It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
There is something that appears unfathomable in this (though perhaps not unfathomable to others) and IMO doesn't infer any sort of creator (if that is what you infer?) as much as a fascinating way of seeing, or trying to understand an aspect of our existence.
A truly interesting subject (I enjoy science, though I also enjoy philosophical discussions).

I am not saying there is a creator because nothing was ever created. There is only ever what is appearing presently.
The standard model believes in things made of building blocks - solid things - atoms are the building blocks they tell us. But Heisenberg states that atoms are not things, they are just tendencies. This is constantly appearing different and somehow there seems to be something seeing it changing. That which is seeing the changing is not separate from that which is changing but it is ever presently the same presence so is not aware of itself as the still presence as it is seeing the movement.


It is like the ocean watching the moving surface - it sees movement and gets scared because it feels threatened because if there is something other then it could be in danger - when it was alone it had no fear - it was totally safe.
If the ocean would only realize that it was just itself moving it would not fear anymore - it would be at peace.


In the beginning there was nothing - nothing. And God said (so God is nothing) let there be light - the sound of God is also the light of god - it is the creation of God - or the appearance of God (which remember is nothing). Nothing is appearing to be seen and it is good.
Words seem to create a real solid world outside of this ever present moment - the past, the future, other places are not here now but the thoughts, the stories the words tell, are so convincing.

What if it was realized that there are no things - just an ever changing tapestry of dancing light.
edit on 6-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree that we dont know what it came from

Many hope we find something

Many hope its more of a someone

But either way the neutrino thing freaks me out

Really if they can interact freely change things that souldnt its not normal



Well keep in mind that Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't interact in a way with anything in the universe that we can detect yet. At least we can detect neutrinos.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain The standard model used to dictate that the stars and planets and the sun revolved around the earth.


Which was based on incomplete evidence since those people didn't know what a telescope was and listened to a religious preacher tell them how he thought the universe worked.


No one travels through time - change happens now. Now is always now but now always appears different.


Sure they do.


Is it not now right now? Is there anywhere on earth or in the entire universe where it is not now now?
Now is the like the container in which all that is arises and subsides.


Except that my "now" and your "now" are at two different points in time. You haven't exactly refuted that point yet.


You argue that there is no now existing but now is all that can appear to exist. Now can appear to exist as a 'past thought' (memory) and a 'future thought' (anticipation) - now can appear to exist as anything and is everything.


Appearances are deceptive. Like I said, since no two objects in the universe experience the same "now", that proves that time exists. We are all traveling through times at different rates. You can calculate the rates with calculus. It's all grand. Your posts are just rehashes of the same thing over and over again. We live in the now. We only experience the now. I get it, you are a philosopher, but your observations aren't conducive to what we see in science. If we only live in the "now" then we'd all be experiencing the same now. That isn't true.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Except that my "now" and your "now" are at two different points in time. You haven't exactly refuted that point yet.

If you went to the moon now - it would be now when you got there - it would also be now on earth.
There are not separate nows. There is not a 'my now' and a 'not my now' - there is one now and it is eternally now.
You cannot see or hear when it is not now because your eyes are now and your ears are now. All that you will ever experience will be now.
Yet there is an idea of other - where is that other? Has it has ever been witnessed?
Can anything appear outside presence?
edit on 6-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But when 'now' is seen as a concept it brings with it the concept of time. There is only what is actually happening now. And it cannot be proved that there is anything outside now because it is impossible to go outside presence - because you are presence. The stars in the sky are now - they appear within and as the now - are you separate from now, the only thing (which is not actually a thing) there has been seen or experienced?
Experience is the touchstone of evidence.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
We live in the now. We only experience the now. I get it, you are a philosopher, but your observations aren't conducive to what we see in science. If we only live in the "now" then we'd all be experiencing the same now. That isn't true.

The thread is about where the idea of creation came from. Only a thought would tell you that it comes from the past.
What is here is here but what is here is changing - direct observation of what is actually happening is what I think is called the scientific method.
Speaking about things that are not here and coming to conclusions based on what science says is not direct observation. What is dark matter?
Humans put words and labels on things and then they think they know what it is - Oh, it's bio chemical, what is bio, what is a chemical?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Which was based on incomplete evidence since those people didn't know what a telescope was and listened to a religious preacher tell them how he thought the universe worked.

Are you not just listening to scientists telling you how they think the universe works?
In your experience do you ever move? Have you noticed that you do not move but the scenery moves? Look deeply into direct experience to find out what is really going on. Don't believe preachers, scientists or me.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
And dark matter and energy arnt science

As stated above

Science comes frome direct obsrevation and experiment

Neither of which can be done on de or dm

Those two things u mention are variables to make the model we are using now viable

But they are just as much a belief as any bearded man in the sky or any other belief

Think of it this way

If there was a physical presence we couldnt see we might call that dark matter

And whatever powers him could be dark energy

And what is holding our universe together may just be

An invisible person with a huge amout of energy (or power)

What does that sound like?

and as I have pointed out if we can create another univers or two to experiment on then at least half will be

Created


a reply to: Krazysh0t


edit on am820143108America/ChicagoWed, 06 Aug 2014 08:26:45 -0500_8000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on am820143108America/ChicagoWed, 06 Aug 2014 08:34:29 -0500_8u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Science is a tool we use to uncover information about the universe.

