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.

 

Something From Nothing? The Origin And Subsequent Inflation Of The Singularity.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Here is how "science and scientist have failed . So two particle physicist are cutting and chopping up particles until one day they cut the smallest thing they had and it disappeared . They looked at each other wondering where the thing went . So one said ,maybe we should get ahold of the Metaphysics Dept . Oh wait, we dont have that dept. Well maybe we should start one they thought . So they take it up with the head honchos but are told , No we will not because THERE IS NO GOD < THERE IS NO GOD




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Here is how "science and scientist have failed . So two particle physicist are cutting and chopping up particles until one day they cut the smallest thing they had and it disappeared . They looked at each other wondering where the thing went . So one said ,maybe we should get ahold of the Metaphysics Dept . Oh wait, we dont have that dept. Well maybe we should start one they thought . So they take it up with the head honchos but are told , No we will not because THERE IS NO GOD < THERE IS NO GOD



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Not sure what you may have had in your reply .I noticed when I mad my post to you some of it got cut off . I dont know if there is a glitch in the system or if Putin is playing games with ATS a reply to: Woodcarver



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Here is how "science and scientist have failed . So two particle physicist are cutting and chopping up particles until one day they cut the smallest thing they had and it disappeared . They looked at each other wondering where the thing went . So one said ,maybe we should get ahold of the Metaphysics Dept . Oh wait, we dont have that dept. Well maybe we should start one they thought . So they take it up with the head honchos but are told , No we will not because THERE IS NO GOD < THERE IS NO GOD



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1
As the scientists of the world climb the mountain in search of truth, they get to the top to find the theologians already there.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


so thats your conspiracy. hundreds of thousands of highly educated men and women worldwide colluding in an effort to pass shoddy research as nobel prize winning breakthroughs because they cant stand to watch religion be validated. you assume that if the evidence existed that could prove the existence of a supernatural ruling power, such people would be enough to stop it from going public. well, maybe if that supernatural ruling power turned out to be someone other than the god everyone grew up with...
edit on 3-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: the2ofusr1


so thats your conspiracy. hundreds of thousands of highly educated men and women worldwide colluding in an effort to pass shoddy research as nobel prize winning breakthroughs because they cant stand to watch religion be validated. you assume that if the evidence existed that could prove the existence of a supernatural ruling power, such people would be enough to stop it from going public. well, maybe if that supernatural ruling power turned out to be someone other than the god everyone grew up with...
See my above post to 2ofusR1.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.


he also heavily criticized the popular model.

scientists take every possibility into consideration. otherwise its not true science.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.


he also heavily criticized the popular model.

scientists take every possibility into consideration. otherwise its not true science.
They don't take into consideration what they consider to be absurd. For example they don't take the time to rule out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a cause for volcanic eruptions. So something of a metaphysical or spiritual nature would not be searched for if that was outside of the researchers mindset or belief system.

edit on 1/3/2015 by MissSmartypants because: t



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.


he also heavily criticized the popular model.

scientists take every possibility into consideration. otherwise its not true science.
They don't take into consideration what they consider to be absurd. For example they don't take the time to rule out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a cause for volcanic eruptions. So something of a metaphysical or spiritual nature would not be searched for if that was outside of the researchers mindset or belief system.


spirituality is not science. if something is considered to be absurd, that is probably because it contradicts known observations and is therefore blatantly erroneous. of course, that would be the rational response but who needs rationality when you have faith.
edit on 3-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Al Gore got a Nobel prize for a inconvenient truth that showed that scientist made predictions with graphs and studies that have come to naught . zipo nada didnt happen . So now we seem to moving into a solar cycle that may cause some cooling for a time to come . time will tell but maybe the old boys of AGW science can work the magical co2 molecule into a meme of AGC and impose the same things they wanted to from the beginning . There seemed to be a political motivation to that episode and so science can have other motivations for saying what they say with their opinions . a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Al Gore got a Nobel prize for a inconvenient truth that showed that scientist made predictions with graphs and studies that have come to naught . zipo nada didnt happen . So now we seem to moving into a solar cycle that may cause some cooling for a time to come . time will tell but maybe the old boys of AGW science can work the magical co2 molecule into a meme of AGC and impose the same things they wanted to from the beginning . There seemed to be a political motivation to that episode and so science can have other motivations for saying what they say with their opinions . a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes from what I've read the coming mini ice age should peak around 2050. We just came out of one solar minimum and apparently we're in the beginnings of another one.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants;

