Why creation?

You haven't made any informed comments. Let's start from square one. Science is not a religion, its a method for building knowledge.

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn] –noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
   
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
   
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
   
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
   
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

[Dictionary.com]

All right. Science is the methodology to build an understanding to explain phenomena by natural processes.

So if you are whining about our "advancement", scientists are building on the existing knowledge. So if you don't like where we are then you're problem is science of the past. You might want to think about how where are 3 centuries behind thanks to the Church and their work on retarding the advancement of science during such enlightening times as the dark ages.

Science doesn't just change held beliefs with the times, old ideas are altered and new ideas are added as our understanding grows.

Science can't be grouped together with religion, they are completely independent (but not mutually exclusive).


And buy the way, man didn't evolve wings because the environment didn't select for it. An organism can't just 'choose' to evolve a trait!

reply to post by Good Wolf


Hi Good Wolf,

It was not my intention to Quote:- "whining about our "advancement",

Science in fact is full of errors and this is generally accepted by those involved with Science.

Science is made up of theories and that is a fact.

Yes some, as you put it Quote "scientists are building on the existing knowledge" but not all knowledge is correct....

But the knowledge held by one country is Not necessarily automatically adoped by every other country.

There is much argument in Science between groups today.

The area I and many others are involved with, is certainly not accepted by some other countries, but The Scientific world is Not united on all subjects.
But in saying that, their is respect for others in their scientific philosophy.

But it is untrue to say, all are in agreement on all subjects of Science.

If you look at the early philosophies they were viewed as being scientific in their understanding then too.

But people have made a religion out of knowledge gained in the past, they have Not understood, and is misrepresented by many today...

Are you really trying to convince me, or are you trying to convince yourself, that the scientific understand at a future date, of say 3001 for example, will Not have changed from today's understanding??

I hope our understanding will be much different, proving the point we do evolve after all!

But my question what is evolving?

Is it the Program you call Earth and it's Universe.

Or is it The Mind that is evolving.

Or is it something else, that is happening that we are not aware of, because we are all including me are in ignorance.

In my Life Time, I have seen many changes in science, but that does not mean to say, I am against Science.

As I have said I am involved myself in research and Development.

Even my understanding in what we have discovered, has changed from when I started 15 years ago on the project I am involved with.

I must also point out the area of work I am in, takes me to other countries and share in the exchange of technology.

Most of the public are 30 years behind, with regard to the knowledge of what is really being explored at present.

Most of our understanding changes, as more knowledge is uncovered. We call it progress.

Over the next few years, you will find massive changes in the Scientific world thank goodness.

This is very healthy, as we must move on and allow ourselves to let go of old preconceived ideas, as we discover new things.

I'll start by saying that I never said "science in 3001 will be no different to today". I explained that science is not a religion.

No that you have clearly gotten past this "Science is a Religion" crap, lets move onto the next point.

Scientific advancement.


Science is always changing. Fact. Ongoing research uncovering new facts causes this.
Evolution is a result of this to. But lets clarify, change in science is the result of evidence. So if new tests are done on an aspect of science, applying the theories in new ways and the results to not go against the predictions of the theories, then the theory stands.

Evolution, itself, has undergone many changes as new studies were done, but it must be stressed that these changes were refinements. No evidence has been unearthed that goes against the fundamentals of evolution, it's only gotten more complicated as our understanding of this phenomena becomes greater.

I will say that evolution will be around in 3001. But any speculation od future science is pointless.


Also, please remember that we are talking about biological evolution in this thread, so don't muddy the water.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


Ok I go along with some of your theories but.....

quote "we are talking about biological evolution"

OK don't get me wrong here, but how do we prove that there is such a thing as biological evolution?

Or is the universe a manifestation of a story, generated from a processing system that merely tells a story, about biological evolution as an adventure.

What I am getting at here, is the universe evolving or is this whole experience nothing more than a story, as in a pre written holographic experience, that is so perfect it is the best of the best virtual reality experiences, that has ever been generated?

Can we prove which it is?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


We know biological evolution exists because we've seen it in laboratories. Countless times. You might as well ask "how do we know sandwiches exist" - it makes as much sense.

reply to post by dave420


Hi dave420,

But what you see in this world is just that an observation and does not prove the origin you are only reporting on the end manifestation which is only an observation of the end result.

