Life from under the holy microscope

Creation/religion vs. science/evolution rises every now and again here... with those who worship deity paired off against those who don't buy into that concept. During these times, many people say many ill things against their honorable opponents, reducing the honor factor on both sides to a point... below nil.

So, let's take a moment and ask... what if BOTH are right?

Eeee-gad! Run for the hills!

Ahem, excuse me whilst I whip out my kleenex.

Humanity's science has arrived at a point where it has adorned itself in clover... they know everything. It's the same decoration that religion has always worn... to know the ultimate truths and to also, of course, discredit the other.

Now then, for just a moment, imagine that God (any god will do, thank you) is the greatest scientist in the universe. He/she/it got bored and mixed some of this and that and another to create a universe that we have not yet begun to understand... but that fits into a drop of water where it was invented.

Science does this... water drops do all sorts of stuff. We really can't do the size thing yet, lol.

Then under a godly microscope in the godly science lab, Earth was created and so too, all that which calls it home. From there, over a period of days in a concept of time that we cannot conceive, everything else was added... including a puny species called, humanity.

After about 10 minutes (lab time), that species suddenly found religion... and 5 minutes after that, it was doing science. God the scientist is happy as hell, so to speak. But then, the puny things of religion and science began bickering... who was right and wrong.

&^#$%(!)^$%$@#!!!

What silly things... here in this petre dish, billions of little itsey-bitsey things think they have the whole damned picture either from their various religions or their limited science.

It is amusing... you made them, you are gazing down into their little universe you made but... they behave badly. What the heck, let's toss them down the toilet and start agian!

(The sound of flushing radiates across the planet...)

Now then, we'll try again.

EDIT:
I don't expect a flood of replies...

... I didn't write this for any of you. I did it for me... it was a selfish act for someone sick to death of all the panty-pulling, politically divisional ideologues...

...

reply to post by redoubt


Consciousness seems to need to come first, whether it's a separate God or Scientist as you write or whether it's the life it'self that wants to be and moves in that direction. DNA can't be the first step. It's a code, but what's it written on? Information comes first..

If I could understand how the universe came to be.. oh man.

If information existed before matter, how does that even work? I mean that the laws of the universe are coded.. Some way information controls the formation of the universe before the big bang..

Why How? I don't know.

As far as evolution it's as real and unavoidable as entropy.

Evolutionists claim that the paddles of the crossopterygians Evolved into legs. They claim that the rhipidistians Evolved into the first amphibians, animals capable of living on land and in water. Toads and frogs are both amphibians.

So a fish grew legs and became a land animal. ow that assumes the fish had an urge, with only gill, to want to get to land, if it did it would what? Die !!!!

But every fish that supposedly tried to get on land died. So how do you grow legs in offspring if you die?

So far I have found no person believing in evolution be able to explain that. Here's another analogy which according to evolution would work...

Man tries to fly by jumping off cliffs. Eventually man developed wings? That is what evolution teaches you suckers. Yet every human that tried to fly died.

Evolutionists accuse creationists of believing something that is a fairy story when they're whole life is based on something so stupid as a fish walking is totally laughable if you use the intelligence we have to actually think HOW it might have occurred.

No one not believing in creation ever needs defend their belief. All they need do is ask the evolutionists HOW a fish walked and they have no answer and they appear more and more ridiculous the more they try to defend it?

Christians though do not need to defend their belief because it is based on faith.

But so is evolution based on fact.. Ha ha ha ha you have to be kidding. Just laugh at evolutionists, smile at what they believe especially if they bring creation in as a defense because the more they talk and try to explain their position, the more ridiculous they look. I've done this over and over face to face and their ONLY defense is to bring my belief in creation into it, yet cannot explain their 'scientific' belief

Lets examine the structure of evolution. A fish eventually becomes a land animal as over millions of years it develops feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills so it can survive on the land.

