Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
The other is critical of itself wether it is wrong or right, and anyone is allowed to question it (unless it will affect your government grant, don't get me started on that....).

This is why I have so much trouble going to college. I'd love to go, but it's become more of the faith system that you just described.

Anyway, I think a lot of good came from this thread. Some very interesting points, some solid logic, some crisp reasoning. This was one of the best, if not THE best thread I've ever participated in, believe or not. This was right up my alley and it really came through hot.

Thanks all. (Yes, even you niburu. Just watch it with all that prophecy, it can get you into trouble and cause us another 2000 years of waiting for the apocolypse ) (I'm just havin' fun with you there btw.)

Yes, I agree, eventhough we've strayed somewhat from the original post I believe the "spirit" of the thread has remained intact. Nice to be involved in a thread that didn't become adversarial for a change. Well defined, articulate posts, and no preaching from anyone on anything. Kudos all.

reply to post by OEAOHOO


At the risk of showing my lack of understanding of you're query,
Hunh?

If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence - the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput."

They've been trying to prove god for THOUSANDS of years, well therefore god can't be real. The guy is an idiot, I'm an atheist and I realize that some atheists are idiots, he's one of them. 50 years is nothing. I doubt he is a real atheist though, every atheist I've ever met is very patient, and understands that certain things take time (It comes with the belief in evolution) and this guy is saying that since we can't prove something that happened 2-3 billion years ago in 50 years it can't be true. This was a poorly named thread, it should have been named "Impatient scientist doesn't believe in evolution"

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Damien_Hell]

I am entitled to my opinion - so here it is -
Creationism is one more addition to the pile of Christian intellectual throwbacks. From flat earth to earth centric universe, anything which refutes Gods work is denied and in the process holds society to intellectual ransom.

There is a good reason why it is silenced, it is absurd. Not simply wrong, but utterly moronic. The entire project is profoundly disturbing. Along with climate denial, creationism, iraq, iran, palestine, etc,etc,etc Americans have a lot to answer for and are quite frankly destyroying the world. We humanity, the planet are completely and utterly sick and tired of the endless reams of garbage eminating from your country, with creationism being the latest in a long, long list of problems.

The reason people are telling creationists to be quiet - especially in America - is because they have woken up to just how ridiculous America now looks and something must be done. For evil to prosper good people must do nothing, hence in the fight back against evil - people are standing up to this total violation of intelligent minds the world over.

It is corrupt in the most profound manner the devious nature in which creationists present biblical fairytales.

Creationism is total claptrap - it has no place in any intelligent scientific conversation, if you wich to preach religion, do it in your church - this is a POST CHRISTIAN WORLD people, that is what it is called - POST CHRISTIAN - deal with it and keep your dangerous, conniving, destructive religious beliefs yourselves, in your church where they belong.

Its not simply wrong, its an absolute disgrace and creationists whould be nothing but utterly ashamed of themselves.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat



It took nature half a billion years to turn complex molecules such as amino acids into the first 'living' chemolithoautotrophs - organisms obtaining both energy and carbon from inorganic sources.

This scientist is implying that because we haven't found out how to do this in a measly 50 years of research that it's now unequivocal that the first 'life' was "intelligently designed by a creator".

I think the difference in spans is a factor of about 10 million or so.

So either we need another 10 million or so biochemists to do the research or give the current crop another 499,999,950 years to find the answer.

It is clear by now that there is no good evidence for evolution - if there were we'd certainly know about it.
Fossils are dated by rocks, and oddly, rocks are dated by fossils - a circular argument.
Rocks are not dated by any scientific means, and the means that are used have at least 5 false assumptions.
Fossils can be produced within hours.
DNA - cannot prove life in billions of years time spans as evolutionists themselves state that DNA decays well before then - refuting themselves.
There is no evidence in DNA that humans evolved from apes or anything else. Just because we share similar information means nothing. Just because a house is made from the same materials and/or similar blueprint as a mansion does not make the house a mansion. There IS NO evidence of progressive evolution known, at all, anywhere, only lateral mutations within a species.
The earth is slowing down. Any ideas how fast it must have been rotating billions of years ago?????
The earths magnetic field is falling. Any ideas how strong the magnetic force must have been billions of years ago?????

If life originated from aliens, how did the aliens start? That notion simply move the problem back.