Observation and experiment are but two parts of that method, not the whole.

To even attempt to compare religious faith with the scientific method is folly....



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I deny ignorance

Dont feed the trolls

If they have a point they will make if

If they dont they will attack you

Ignore them and hopefully they will go away



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
I deny ignorance

Dont feed the trolls

If they have a point they will make if

If they dont they will attack you

Ignore them and hopefully they will go away
and look who attacks the person and not his words

With some tripe meme

Didnt see that troll comming

The problem is a person s understanding of the scientific method

Apparently observation and experimentation are no longer needed

Only a firm disbelief in religious sentiments

The new science
edit on am820143109America/ChicagoWed, 06 Aug 2014 09:44:49 -0500_8000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Oh geez, playing the victim again?

You called me a troll, I responded with an accurate meme, you then complain that I'm attacking you....




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Speaking of trolls it appears that the OP has been banned. What a shocker!



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Another_Nut

Oh geez, playing the victim again?

You called me a troll, I responded with an accurate meme, you then complain that I'm attacking you....



Ok then prez

Please adress anything in the post above besides to call it folly?

Or would u like to back up your claim that observation and experimentation are only parts of the scientific method?
That method for hundreds of years being

Observation
Hypothesis
Experimentation

Hopefully leading to a theory

And why we now have to ababdon the two pillars that acually PROVE something?


edit on am820143110America/ChicagoWed, 06 Aug 2014 10:46:25 -0500_8000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

You're trying to change the definition of science to suite your fallacious argument. Consider:


MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

I personally find it hard to believe in anything that has been created by man. For example, the Bible we all know was written BY MAN, "Inspired by God". How the heck can I take that seriously? That just means I can go around saying I've written this book that God told me to write and if you don't believe what I've written in it your going to spend eternity burning in hell. Its just too much...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut

But they are just as much a belief as any bearded man in the sky or any other belief

Not really seeing people attend funny buildings to hear charlatans preach the virtues of dark matter/energys' word. People don't pray to dark matter/energy (I hope). No wars have been started over differing opinion about which dark matter/energy is the real one. Dark matter/energy isn't going to send you to hell if you don't believe in it. Dark matter/energy doesn't hate gays. Dark matter/energy doesn't require disbelief in facts (evolution). People aren't getting married in the name of dark matter/energy..."what dark matter/energy has joined together etc"...No one attempts to live by ridiculous dark matter/energy philosophy as transcribed by ancient goat herders, or pretend to get their morals from dark matter/energy. Dark matter/energy-ists aren't tax exempt and don't require donations to carry on dark matter/energys' work on earth etc.....


Think of it this way

If there was a physical presence we couldnt see we might call that dark matter

And whatever powers him could be dark energy

And what is holding our universe together may just be

An invisible person with a huge amout of energy (or power)
What does that sound like?

... a Leprechaun.





edit on 6-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Wtf are yiu talking about

Im not speaking about evolution

I think u are confused



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: PageLC14
I personally find it hard to believe in anything that has been created by man. For example, the Bible we all know was written BY MAN, "Inspired by God". How the heck can I take that seriously? That just means I can go around saying I've written this book that God told me to write and if you don't believe what I've written in it your going to spend eternity burning in hell. Its just too much...

The truth has ALWAYS been hard to believe and there is a very good reason why.

Modern culture is based on denying truth and erecting self-created reality's that have little or no connection with truth.

All those who deny that spirituality is real are in reality the ones living in a dream world.

All of us are spirit beings whether we choose to accept it or not.

NDEs prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is divinely inspired: www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: Phenomium
The bible has a proven history based on factual evidence even proven by scientists. The prophecies in the bible are 100% accurate so far and if you have read it and are not blinded by illogical scientific mumbo-jumbo that always asks questions but never gives an answer that isn't updated later because of yet another question, you can see the rest of the prophecies unfolding right before our eyes as we speak.

originally posted by: Alpha Arietis
The Bible proves itself true by supernaturally predicting everything that would happen to the nation of Israel throughout the entire pageant of human history. Anyone that examines both history and the prophecies of the Bible with a critical and unbiased eye will come to this conclusion. However, there are very few among both scholars and laymen that have actually pursued this endeavor.

Most folks make up their minds about the book's validity based on popular misconceptions about it's claims and contents, rather than any kind of profound comprehension of them. Unfortunately, many of these misconceptions are perpetuated by churches and Christians.

originally posted by: Lionhearte
The God of the Bible demonstrates that He is the Creator by demonstrating that He exists outside of our dimension of time. We humans are irreversibly trapped in this time domain and can only know the present and the past. It is impossible, under natural circumstances, to know anything that is in the future of our time line. If we received information about an event in our future it could only come from a source that existed outside our time domain. Since this could not be a natural source, it would be by default a supernatural source . This is exactly where the God of the Bible claims He dwells. The Bible is the the only book on planet earth that can demonstrate it's text comes from a being who exists outside our time domain. It does this by telling us things before they happen with incredible accuracy. The Bible: Proofs of Its Supernatural Origin



edit on 6-8-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join