1. Why did it want to get out of the water in the first place?
2. Without legs and lungs it can’t walk or breathe so in trying to get out it dies. Billions and billions of fish later they develop legs. Hang on- evolution is in the breeding! So how does the dead fish pass on its discovery that it is dying and needs legs and the ability to breathe air to it’s offspring it will never have?
3. The argument is fish became amphibians
4. There is no geological record of evidence for the origin of fish. When they first appeared they were 100% fish.
5. There is geological record of amphibians in layers above fish. How did the parent come before the offspring?
6. Coelacanth were supposed to have evolved into amphibians millions of years ago. In 1938 they found them still alive in the Indian Ocean with absolutely no change. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.
7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.
8. From a creation point of view the coelacanth reproduced after it’s own kind and from a evolutionary point of view did so for a very very very long time.
9. Fossils themselves say evolution did not happen. The laws of evolution would mean that every stage of development would be in evidence. It isn’t. 1 does not mean 10 in a scale of obvious thought. To get to 10 you must first go from 1-9. Where is 1-9? We’ll they haven’t found them yet!

I cannot believe anyone in this day and age still believes in evolution

The human body is made up of an average of 75 trillion cells. Evolutionists expect us to believe all that came from a single cell than existed magically after the Big Bang which was an explosion of matter that did not exist in time and space because prior there was no time and space.

Evolution is the new religion.

Having said all that...

Those that believe in evolution have more faith than those that believe in a God.

That... I can respect! - and I am in genuine awe of your 'faith'

reply to post by Dustytoad


Before Creation, there was absolutely nothing.

Think of the example concerning potential energy. Our school teachers held up a ball and said, "The higher up I raise this ball in my hand, then the more potential energy that ball technically has, because gravity wishes to bring that ball to the ground. The result of this ball hitting this floor is determined by the amount of distance between the ball and the floor. We know the ball is going to hit the ground when I let it go. But the higher I raise it, the greater the impact. Therefore, when the ball is resting in my hand, the higher up I raise it, the greater potential energy it has."

Now if someone or something was to be infinitely high up, in relation of course to its objects, how much power does it have?

So therefore, God is infinitely high up, and in relation to us, has infinite power.

If you wish, you can think of God has existing totally within this dimension, and yet also existing fully in the next moment as well. For if you are ahead of time, you are infinitely beyond anything in the former time, even just a moment before. Since time and space are interconnected, then also God is also infinitely high in the sense that if He is always present and also always a moment ahead, then therefore He is also an infinite distance from us because we cannot ever travel that distance so as to skip ahead in time.

God is not made up of our matter. God is not made up of our energy. He is Lord of our matter and energy. Therefore, it is not difficult to conceive that the universe did not exist until He demanded it.

If you keep God in the box of your universe, then you will never understand to conceive of God as so powerful that He can exist without a single atom or physical interaction as a manifestation of Himself. He doesn't need our energy, He is so far beyond that.

If you continue to think in terms of our incredibly silly and foolish ideas, like, for example, we have figured everything out, or, rather, worse, that everything that we have figured out so far must be fact, because we can seem to apply the knowledge to our benefit (but just because you can apply nature to nature and create a desired result, it does not mean that you truly understand what is actually happening, but you only see what is on the surface still, even if you are using the most powerful microscope in the world, you are still looking at the FACE of the universe, not the spirit underlying it; you can never with your eyes see physically the laws that actually govern the universe.)

reply to post by TarzanBeta

Before Creation, there was absolutely nothing.

That makes sense... because there is yet any theory on how so much energy was transformed into so much matter to have fulfilled the so-called Big Bang.

Seriously... where di all the 'stuff' of the universe come from?

One side says God... the other is science and it cannot explain its arrival... when or how.

Does this mean God made it? Maybe... or it could say that we just ain't that good yet in figuring it all out.

Originally posted by MadMax7
Lets examine the structure of evolution. A fish eventually becomes a land animal as over millions of years it develops feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills so it can survive on the land.

1. Why did it want to get out of the water in the first place?
2. Without legs and lungs it can’t walk or breathe so in trying to get out it dies. Billions and billions of fish later they develop legs. Hang on- evolution is in the breeding! So how does the dead fish pass on its discovery that it is dying and needs legs and the ability to breathe air to it’s offspring it will never have?