Evolution is extinct - live with it.

Originally posted by alienib
So now all thats left to clarify is if God is a supernatural being or an alien which for us is still a supernatural being

Why does what ever created us have to be superantural? If we are nothing more than walking expierements, and we have mustered up enough intelligence to even go as far as cloning another life, why would the higher being that created us be considered supernatural. Obviously what he/she is, their intelect must be way beyond ours. We could have been created somehow, but not with "magical" powers most god's seem to have.

reply to post by alienib


If this was the year 3000 and science understood matter on a sub atomic level, I would give this guy some creedence. But as it stands now... in this elementary age of 2008, there is no way he can begin to proclaim things were created by a creationists hand. At least he is intelligent enough to leave the ridiculous religious element out of the picture.

I'm still an evolutionist to the core.

In all earths 2.5 billion + years of brewing, there's plenty of time for a gang of cells to walk out of a swamp, stand before a christian counsel, and proclaim "it was us all along!"

More homework needed!

Originally posted by sinthia
It is clear by now that there is no good evidence for evolution - if there were we'd certainly know about it.

Were we making trips to Mars 100 years ago? Did we know that the Earth revolved around the sun on its axis 300 years ago? Did we drive cars 200 years ago? When you were born, did you know all the entails of mathematics? Did you know all the words in the English dictionary that you now use? Did we have societies as we do now, 2,000 years ago?

That is evolution.

annuaki made us in their image, we were made to be servant race, just work and dont ask too many questions, not much changed since we were created; every now and then we are being replaced by new versions, we are the homo sapient 7.0 ; version 8.0 coming possibly 2012 unfortunately there are no upgrades only total replacements... as far as software, we have been running on the same stable windows "GOD" for quite some time...

Originally posted by sinthia

Rocks are not dated by any scientific means, and the means that are used have at least 5 false assumptions.
Fossils can be produced within hours.

Then why in the world is this scientist saying that this archaeological find is supposedly some footprints (and of the "creator" no less whatever that means). You can argue both ways. Scientifically dating rocks and animals is difficult and not exact. Science itself isn't exact. You have to consider ALL the factors and ALL the evidence in order to even begin seeing the big picture of how evolution has brought us to this point. When you do that there is actually TONS of evidence that support evolution and we now even know how mutations are occuring which create evolutionary revolutions in the natural world.

-ChriS

[edit on 1-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 1-5-2008 by BlasteR]

maybe aliens with super advanced technology beyond our understanding. are able to create programmed cells that have basic characteristics to survive and able to change physically..adapting to the environment. its a possibility

reply to post by OEAOHOO


I understand now, thank you for the clarification, and you are 100% correct.

sinthia:
1. Nothing is clear. You refute any argument you make just by saying this, but i will continue anyway.....
2.Bulsh!t. Fossils are dated by the rock layer they are in. Rocks are not dated by the fossils in the rock. Rocks are dated by : RADIOMETRIC AGE-DATING (that's only one way by the way)

Some elements have forms (called isotopes) with unstable atomic nuclei that have a tendency to change, or decay. For example, U-235 is an unstable isotope of uranium that has 92 protons and 153 neutrons in the nucl eus of each atom. Through a series of changes within the nucleus, it emits several particles, ending up with 82 protons and 125 neutrons. This is a stable condition, and there are no more changes in the atomic nucleus. A nucleus with that number of protons is called lead (chemical symbol Pb). The protons (82) and neutrons (125) total 207. This particular form (isotope) of lead is called Pb-207. U-235 is the parent isotope of Pb-207, which is the daughter isotope.
Many rocks contain small amounts of unstable isotopes and the daughter isotopes into which they decay. Where the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately measured, the ratio can be used to determine how old the rock is, as shown in the following activities.

Part 2a Activity — At any moment there is a small chance that each of the nuclei of U-235 will suddenly decay. That chance of decay is very small, but it is always present and it never changes. In other words, the nuclei do not "wear out" or get "tired". If the nucleus has not yet decayed, there is always that same, slight chance that it will change in the near future.

