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: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ItisnowagainYou are listening to knowledge from where exactly? I am trying to get you to look at what you actually experience. Do you experience time moving? or do you experience the scenery changing? Do you ever move or have you noticed that you never move but the present scenery is moving? Answer these questions for yourself - I don't mind if you don't but instead of listening to others point of view of time - check directly for yourself.


It's not about personal experiences. Those are called anecdotes and aren't conducive to scientific learning. Personal experiences may not illuminate everything that is going on. So no, I don't look at just what I experience. That is dumb.


No - I do not know for a fact that people move through time at all. You believe it to be a fact but it is a strong belief that you have and most have - because they have not looked deep enough.


Then I guess you don't believe in Calculus then.


I cannot make you look at something you don't want to see.


And apparently you can't look at all the evidence that says you are wrong.


Here is a video which goes deep into the investigation of time. - will it be watched and heard though?


Can't watch videos at work, but I'm going to guess it's a bunch of philosophical stuff like you've been trying to feed me this whole conversation. Youtube is pretty crappy evidence anyways. I have more faith in Wikipedia as a form of evidence than I do Youtube. At least Wikipedia makes you cite your sources at the bottom of the page, any yahoo with a camcorder (or digital editing software) can slap a "documentary" together and throw it on Youtube.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAllDieSoon
a reply to: Puppylove

Well, if you don't look for God - don't be surprised if you don't find Him.

If you do look for Him, you are guaranteed to find Him.

Peace in Christ


Really?!

If you consider my interest in religion and reading of Bible and Qur'an, would that consider me as someone who looked for God?

Apart from questionable accounts and stories, people hearing voices witch today would be considered mental illness (How would you call person who almost killed his SON to please his God if not mentally ill?) Not that I found nothing (including God), but I found actually lots of evidence how whole religion in humans society came to be, how it got monopolized by certain religious bodies that exist even today, and how it was used for many 'not so great' things how in past, as well today. (For example just recently one of local humanitarian christian organization came under scrutiny because they were using their humanitarian work to convert children to Christianity in Africa (kind of ultimatum, if you like to get ticket as refuge to USA, convert)

And just to mention - Your warm feeling you get when you recite or read from your religion book - that is no considered as proof of anything.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's not about personal experiences. Those are called anecdotes and aren't conducive to scientific learning. Personal experiences may not illuminate everything that is going on. So no, I don't look at just what I experience. That is dumb.

Oh just believe other people then - repeated knowledge (which could or could not be true) - don't have a look at the evidence for yourself - believe but never know for sure because you have not used the scientific method of observation.
If you have not seen and found out for yourself you will just have to believe.

I 'personally' will not believe and have faith in what I have been told - I check for myself to find out what is and what is not.

The video posted is an investigation - a step by step question and answer investigation - but I am not surprised that you are not interested in questioning your beliefs.
No one on the video is telling you how it is - they get you to look for yourself - but it seems you do not want to look.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's not about personal experiences. Those are called anecdotes and aren't conducive to scientific learning. Personal experiences may not illuminate everything that is going on. So no, I don't look at just what I experience. That is dumb.

Oh just believe other people then - repeated knowledge (which could or could not be true) - don't have a look at the evidence for yourself - believe but never know for sure because you have not used the scientific method of observation.
If you have not seen and found out for yourself you will just have to believe.


That is twisting my words. I already told you that I DO look at the evidence and the evidence says you are wrong. I HAVE done the tests. I HAVE analyzed the evidence. And I HAVE came to the same conclusions as the scientists.


I 'personally' will not believe and have faith in what I have been told - I check for myself to find out what is and what is not.


Good. That's called denying ignorance. Now produce the evidence that supports your claims. If you truly do what you just said then there must be repeatable tests and supporting evidence to support those claims. Otherwise it is all just personal anecdotes and personal opinions which is the exact OPPOSITE of science.


The video posted is an investigation - a step by step question and answer investigation - but I am not surprised that you are not interested in questioning your beliefs.
No one on the video is telling you how it is - they get you to look for yourself - but it seems you do not want to look.


I already told you I cannot watch videos at work and I don't trust Youtube as a source. Produce something of better origin that I can read.

I keep bringing up Calculus for a reason. It uses time quite extensively in the math (it's the goto independent variable of choice) and if time doesn't exist then Calculus is wrong. So I ask again, since you keep dodging this question, do you not believe in Calculus?

For some reading

Time dilation


Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways.[2][3]


You keep arguing against time in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence that it exists.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You keep arguing against time in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence that it exists.

Have you or anyone you know ever seen or heard anything outside of now?
You argue that time exists yet you and no one else has ever seen or heard anything outside now.

You are arguing that something exists when no one has ever witnessed it.

Change happens presently.

Only a mind can imagine what is not here - the mind/thought says there must be time because where is all the stuff that is not here that was here and there must be a place where stuff that is not yet is (future).
All appears and disappear here/now - but the mind cannot cope with that.


edit on 7-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Ok. That's it. I'm tired of this. You clearly have no intention of proving your points and keep wanting to repeat things like a broken record. I put examples of time dilation in my post (proving that two objects experience time at different rates). You on the other hand just want to keep saying "Nuh huh. There is no time." Well until you actually produce some evidence then I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Your entire premise discounts Physics and the math it is based on (Calculus). On top of that it puts ALL of science that we know into question. So you have a LONG uphill battle to prove your point of view. Get on it. Until then, I bid you adieu.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Ok. That's it. I'm tired of this. You clearly have no intention of proving your points and keep wanting to repeat things like a broken record. I put examples of time dilation in my post (proving that two objects experience time at different rates). You on the other hand just want to keep saying "Nuh huh. There is no time." Well until you actually produce some evidence then I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Your entire premise discounts Physics and the math it is based on (Calculus). On top of that it puts ALL of science that we know into question. So you have a LONG uphill battle to prove your point of view. Get on it. Until then, I bid you adieu.