I've wondered this myself many times so here is a hypothetical for you.

1. The fish didn't really want to get out of the water but among the millions of other fish this particular fish didn't die when the water mostly dried up in the lakes/rivers whatever. Perhaps a single mutated gene allowed it to survive where many of the others didn't.
2. Now this fish is one of remaining fish that gets to breed and pass this "mutant" gene down the line.

This happens again and again over a billion years. No fish bones left to find. BTW there ARE walking fish that leave the water completely.

reply to post by redoubt

Humanity's science has arrived at a point where it has adorned itself in clover... they know everything. It's the same decoration that religion has always worn... to know the ultimate truths and to also, of course, discredit the other.

Actually, science makes no such claim. The scientific method is only interested in what is observable and repeatable under controlled laboratory conditions. Whether or not God exists is not a question science is concerned with, until the religious attempt to limit the reach and capability of science.

You know, like when it was considered a capital crime to even suggest that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, and that we, in fact, orbit the sun, and the Heavens are not fixed. Or, you know, like when vaccines can help cure terrible diseases (like Polio), but the religious insist on standing in the way of such medicinal progress because of some ancient religious custom that is completely outdated. Or, and this is my personal favorite, when people depend on prayer, and exorcism, and religious fasting to treat mental and physical disease because they'd rather believe it is the result of demons instead of viruses and mental imbalances that can be treated, cured, or balanced by modern science.

If the religious people kept to their faith, their spirituality, and their mysticism, and let the scientists have their space to work with their atoms, and cellular organisms, and observable experiments, then there would be no clash between God and science, or the religious and the scientific. It is only when one, usually but not always the religious, try to keep people from freely embracing the other that problems begin.


~ Wandering Scribe

Although I don't believe it personally, it is not the concept of a theory of a deity I have the problem with.
It's everything else that comes along with it.

reply to post by TarzanBeta


No I get all that.. I'm just being slightly sneaky.. I'm sort of done giving out all the information so easy.

This was one of the first things I talked about online back in 2005.. Explored the whole concept of zero for the longest time. It all makes sense, and it all works..

I was more talking about before even that.. Not before that in Time obviously, but the grammar would get to weird to say what I am really talking about.

I guess my main point was that Consciousness (read God) came first. Evolution is just a way of saying time passes for me, but to each their own.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

Actually, science makes no such claim. The scientific method is only interested in what is observable and repeatable under controlled laboratory conditions. Whether or not God exists is not a question science is concerned with, until the religious attempt to limit the reach and capability of science.

~ Wandering Scribe

Are their any experiments that are repeatable to change one animal into another without inserting new DNA?

I want to see them change conditions a lot on some bacteria until it spontaneously decides to turn into something else.

I believe it's possible, but belief isn't science.

Originally posted by smilesmcgee
Although I don't believe it personally, it is not the concept of a theory of a deity I have the problem with.
It's everything else that comes along with it.

That everything else that is associated with religion is what man has done to religion, or is what God formally had done with religion because of the hardness of the hearts of people.

But seriously, do not deny a relationship with your Creator just because so many people have lied and messed up the truth. You would only be hurting yourself in the end.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

No I get all that.. I'm just being slightly sneaky.. I'm sort of done giving out all the information so easy.

This was one of the first things I talked about online back in 2005.. Explored the whole concept of zero for the longest time. It all makes sense, and it all works..

I was more talking about before even that.. Not before that in Time obviously, but the grammar would get to weird to say what I am really talking about.

I guess my main point was that Consciousness (read God) came first. Evolution is just a way of saying time passes for me, but to each their own.

Evolution of a sort has taken place. But when the evidence of evolution is used to claim ANY specific timeline of any kind, and when the evidence of evolution is used to claim against the spontaneous creation of specific species (against which there is no evidence at all), and when the evidence of evolution is used to claim against the existence of God, then evolution has been taken completely out of true context. Plain and simple.