It is like going to see a movie and you observe the movie and report in detail on it but what you observe on screen is not what produces the movie.

I understand you perspective but just take a step back for a second and see what produces everything in your universe and what produces the story as to say.

No there isn't a wizard mixing spells from above, but there is something that has produced all this what I mean is it is intelligent in nature whatever it is or nothing would retain its general shape and no dimension or anything else could come from Nothing or could it?

I have no argument, but I have one hell of a lot of questions!

I can tell you what I have experienced and what work I am involved with and yes you can throw all sorts of abuse and disbelief at us, but I can assure you as a result of the development I am party to, I have more questions than answers and I am not convinced with humankind's theories, it just does not fit into the jigsaw we have discovered, both in my own home country and over seas.

I really think we all have to look again at the generally accepted theories in many areas and re-examine its context.

What we have found is daunting and fascinating, but boy it is going to be very difficult for humankind to accept, even when we provide the truth, in a working optical interface in 18 months time or before.

I have this awful feeling, humankind is Not ready for this technology...

And I often wonder what the consequences will be, when this toy comes out.

All that we have found, is against the idea of evolution and I can only accept what we have found, otherwise I have to lie to myself and I simply can Not do this.

But remember it is the knowledge that we (more than 100 technicians) have discovered that makes us very nervous but very excited.

But it is impossible to return to our old understanding before we found this technology.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Then we might as well make something up, as are we even answering the question?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


So what are you getting at? If you aren't willing to spill the beans on you're "discoveries" you shouldn't go round talking about them, we have to assume you're talking yourself up and that you probably don't have anything at all. Afterall, a theory that doesn't explain all the evidence that suggests evolution is no theory at all.

reply to post by dave420


????????????????????????????????

reply to post by Good Wolf


This work involves 15 years and the input of many.

It is totally unreasonable to expect me, to write all that has been found on one page.

If any want a full account, then they can contact me through U2U and I will be more than happy to release all the technical details.

A child can't go out to take on a professors Job, on the day it is born.

There are Hundreds of pages and more than 30,000 drawings involve.

As I have already made the claim many times, that we have a way of Interfacing with the True mind that The All has been Created through.

This Interface is an Optical Based Computer System.

I can and shall release all the Technical information, to those who are Genuinely interested...

If I go through The System step by step, on abovetopsecret it will take many months to release, just a little about the system.

It is like any new subject, in order to understand it, you must start at the beginning and work through it.

There are people on abovetopsecret that I am already releasing this technology to, via email.

I have had problems trying to upload some of the files and drawings, to abovetopsecret but I can send them through the normal emailing system.

Maybe some of you may be able to help as, it is very frustrating not being able to show the geometry, on abovetopsecre.

If I can release the material on abovetopsecre, I shall...




[edit on 8-10-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
There are people on abovetopsecret that I am already releasing this technology to, via email.

Who? Let me guess.. you have to keep their identities secret? Having "too much" proof is not an excuse to not post any.

reply to post by riley


Hi riley,

I don't know how you arrive at these thoughts I have never held anything back and I certainly have No secrets.

Why must you think I have secrets especially when I am completely open as others have found on abovetopsecret.

I also am in contact with many on the net regarding this subject.

If you are really interested you can contact me through U2U.

I will release everything to you if that is what you desire but I must warn you it will involve a few hundred pages and a few thousand drawings.

So if you are really interested then give me your email address and I will start sending the information starting from the beginning.

If any one who I have emailed information to, want to let you know it is the case, then it is up to them, as I respect their privacy as I am sure you would expect me, to respect you in the same way....

I am sure if you look through my threads you will find others responses and even some who desired this information on optical interfaces.

But I should Not be advertising my own threads on others threads, but under the circumstances I hope the writer or creator of this thread will forgive me, understanding your demands.


[edit on 8-10-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

And you thought I was off my rocker.

Be ware the blue pill...that's all I am saying.

reply to post by dave420


there is no evidence of biological evolution at all. no one has observed in nature or the laboratory, any creature evolving into another creature over time. you get changes maybe but no different class of creature. from what i have read they have been experimenting on fruit flies for years and have not evolved anything other than a fruit fly. Same with these bacteria like E-coli, after experiments they still have E-coli by definition, whatever changes that may have occurred.

Seeing as though evolution is not random and can be predicted (evolutionists claim), you would have thought they would have figured out what environmental circumstances are needed to evolve a creature and what it would become.

