguments for God. It's so frustrating when they think that their school of thought is so correct when in reality they are using virtually the same arguments.

1.) The Universe has always existed. - How is this argument any less ridiculous to them than saying that God has always existed? If you believe that the universe has always existed why is it anymore absurd for a theist to believe that God has always existed?

2.) If there is a God, then who created God? - If you truly believe that the Universe was always there then you believe it was not created. Theists believe that God was always there and therefore he was not created.

They are the same arguments but presented from the side of an atheist in such a way to try and knock down the argument of the existence of a Creator. It is not anymore far-fetched to believe that there is a God that indeed did divinely influence the creation of the universe and the life in it than it is to believe that it could never have happened.

Now whether this Creator was a super-advanced civilization that somehow created a universe or was indeed a God we will most likely not find out anytime soon.

reply to post by InterestedObserver


That's amenable and I understand where you are coming from. The problem here is when theist attempt to make dinstinct God and the universe, saying in effect that God created the universe, which would in effect make the universe the creation of God (in more ways than one - as in God's creation, and the creation of the aspect of God being known through the universe, just as the universe being known through God).

The above definition is very true! God can be found, by its very definitions to be the universe, but that being said then the universe can have no beginning and no end.

That's the theistic viewpoint from an Athiest non-creationist.

God is in essence, to a physicist and an existentialist, the properties of energy.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I do not object to the Universe being God, isn't that something we call pantheism? It's a very interesting belief and I take it that you subscribe to it?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

The above definition is very true! God can be found, by its very definitions to be the universe, but that being said then the universe can have no beginning and no end.

Very poor reasoning on your part. Your jumping to the conclusion that the created universe, must be made only of God, that God cannot create anything independent of himself and that God cannot create anything knew.

Must be nice to be all wise and all knowing. Maybe you are god?

reply to post by InterestedObserver


The attributes of God as the universe. Yes. As for organized religion, Bibles and many of their contradicting stories and failed prophecies, well I won't go that far. I cherish the logic that God blessed me with.

Originally posted by Howie47
Very poor reasoning on your part. Your jumping to the conclusion that the created universe, must be made only of God, that God cannot create anything independent of himself and that God cannot create anything knew.

We could just call it the universe, for sake of respect. Well, if God is omnipresent, then every place that exists must be fully of God, otherwise God is not omnipresent and that would be a large hurdle for Christian theology to accept. In fact the only place stated to be void of God is in the minds of those that dwelleth in the realms of hell. I'd consider that a place of confusion, being lost and unsure of one's place and connection to God, but I'd also postulate that it is not an eternal prison for a single individual; it is a place and a state of mind that will always exist for one to experience whether on Earth or not, but one can be "enlightened".

That is correct. God can not create anything independent of God's self. Everything is of God.

Must be nice to be all wise and all knowing. Maybe you are god?

Yes and it's nice to meet you as well, God. God is within all of us, around all of us, interconnecting all of us and is all of us.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


God is omnipresent, He is not omni persistent! If you insist on your own way, and that way is not of God, or part of God. Then he uses you for now, to work out a bigger plan. Which in the end will not include you. If you do not repent. Some vessels made to be kept, some made for destruction!
And merely quoting my post and then ignoring it. Doesn't answer it.

Originally posted by alienib
I fail to see how old fossils prove evolution. When did that process stop?

You are discounting proven scientific methods and concepts outright without considering them for their true worth. I know people who believe that the earth is 3,000 years old and that dinosaurs are all fake but they also are unwilling to accept anything that counters their spiritual beleifs..

Something made these bones that we see today. they didn't pop into existence. How can you honestly say you are scientifically objective if you believe in intelligent design? Your spiritual beliefs are then dictating what you want to find. You don't have to believe everything the scientists say but you also shouldn't shun the real scientific data based on your beliefs without being objective and even attempting to consider all the scientific
data.

SO..Because of this inability for intelligent design believers to be completely scientifically objective, How can you honestly look at any scientific data pointed out by an ID believer as valid. The problem is that ID is a spiritual concept of belief that is not supported by valid scientific evidence regardless of what new discoveries are made to support it. The ID believers want to prove it, but the real scientists don't necessarily want to disprove it. The science already points to something other than ID actually taking place on earth, and a real scientist is going to consider the archaeological/artifact for what it itself shows. IMO All the evidence, not the scientists, are what proves ID is not real. Just pointing that out because after reading the article it just seems that ID believers have this inability to like scientists for whatever reason and they're using that as a way to try and make this article more valid.

This whole concept works the same way as it would if scientists tried to prove, objectively, the validity of a religion and it's practices. What you would end up with is science swinging a hammer of truth and facts while the believers in that religion do everything in their power to counter the scientists and their data. The believers would not be objective enough to really even care what the science said because all they can think of is "these scientists are friggin crazy and I hate them".

-ChriS


[edit on 29-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by Howie47

God is omnipresent, He is not omni persistent!

Well, actually if God is omnipresent then God is omnipresistent. God will persist to exist for eternity and has since God had no beginning and will have no end. (eternity is a persistence)

If you insist on your own way, and that way is not of God, or part of God. Then he uses you for now, to work out a bigger plan.