Atomic nuclei are held together by an attraction between the large nuclear particles (protons and neutrons) that is known as the "strong nuclear force", which must exceed the electrostatic repulsion between the protons within the nucleus. In general, with the exception of the single proton that constitutes the nucleus of the most abundant isotope of hydrogen, the number of neutrons must at least equal the number of protons in an atomic nucleus, because electrostatic repulsion prohibits denser packing of protons. But if there are too many neutrons, the nucleus is potentially unstable and decay may be triggered. This happens at any time when addition of the fleeting "weak nuclear force" to the ever-present electrostatic repulsion exceeds the binding energy required to hold the nucleus together.

Very careful measurements in laboratories, made on VERY LARGE numbers of U-235 atoms, have shown that each of the atoms has a 50:50 chance of decaying during about 704,000,000 years. In other words, during 704 million years, half the U-235 atoms that existed at the beginning of that time will decay to Pb-207. This is known as the half life of U- 235. Many elements have some isotopes that are unstable, essentially because they have too many neutrons to be balanced by the number of protons in the nucleus. Each of these unstable isotopes has its own characteristic half life. Some half lives are several billion years long, and others are as short as a ten-thousandth of a second.

Here's the link I'm quoting from. (Try Googling stuff, it's neat )
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

3.Never heard of a fossil created in hours. Show us a link, or tell me how.
4.True, but I've never heard anyone state that DNA is used for proving evolution, aside from the fact that all living things on Earth have DNA that has similiarities, which is to be expected from things that all developed in the same general environment, which is hardly what I'd call refuting evolution......
5.Correct, we did not evolve from apes, and that was never implied.

cont.

It was a statement given credence by the media of the day (surprise), who were anti-Darwinist(re: anti-change, pro status quo). We have 99.9% similiar DNA because sometime in the past we (apes & man) branched off from the same family tree.
6. Lateral mutation is "evolution" . When the mutations that were usefull "stuck", the recipients of these mutations became the dominant, and eventually only members left, thus a new species.
7.What in hell does the Earth's rotation have to do with anything?
8.I don't but geoligists do. That's how they date the rocks (see point 2).
9. The same way.
10.No, dinosaurs are, as are many other species that have lived, died or mutated into something else. Religion on the other hand......well maybe do some research on how many people actually indulge in this fantasy in the world compared to haow many people there are and then go backwards to see how many used to "believe". (once again, try Google ).

[edit on 2-5-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]

reply to post by Level X


The problem is creationists, and/or IDer's believe the Earth was created in 6000 years, not 2.5 billion.

Sorry had to do that. It's just so damn funny.....

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Are you a girl, 'cause I think I'm starting to fall in love.
If not it's a man crush.
Anyway, I think your point will be lost on the creationists, because, well, it's logical.

The entire article is bogus to begin with.

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

To suppose that there is a single aspect within a universally accepted theory which still holds unanswered questions means that an alternative theory, with no evidence in any regard, no basis in scientific fact, or logic, which is beyond the most far fetched fairy tale is subsequently the only possible conclusion is beyond stupid. It is intellectually devious. Thoroughly corrupt.

Anyone who has any faith in ID or creationism you are being profoundly deceived by the most nefarious individuals.

Christianity is a European construct, not American, and there is no one, not a single religious figure who will even acknowledge creationism as it is seen as an absolutely bogus attempt to introduce religion into schools.

The entire debate is moot, if man can create life, then god is dead.

Deal with that.

I believe that initially we was engineered and with the ability to evolve. Our bodies are so complex. When was it that during our spawning from the tadpole pool that eyebrows for expression became important?

Originally posted by audas
The entire debate is moot, if man can create life, then god is dead.

Really? If man can create life in perfect conditions from DNA that means God is not real?

The articles state that

1.) The life will be made from the basic chemicals of DNA.
2.) "A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply."

They will, in a controlled environment, create DNA from it's basic chemicals in a closed membrane where nothing that can inhibit their creation can reach.

This is not in any way how life could have possibly originated in the beginning. It has been never been shown that DNA can assemble itself from non-life in a natural scenario. Amino acids have only been shown to be created from non-life (Miller-Urey experiments) in a controlled scenario where they are isolated as soon as they are created, which would never occur in a natural setting.

This would prove nothing about abiogenesis or the origin of life. This would prove that the only way life can be created from non-life is in a perfectly controlled environment with OUTSIDE help along the entire way. That seems like more proof for rather than against a Creator to me.