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.
originally posted by: GetHyped
IAm14AndThisIsDeep.jpg
Another sermon, another word soup of nonsense. Science doesn't support creationism or the notion of gods, no matter how hard you try and bend and abuse it to your faith.
originally posted by: AlephBet
originally posted by: GetHyped
IAm14AndThisIsDeep.jpg
Another sermon, another word soup of nonsense. Science doesn't support creationism or the notion of gods, no matter how hard you try and bend and abuse it to your faith.
Your reply talks about me as the object of your premise. It says what you think, but not why. That's not an argument and neither is your opinion of me. How is it that science supports evolution? I agree that science supports it, but not as a cause. It's a result. Answer this question using an argument from symmetry laws and information theory or you have said nothing. The OP stands solid on the evidence and the science / mathematics behind the conclusion. Orthogonal Linear mathematics in a matrix denies your conclusion. You said word soup because you may not have researched the terms.
Invariant Symmetry
Involution
Orthogonal Linear Mathematics
Liner Matrix
All things pertaining to information theory and entropy in information
Strong and Weak Nuclear Force
The thread was clear and the use of the terms above were ingredients in a well made pot of truth.
can i ask what degrees you have? or in another way of saying it, how can we trust that you are actually applying any of these ideas and theories correctly? i know i certainly dont. you named 6 different studies in mathematics and physics, but i see more scripture than i ever see math or physics from you. you play word games using etymology, thats as scholarly as i have seen you get. i can do the same thing with a mcdonalds menu and turn it into satan's personal billboard. its not impressive, believe it or not. so i want to know how i can trust that you arent misrepresenting these carious fields in the way that you apply them. im sure im not the only one asking.
edit: you know what never mind. i dont want any part of this.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
Utter and complete garbage and gobbledygook.
Infact, I would wager that anyone who clicks the gobbledygook generator in this link would think its an Enochwasright quote...
Gobbledygook Generator
Philippians 4:11-13
11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Prezbo369
Let me try:
You really can't fail with interactive third-generation capability. The solution can only be functional reciprocal innovation. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. The consultants recommend ambient incremental options. At base level, this just comes down to parallel relative alignment.
Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
All in all, pretty spot on as far as OP and gobbledygook go!
In physics, symmetry includes all features of a physical system that exhibit the property of symmetry—that is, under certain transformations, aspects of these systems are otherwise "unchanged", according to a particular observation. A symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is "preserved" under some change.
Invariance is specified mathematically by transformations that leave some quantity unchanged. This idea can apply to basic real-world observations. For example, temperature may be constant throughout a room. Since the temperature is independent of position within the room, the temperature is invariant under a shift in the measurer's position.
Similarly, a uniform sphere rotated about its center will appear exactly as it did before the rotation. The sphere is said to exhibit spherical symmetry. A rotation about any axis of the sphere will preserve how the sphere "looks".
Laws of physics are translationally invariant under a spatial translation if they do not distinguish different points in space. According to Noether's theorem, space translational symmetry of a physical system is equivalent to the momentum conservation law.
Translational symmetry of an object means that a particular translation does not change the object. For a given object, the translations for which this applies form a group, the symmetry group of the object, or, if the object has more kinds of symmetry, a subgroup of the symmetry group
Translational invariance implies that, at least in one direction, the object is infinite: for any given point p, the set of points with the same properties due to the translational symmetry form the infinite discrete set...In spaces with dimension higher than 1, there may be multiple translational symmetry.
In Mathematics: A simple example of an involution of the three-dimensional Euclidean space is reflection against a plane. Performing a reflection twice brings a point back to its original coordinates. Another is the so-called reflection through the origin; this is an abuse of language as it is not a reflection, though it is an involution.
These transformations are examples of affine involutions.
In Philosophy: In philosophy, involution refers to a situation in which a process or object is ontologically "turned in" upon itself.
In Religion: In some instances it refers to a process that occurs prior to evolution and gives rise to the cosmos, in others an aspect of evolution, and still others a process that follows the completion of evolution in the human form.
Thus finite-dimensional linear isometries—rotations, reflections, and their combinations—produce orthogonal matrices. The converse is also true: orthogonal matrices imply orthogonal transformations. However, linear algebra includes orthogonal transformations between spaces which may be neither finite-dimensional nor of the same dimension, and these have no orthogonal matrix equivalent. Orthogonal matrices are important for a number of reasons, both theoretical and practical.
A reflection is its own inverse, which implies that a reflection matrix is symmetric (equal to its transpose) as well as orthogonal. The product of two rotation matrices is a rotation matrix, and the product of two reflection matrices is also a rotation matrix.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Prezbo369
Let me try:
You really can't fail with interactive third-generation capability. The solution can only be functional reciprocal innovation. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. The consultants recommend ambient incremental options. At base level, this just comes down to parallel relative alignment.
Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
All in all, pretty spot on as far as OP and gobbledygook go!
You are talking about me and not the subject. It is equivalent to me asking:
"Is your shift key broke?" Your argument can't be true if you don't capitalize sentences."
This, of course, is not a valid discussion point. My example above as an argument has no relation to the subject. It addresses you and not what is being discussed. Pick one of the domains of science and discuss the OP if my premise can be argued. For all we know, you may have something valuable to add.
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: TzarChasm
can i ask what degrees you have? or in another way of saying it, how can we trust that you are actually applying any of these ideas and theories correctly? i know i certainly dont. you named 6 different studies in mathematics and physics, but i see more scripture than i ever see math or physics from you. you play word games using etymology, thats as scholarly as i have seen you get. i can do the same thing with a mcdonalds menu and turn it into satan's personal billboard. its not impressive, believe it or not. so i want to know how i can trust that you arent misrepresenting these carious fields in the way that you apply them. im sure im not the only one asking.
edit: you know what never mind. i dont want any part of this.
You are talking about me and not the subject. It is equivalent to me asking:
"Is your shift key broke?" Your argument can't be true if you don't capitalize sentences."
This, of course, is not a valid discussion point. My example above as an argument has no relation to the subject. It addresses you and not what is being discussed. Pick one of the domains of science and discuss the OP if my premise can be argued. For all we know, you may have something valuable to add.
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281