Sure, we all have a purpose if we seek to find one. Some of us may even choose to believe that we have no purpose. Both are subjectively true to the thought of the person experiencing it.

Which in the end will not include you. If you do not repent.

When you say "you", are you talking to ME? I have done nothing wrong, what do I need to repent for? I live and have lived a very good life and I do great things for people. Where I have made mistakes I give my apologies and learn my lessons as best as possible.

When I apologize to myself or to another person for my disrespect or lack of awareness and ask for forgiveness, I am also apologizing and "repenting to God", since God is omnipresent and also within those people and myself.

Remember, this is my personal relationship with My God that is the universe and the essence of energy.

Some vessels made to be kept, some made for destruction!
And merely quoting my post and then ignoring it. Doesn't answer it.

No vessels are "kept". All vessels eventually die and deteriorate but energy is eternal, and we are energy.

Well I'm sorry sir/ma'am. Could you point me to the part(s) of your post that I ignored and did not answer? If so then I will gladly re-reply.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Well, actually if God is omnipresent then God is omnipresistent. God will persist to exist for eternity and has since God had no beginning and will have no end. (eternity is a persistence)

If you persist with telling God that you are smarter then He. Then, yes, I say you need to, repent.
I or God, could be present with you. Without being persistent that our
will be done. It happens everyday with husbands and wives.
So, "actually", you are wrong. Dead wrong!

reply to post by BlasteR

You are discounting proven scientific methods and concepts outright without considering them for their true worth.

Creationist certainly don't have domination of "cherry picking".
Every debate on this subject I've been in, and there have been many.
Has been more of a cherry picking fest, then a true debate.

consider Craig Venter (founder of the human-genome project) for purely inventing life from scratch
www.technologyreview.com...

consider Captain Dr Dan Burisch's Gov funded Project Starseed
work and discovery of the "Lotus Protocol" where life is spontaneously formed.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
not "generated" .. but an entirely new understanding is put forth where... the entire universe IS life.. just different phases of matter's progress from complete chaotic disorganization... toward ordered organization of purpose (biology)... and eventually conciousness


comparing the bible genesis and creation theory is completely unprovable because it is non-observable.
same can be said of the Sumerian Cylinder Seals.
non-observable.

though when you take Venter and Burisch's work.. and correlate the relevance of harmonic waveforms invoking geometric molecular biology to organise into operational living-machines..

you may be able to draw more and more parallels between the "life-spawned from nothing for dummies" (bible) .. and the newly discovered breathtakingly amazing phenomena in the Lotus Protocol and Venter's work.


I personally think that if MAN can eventually "create from scratch" (as Venter has) ... create from scratch.. "humans" .. in his own image..
then why couldn't a separate race have come and taken already evolving primates from earth and created MAN from their genetic material.

it's plausible.

there's no proof for or against it.. but it's plausible.

my idea of "god" is "ALL".. all conciousness.. conciousness experiencing itself subjectively through trillions of separate pairs of eyes and ears, through infinity.

and it's whatever we want it to be.

because we can.






-

[edit on 29-4-2008 by prevenge]

Originally posted by Howie47

If you persist with telling God that you are smarter then He. Then, yes, I say you need to, repent.

Again, is this directed at me? If so can you show me where in this post I said that I am smarter than the God that I have been in reference to?

I or God, could be present with you. Without being persistent that our
will be done.

Okay, but you simply said before that God is not persistent. Yes, God is persistent, always. Will is always done. The will either of God or the effects from God are always done. Will is persistent.

It happens everyday with husbands and wives.

What does? Could you clarify a little more, please? There is a universal will, which is the will of persistent happen (eternal cause and effect), and then there are seemingly individual wills. When your own personal will doesn't manifest what you want, it does not mean that the will of God is not being done. Any will that you have is the will of God and the will of yourself. Whether it comes to fruition or not is still the will of the universe.

So, "actually", you are wrong. Dead wrong!

Okay? You reveal your true intentions so openly

[edit on 29-4-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by Howie47



Well exactly.
Let's create a hypothetical scenario here..
A few centuries ago a religion or spiritual way of thinking arises which looks at dinosaurs as being gods due to creation stories handed down over time (much like the aborigenes have a creation story handed down).

Eventually this civilization moves forward, develops, modernizes, and eventually uses science just as we do. They find tracks and bones of these dinosaurs which proves that they did exist at one time.

The believers in that religion or spiritual way of thinking would believe that those tracks validated their own religious beliefs and spiritual ways of thinking. When the truth is that the dinosaurs were real but didn't necessarily have anything to do with those beleifs (spiritualism is man-made to worship a creator/higher being/state of consciousness. Let's call it "god").

That is applicable here because you may even have a valid archaeological find of some kind. But the actual spiritual significance of that archaeological find is relative to the individual who has these beliefs even though there may be no actual evidence that the archaeological find had anything to do with your religion or spiritual beliefs. You have to use real science and be completely objective and although many may not think that way, science should be a search for truth not spiritual validity.

-ChriS