Please link references to reputable scientists who claim to have evolved new life forms from the original test subject. Don't just say there are loads of examples, post links.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Hold on. You're going to need to define "class" and how its distinctive from species. This is a creationist technique for shifting the goal posts for evolutionists (usually the term 'Kind' means) and refuse to define it.

I believe this are the examples you are looking for. Very exhaustive, and informative.

Evolution may not be random but its far from predictable. There is plenty of mutually supporting evidence for evolution that to deny it is comparible to burying ones head in the sand.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by dave420

 

there is no evidence of biological evolution at all. no one has observed in nature or the laboratory, any creature evolving into another creature over time. you get changes maybe but no different class of creature. from what i have read they have been experimenting on fruit flies for years and have not evolved anything other than a fruit fly. Same with these bacteria like E-coli, after experiments they still have E-coli by definition, whatever changes that may have occurred.

Seeing as though evolution is not random and can be predicted (evolutionists claim), you would have thought they would have figured out what environmental circumstances are needed to evolve a creature and what it would become.

Please link references to reputable scientists who claim to have evolved new life forms from the original test subject. Don't just say there are loads of examples, post links.

Not only as Good Wolf posted are there boat loads of evidence of speciation in fast reproducing organisms, the fossil record shows us tons of different transitional species or Darwin's "Missing Links."

Some of my personal favorites include Tiktaalik,en.wikipedia.org... Archaeopteryx, en.wikipedia.org... and Australopithecus, en.wikipedia.org...

Simply by looking at the record and seeing that during time period A there was THIS group of organisms. In time B, most are gone, but very similar ones are in their place, which have also seemingly come out of nowhere when the last lot vanished. THAT should make you think that evolution is the most logical explanation.

I mean, why weren't we around when Homo Erects was around? And more importantly, where did we come from so suddenly? Where did the Erects go?

Here's a thought. Maybe the latter changed over time, into the very similar current form.


This is the same principle anthropologists use when studying changing art, music and general culture of ancient peoples.

When I read this I realized that I don't really know what I believe when it comes to Creation. I am a Christian, but I tend to flow towards more evolutionistic ways of thinking. I believe that the Earth is hundreds of millions, possibly billions of years old, a belief that I have found is frowned upon in the Church. I also can see evolution in nature just as much as I can see God. I guess when it all boils down, I would say that life on Earth was formed through some kind of God-driven evolution.
I've always been in a class by myself .

Originally posted by Zezima
When I read this I realized that I don't really know what I believe when it comes to Creation. I am a Christian, but I tend to flow towards more evolutionistic ways of thinking. I believe that the Earth is hundreds of millions, possibly billions of years old, a belief that I have found is frowned upon in the Church. I also can see evolution in nature just as much as I can see God. I guess when it all boils down, I would say that life on Earth was formed through some kind of God-driven evolution.
I've always been in a class by myself

.

Or maybe the environment including yourself is the result of a Program created by The True Mind which the Droplet of The Mind, falsely called the human mind is a part of and was part of what has produced a holographic manifestation that you call your universe.

God is of two parts...

One, a "Word"

And Two, Life which is the light of Man or as it is written in the original Greek text "Phos" in Greek.

The Word "Phos" in Greek means "Sun Light" or any other Light.

The Word "Phos" in Greek does Not mean Understanding !

The Word is G O D

But to understand this word you have to go back before the Ionic Greek to the Original ZIONic Language which was not verbal but Geometric in its Communication.

Take the Fonts from English to Ionic Greek then to ZIONic...

The "Life" of God is "The True Mind" !

Read a small book that is about 1,900 years old called...

The Thunder Perfect Mind

You will find it on the net...




[edit on 19-10-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Zezima


Right on. You should tell those who frown on you that you are actually studying the art work that God made to get an understanding of it rather than going with the same old pre-conceived conclusions.

Your outlook was the same as mine when I was a christian, my philosophy was that since the bible was written by man (who by his very nature is incapable of perfection) and the universe was made by God (who makes all things good). It seemed pretty obvious with I should study Gods creation rather than man's creation to get an insight into Gods mind, nature, personality etc.


I in a class of my own too, as I was not one who was gonna be told what to think, I've always been a freethinker. Some of more close-minded people in church tend to have a problem with freethinking.