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.


he also heavily criticized the popular model.

scientists take every possibility into consideration. otherwise its not true science.
They don't take into consideration what they consider to be absurd. For example they don't take the time to rule out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a cause for volcanic eruptions. So something of a metaphysical or spiritual nature would not be searched for if that was outside of the researchers mindset or belief system.


spirituality is not science. if something is considered to be absurd, that is probably because it contradicts known observations and is therefore blatantly erroneous. of course, that would be the rational response but who needs rationality when you have faith.
Just because you have faith in the way you perceive known scientific observations and believe your perceptions to be true, doesn't mean you should call yourself irrational. You're being too hard on yourself. You're just searching like the rest of us.
edit on 1/3/2015 by MissSmartypants because: info

edit on 1/3/2015 by MissSmartypants because: spelling



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants


Just because you have faith in the way you perceive known scientific observations and believe your perceptions to be true, doesn't mean you should call yourself irrational. You're being too hard on yourself. You're just searching like the rest of us.


'scientific observations' and 'faith' dont go into the same sentence. unless its to explain why they dont go in the same sentence.

but nice reversal.



edit on 3-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MissSmartypants


Just because you have faith in the way you perceive known scientific observations and believe your perceptions to be true, doesn't mean you should call yourself irrational. You're being too hard on yourself. You're just searching like the rest of us.


'scientific observations' and 'faith' dont go into the same sentence. unless its to explain why they dont go in the same sentence.

but nice reversal.


Reversal? What? I don't understand. And thanks.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes the true scientific Metaphysisist . In watching Stephen Crothers explaing the illogical circular nonsensical nature of a institute of science ,you really have to shake your head .Science fiction is much closer to the truth then some of those charlatans . a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm sure what scientists have to say is true. Its just that they're not looking to see what else is true. Though actually Einstein alluded to there being a creator.


he also heavily criticized the popular model.

scientists take every possibility into consideration. otherwise its not true science.
They don't take into consideration what they consider to be absurd. For example they don't take the time to rule out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a cause for volcanic eruptions. So something of a metaphysical or spiritual nature would not be searched for if that was outside of the researchers mindset or belief system.


spirituality is not science. if something is considered to be absurd, that is probably because it contradicts known observations and is therefore blatantly erroneous. of course, that would be the rational response but who needs rationality when you have faith.


Thanks to science faith have evolved and become more rational i would say. Without faith science would be dead. You have faith in science if you didnt it would not interest you.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MissSmartypants


Just because you have faith in the way you perceive known scientific observations and believe your perceptions to be true, doesn't mean you should call yourself irrational. You're being too hard on yourself. You're just searching like the rest of us.


'scientific observations' and 'faith' dont go into the same sentence. unless its to explain why they dont go in the same sentence.

but nice reversal.


Reversal? What? I don't understand. And thanks.


never mind. i have said what i have to say. do with it what you will.

ciao



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Most bodies of science's are compartmentalized and when and if some get together ,not all have equal time or status .One of the reoccurring themes in science is that if your not going to toe the line then you will not get the funding and will be relegated to the cheap seats .Like some scientist in the past that made new discoveries but were rejected by the scientific community ,only to be considered 40 or 50 years after the fact .It's a hard place to get recognized if you go against the status quo .Well that is the nature of the beast we call science . a reply to: Woodcarver

Yes we can't discount the everyday factors that effect the scope and focus of scientific research....like funding. There does seem to be an agenda to follow.



new topics




 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join