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.

 

Who wants to argue creation?

page: 30
19
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: spy66

Wrong
www.iflscience.com...


Manipulated the wave structure of some photons and they arrived later.....mmm Intersting.

So now we have to manipulate light to prove that light can travel at different speeds in a vacuum?

But the photons that were not manipulated did they travel at C in the vacuum.

Question: I bet the manipulated light also traveled at a constant speed. Just not the speed of C (light).

It should travel at a constant speed because there would be no friction to slow the light Down either. It only traveld slower because the light was manipulated. THe light was not manipulated by the vacuum.....that is a big issue to notice.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: redtic
Giving words new definition is arrogant.


OK, thanks, I'll let Wiktionary know.



Arrogance - having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or ability


That one works nicely for my example, too, thanks.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Reality,,,,,, sounds like an opinion?

What's that supposed to mean?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Science can only attempt to explain what has already happened.
Explaining the mechanics never negates the mechanic or the designer.
All science can do is explain the mechanics God used for a material world.
And it's utterly stupid to view that as something that resembles intellect.


Nobody is claiming that explaining the mechanics of evolution negates a creator. They are saying that the position of creation is not scientific, while evolution IS. Yes, the logical default of anything with zero objective evidence is non existence, but neither evolution nor abiogenesis proves god wrong. People are arguing that evolution is valid because there is actual evidence and proof.

Claiming that god did it and not looking for an answer as a result is downright lazy. Fighting science is silly. If you truly believe that science describes god's mechanics, then why do you argue against evolution and promote coincidental similarities as evidence for god? If science is describing god's work, then you should have nothing against it whatsoever and threads like this shouldn't be necessary. You have already validated your opinion to yourself. What more do you need?
edit on 30-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

How scientific is coincidence? All the time science seems
tp replace this word: God. For this word: Coincidence.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Eclecticist
To get back to the premise of this thread:... Who wants to argue creationism.

"Creationism" as passionately preached by the mostly fundamentalist Xians has been shown to be an ignorant superstition and proven wrong by the most basic of scientific knowledge of the 19th century.

"Intelligent design" is the desperate effort of Xians to disguise "Creationism" in a scientific similitude that belies its superstitious creationist dogma.

The Old Testament god Jehovah/Yawheh demonstrates that he is more demon than deity (read Deuteronomy)

The New Testament Yeshua/Jesus....well....worshipping a dead human being as god is blatant paganism, isn't it?



If you can show me repeatable observable and testable evidence to evolution I wont worship any dead guys.

"evolution" is the desperate effort of satan to disguise "stupidity" as a scientific similitude that belies its superstitious evolutionist dogma.


" 'evolution' is the desperate effort of satan to disguise 'stupidity' as a scientific similitude that belies its superstitious evolutionist dogma." ....clever turn of phrase!... So you have the audacity to claim science to be superstitious and dogmatic?!?!

If the old reliable "god did it" proclamation won't apply, always hit 'em with "satan did it"! A page from the standard fundamentalist creationist play book. A "true believer" proudly and obstinately challenges 21st century scientific knowledge with archaic ignorant guesswork based loosely on the Babylonian 7 Tablets of Creation. It's curious that the supposedly god-revealed Book of Genesis contains older pagan religious roots, isn't it?

You do realize that scientists have been studying the very matter that your god supposedly created? Your god also imparted intelligence and curiosity to humankind. I assume he expects us to use them.

As for your challenge to show you "repeatable observable and testable evidence to evolution", I'll leave that to the credentialed scientists of various disciplines to respond, although I doubt you are open-minded enough to grasp the significance.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


You have already validated your opinion to yourself. What more do you need?


entertainment. a way to kill time. these arguments amuse some people. its like an episode of judge jesse on conspiracy tv. (because jesse ventura, geddit?)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Eclecticist

I had a debate with a christian coworker once about the rainbow where he said rainbows didn't exist before the flood. I reminded him that rainbows are just light refraction which he couldn't deny. Then, he said, but it didn't rain before the flood. I told him point blank, "you just made that up" because he really didn't have a scientific leg to stand on. At least he admitted to making it up but my point is, to what lengths christians will continue to argue even though science proves them wrong. They'll saying absolutely anything. So, the devil made me write this post.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

So true about the lengths some Xians will go to deny the revelations of science.

But the audacity to accuse science of being superstitious and dogmatic....that one has to take the cake!



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I have a question to the person who really thinks he understand science. It is a very easy one.

If light is measured to be a absolute constant in a vacuum. And the age of Our observable universe is 13.8 billion years and 91 billion light years in diameter. And expanding equally in all directions at the same time at the speed of light.

What void is surrounding Our observable universe? If light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Who has ever said there is one? Only a small mind would limit themselves in that way.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

How scientific is coincidence? All the time science seems
tp replace this word: God. For this word: Coincidence.


Coincidence is not scientific in the least. Your eclipse is the perfect example. You are talking about 2 objects that APPEAR the same size in the sky. They aren't actually the same size, nor is the ratio even exact. If our system was designed or created, I'd expect them to be exactly the same size and for every aspect of the world to be in perfect sync with whole numbers in math, but it's not. The earth isn't even a perfect sphere for god's sake. You can be in awe of something like an eclipse but what about the hundreds of thousands of other things in the universe that don't match up and /or function chaotically? It's pure confirmation bias and nothing more. It's like finding bible codes. If you look for a code you will find one, whether it means anything or not.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

rainbows, kittens and moonbeams. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
I have a question to the person who really thinks he understand science. It is a very easy one.

If light is measured to be a absolute constant in a vacuum. And the age of Our observable universe is 13.8 billion years and 91 billion light years in diameter. And expanding equally in all directions at the same time at the speed of light.

What void is surrounding Our observable universe? If light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.