You cannot debate a "scientist" concerning evolution and have a constructive debate because science is like law; all the words mean only what scientists want them to mean, whenever they want them to mean that thing. It's utterly ridiculous. "For our purpose, this we shall call this, because it is fun, and we don't like Webster anyway. And besides, I love the language of the Romans."

Saying that evolution simply implies time passing, that is pretty good. Leaves a lot of detail out, but fair enough I think.

But as for how much time, there is no evidence, not even one shred of evidence.

Now they call it evidence, and they will claim to some, "your minds could not conceive of how we determine it. We will show you how, and you will understand, but you will argue some points; but we did not consider your points, neither do we feel it would be proper to consider your points, because your points are too real and defeatist for practical application."

But the reality is that everything that the scientists learn from their experiments is basically completely upon the physics of the moment. That's it.

It is assumed that time is at the same "speed"; or rather, that the amount of time that we calculate must directly correspond with reality, for purposes of discussion (even though time dilation is understood to be a reality). So it's all for PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, into which scientists will ever truly engage (but they are educators, they think, not listeners; and they only listen to their own ideas, but instead ignore the simple reality that has been before us and them since the moment any of us took our first breath, and before).

Now I am not trying to demean scientists. Scientists are human beings, and all humans are scientists in their own right. Everyone experiments with their situation to learn more about it. That's life!

So human beings are simply afraid of relinquishing control. Some have this problem worse than others.

But some have it really bad. Many have it really bad. People cannot stand that they are not in control. They cannot fathom not being in control of at least something. So when someone says, "I'm a psychologist." They must prove they are a psychologist, so they are going to own your mind; because they cannot own their own mind.

Scientists will own whatever their field is, and they will own it against you, because they spent millions of dollars to get their piece of paper, and that paper is earned they think (but it is earned, by money, not wisdom, neither discretion, neither true experience).

Now even then, the scientists that apply their knowledge and perform experiments, and invent new ways or new ideas, these are so rare; and, truly, most new inventions come from people OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF SCIENCE. It is brought INTO the circle; it comes from without, and the understanding is added from thereon.

But if you are inside the circle of science, and you are operating from that base, then you will never add anything new, neither learn higher, neither understand greater. You will be forever stuck in the limbo of having to praise the "Lords of Science".

It's a lot like the churches have become these days. Praise the pastors and their wonderful words and works.

Where is God to you people? You've all been overtaken.

The Holy Spirit told us through Paul multiple times, for those of us with God in us, "You have no need to be taught, for you KNOW ALL THINGS." If God is in us, this is quite obviously the truth! We are gods, but we are not the Father, neither are we the Son, but we are married to the Son, and the Son has made us great, that we fellowship with Him, and He has the power of the Father, therefore, we have access to all that is perfect, high power, wisdom, and love, beyond all measure.

reply to post by Dustytoad

Are their any experiments that are repeatable to change one animal into another without inserting new DNA?

We're all transitional species. So to complete your request all a scientist would need to do is watch a mother give birth to her child.

If, on the other hand, you think that evolution is a spontaneous, instantaneous transition from a duck into a crocodile, it is your understanding of science, and not science itself, that is wrong.

Evolution does not work that way.

I want to see them change conditions a lot on some bacteria until it spontaneously decides to turn into something else.

I believe that it is the religious end who believe humans can turn into salt, that medicine men can shape shift into wolves, and that deities can create human beings out of clay.

Science has never made the assumption that one thing can become a completely different thing simply by altering its atomic makeup.

Again, that's not how evolution works.

I believe it's possible, but belief isn't science.

This is the most sensible thing you've said in this entire post.

Belief isn't science.

So, your beliefs that one species can instantaneously become another? Not science.
Your belief that changing conditions will change bacteria into something else? Not science.

If you want to see something scientifically demonstrated, then start by familiarizing yourself with science, and the scientific method, and their methods of peer review and multiple testing. As opposed to just going off of heresy and misinformation spouted by those who don't know what they're talking about.

~ Wandering Scribe