I am not here to convince you - you can carry on understanding the CONCEPT of time. But only YOU can investigate whether time is actually EXPERIENCED.
Not sure why you are so passionate about convincing me that there is another time but now.

edit on 7-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Since you cannot grasp the request that I keep demanding from you.

Scientific evidence


Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How is it possible for me to convince you that now is now everywhere? Surely it is obvious.

How can I get evidence of something so obvious?


edit on 7-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How is it possible for me to convince you that now is now everywhere? Surely it is obvious.


I told you how you can convince me. Produce the evidence and testable experiments that prove it is so. Something appearing to be obvious doesn't make it so.

For instance. Matter appears to come into contact with each other (like when you put a book on a table), but in reality there is a small pocket of space between atoms (so that book is technically never touching the table).
edit on 7-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you joking???
Is it not now where you are?
It is now where I am!!

Is there anyone out there who can reply to this message outside of now please?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
For instance. Matter appears to come into contact with each other (like when you put a book on a table), but in reality there is a small pocket of space between atoms (so that book is technically never touching the table).

The space that you see between the book and table is part of the scenery that is moving - there is nothing in the appearance which does not move.

The table and the book and not separate - nothing is separate.

ALL that appears is the present and it appears to be moving. It is one IMAGE which is present but you think there are separate things but there is just one moving image of light which is present.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No I am not joking. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on how time works. Just because we can only experience the present is NOT enough evidence to suggest that the past and the future don't exist. I've already pointed out that no two objects exist on the same spot on the time axis. I've also pointed out that our brain operates in the past since all events we see, hear, taste, etc have already happened.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No I am not joking. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on how time works. Just because we can only experience the present is NOT enough evidence to suggest that the past and the future don't exist.
Past and future are words that arise presently - you will never prove that anything can arise outside presence - never!!
Thoughts and ideas arise ABOUT another time but they are just thoughts and ideas. No one has witnessed another time (past or future).




I've already pointed out that no two objects exist on the same spot on the time axis. I've also pointed out that our brain operates in the past since all events we see, hear, taste, etc have already happened.

There are not two objects in existence either.
There is only the present which is happening.

Atoms are not things, just tendencies. Heisenberg.

The present is being all that is - it is the one metabeing - there is nothing other. There is no individual volition - the one is doing itself and knowing itself.

God is smelling his own fart.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I've also pointed out that our brain operates in the past since all events we see, hear, taste, etc have already happened.

An excellent point. Not only that but cognitive scientists tell us that much of what we experience at any given time doesn't even arrive through our senses at all. It is placed there (such as in peripheral vision etc) by the mind from memory ie. a best guess, what it expects to be there.

The brain also uses most of it's resources interpreting what arrives via the senses, before we get it consciously. Thus we never get an unfiltered view of things, we get the best interpretation our brain can give us, which obviously takes time.

So a good argument could also say that we never experience the present moment at all, but are aware of it slightly after it has already gone. Constantly living in the past!

Why does time only go in one direction? We can make very accurate predictions in the future (scientifically), which we know will arrive. Yet the past is gone completely.

Fascinating discussion.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
ps. If there is no time, why can't I see Halley's comet now? Why do I have to wait until 2061? I can work out when it will arrive in the future, I know it can't arrive until then.....



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
pps. I watched the youtube vids and enjoyed them very much, but I'm a sucker for philosophy. I have had similar discussions with people who propose such things before. Some of whom lead large groups (even worldwide) and their followers who look up to them as being wise. There is some value, perhaps even truth in such things in the right context.

Though I usually end up seeing it the following way (I usually veer on the practical side of things)...if you were being held up by your thumbs for instance, knowing that time ultimately was a concept and that there was only the present moment, would not be much consolation! Philosophy might lose some of it's meaning with the notion of time suddenly taking on a far greater importance, as would getting out of such a predicament in as little time as possible.




edit on 7-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you read about all of the world religions, it becomes evident that Christianity is the only valid conclusion. Either Jesus died on the Cross or we are all condemned. But he did, and he rose again.

As for the rest, I am not responsible for the Theosophist George Bush pretending to be a Christian, nor am I responsible for the Theosophist Obama pretending to be a Christian. Why are you asking me about them?

If you believe God abandoned you in this world, that is your choice. I disagree.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAllDieSoon
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you read about all of the world religions, it becomes evident that Christianity is the only valid conclusion. Either Jesus died on the Cross or we are all condemned. But he did, and he rose again.


Care to elaborate on that point? Because frankly that ISN'T the conclusion I came to after reading about all the world religions. The conclusion I came to is that none of them have a shred of evidence to support their magical gods and all of them are just as likely (and not likely) to be true. The only valid conclusion I came to is agnosticism. Not enough evidence, therefore I do not know. Of course I didn't start with a confirmation bias and just followed the evidence.

Though if you have any evidence that the rest of the world is missing that shows that Christianity is more valid than any other mythology, please do share. I'd be happy to see it, as would the rest of the world. Please do share. Oh and don't post anything from the bible. That isn't evidence of anything. Just a collection of testimonials that are probably exaggerated claims at the least and flat out lies at the most.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Everyone has a bias. When you are looking, you are motivated to look. Your motivation will determine your perspective.

No amount of good works can save a soul. Christianity is the only religion that recognizes this. We are supposed to do good anyways. It does not negate the evil.




top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join