I was hoping this was going to come back. There are many misunderstandings about the universe expanding.

First, it is not equally expanding in all directions. I'd like to see a source for this if you think it's true. Measurements have shown certain galaxies are moving faster away from us than others.

Second, you are confusing light with energy. Light is but one property given off by energy from stars. Just because the light travels at the speed of light doesn't mean the stars themselves do. They are composed of much more than photons.

Third, expanding at the speed of light isn't an accurate description. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light. BUT, when you compare 2 objects moving away from one another, the difference can indeed measure as faster. This is one of the more confusing aspects of inflation, so I'll give you this analogy.

Think of the speed of light as the speed limit of the universe. Now let's say you have 2 cars driving opposite directions on a road. The speed limit is 70 and they are both driving the speed limit. When you compare the 2 cars, and calculate the difference in speed, it measures to 140 MPH because they are moving away from each other at that speed. BUT, neither one is breaking the speed limit. It's kind of like that with the universe and accelerating to the speed of light. Logically, it will eventually get to the speed of light, but as of yet, no single object is moving the speed of light or faster. Only comparisons that are drawn measuring the difference in objects moving away from one another.

If I'm wrong about this, or made a mistake, by all means feel free to correct me. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I do read much of the science involved. All I ask is that you don't incorporate insults or accusations of poor knowledge. Formulate your argument using facts and work from there. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first in line ready to eat crow.


edit on 1-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Alright now you settle down Barcs.

I can feel you getting your nickers all crossed up brother.
Take a deep breath.




Your eclipse is the perfect example.


Of your use of the word coincidence not mine.

No where in the solar system does such an event occur
that the Bible tells us for certain God uses for " Signs".
So, as far as humans are concerned it may as well be the entire
universe that does not portray such an event, in what may as well be
perfect ratio, from the perspective of the event itself. Now in my
view calling that a coincidence in the light of what the Bible says,
for me, is perposterous.

Because we just happen to be on the right planet to view it.
Now, tell me you can at least see it from my
point of view the way I've explained it. Being a person who is at
least smart enough to agree with you here.




It's like finding bible codes.


You'll never see a thread about this nonsense from me cause I
don't buy it. And be sure, I do value all that you write in these
subjects. I'm sure you know I read everything you write that
I come across. So you are appreciated. If thats at all on your mind.

I would love to talk to you in person.
Text lacks passion.


Coincidence is not scientific in the least.

edit on Ram70115v01201500000046 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs


No where in the solar system does such an event occur 
that the Bible tells us for certain God uses for " Signs".


Nowhere except on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune......
edit on 1-7-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well that's news to me Prez.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

But I think you've missed the point about a solar eclipse. It's only perfect now (+/-50 years or so). 200 years ago the moon was slightly closer and the eclipse would have been much darker, as the proportion of light it blocked would have been greater. 2000 years ago and it would have been very dark indeed – you would have needed artificial light to see around you. So when our friend Jesus was thinking "Should I keep the beard or not? Yes, I will, I look like a cuddly bear" the sun and moon were visibly very different sizes.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Alright now you settle down Barcs.

I can feel you getting your nickers all crossed up brother.
Take a deep breath.


It's a bit difficult to sense emotion through text. I know that I over explain things at times, I'm really just trying to be thorough in the explanations. I'm honesty not upset in the least, I find these discussions fun. I was trying to scrutinize the idea that the eclipse is a sign from god. It's like I said above, if you are looking for signs, you will find them, whether they are signs from god or just coincidence. The problem is we don't know the answer. Anything could potentially be interpreted as a sign from god.


Of your use of the word coincidence not mine.


I'd say coincidence fits the bill, no?


a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
"it's no coincidence that this new burst of innovation has occurred in the free nations"



No where in the solar system does such an event occur


Perhaps you can answer this one for me. Has this been measured and tested, or is this just being assumed? I'd think that several other planets would have solar eclipses with almost the same size appearance in the sky, especially when you look at Jupiter and Saturn that have dozens of moons. Again, I'm asking because I'm not 100% sure on this, but you have obviously looked into it.



that the Bible tells us for certain God uses for " Signs".
So, as far as humans are concerned it may as well be the entire
universe that does not portray such an event, in what may as well be
perfect ratio, from the perspective of the event itself. Now in my
view calling that a coincidence in the light of what the Bible says,
for me, is perposterous.


I get that, but it's really subjective. You think it's not a coincidence but really have no basis to believe that other than a book saying that god will give signs. For all we know every planet in the universe that has life could have a very similar situation.

Lets look at it this way. From what we understand about planets that are capable of supporting life:

1. The planet must be in the goldilocks zone, first and foremost. This means that the relative size of the sun in the sky would be similar to all planets in the zone. That's your first factor.

2. The planet has a moon big and close enough to affect tides and plenty of other things on the planet. This means that the relative size of the moon would be roughly the same size in the sky on any one of these planets.

Add both together and you have a simple but logical explanation for why planets capable of supporting life are far more likely to experience eclipses. Obviously, that is a bit over simplified, but it seems likely to me that those 2 factors would affect any planet capable of life, but more studies need to be done because we haven't seen life anywhere but earth as of yet. Once we begin to figure it all out, I firmly believe the eclipse will be a tell tale sign of a planet that can support life (if the other factors add up obviously).


Because we just happen to be on the right planet to view it.

It's not that we just so happen to be here. It's because of the factors I mentioned above, plus others. Earth is the only known planet in the solar system that can support our type of life.


Now, tell me you can at least see it from my
point of view the way I've explained it. Being a person who is at
least smart enough to agree with you here.


I see it, I just don't agree with the implications and I feel it is far more common occurrence in the universe than you think, especially on m-class planets.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

edit on 1-7-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join