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.

 

Believing what you know ain't so

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


Both of those statements reflects perfectly a side in the argument between creationism and science.

Because i think life was created somewhere else and brought here doesn't mean I buy into religions creation story. That part of the biblical record is hand me down fairytales, grown in the telling.

And not explained by development from lifelessness here, either (the theory of evolution). What amuses me is each side is staunch in their affirmations that they have the truth of where life comes from (however they cage that), and they get sorely incensed when somebody suggest otherwise.

To me its a no brainer.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.

It means forever. its okay, we have to pass to the next dimension to become aware of this. From 3d land its impossible to explain it. Just as hard as explaining the concept of 'up' to 2d people.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.

It means forever. its okay, we have to pass to the next dimension to become aware of this. From 3d land its impossible to explain it. Just as hard as explaining the concept of 'up' to 2d people.


I don't recall anything in science that suggested that we understand infinity or eternity. That's news to me.
On the other hand, quantum mechanics does include dimension modeling so you're not far off there.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.

It means forever. its okay, we have to pass to the next dimension to become aware of this. From 3d land its impossible to explain it. Just as hard as explaining the concept of 'up' to 2d people.
This is religion in a new wrapper.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.

It means forever. its okay, we have to pass to the next dimension to become aware of this. From 3d land its impossible to explain it. Just as hard as explaining the concept of 'up' to 2d people.
This is religion in a new wrapper.

Well despite what you believe everyone dies, everyone is going there.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Evolution just says that all life comes from a singular source and branched out from there.

So we do agree then. Glad thats settled.


Somehow I doubt that we agree and you just viewed my above statement as confirmation of your "Evolution says that life came from ionized muck" statement...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


And if that turned out to be the case, then you can ask THEM where life originated

Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.

It means forever. its okay, we have to pass to the next dimension to become aware of this. From 3d land its impossible to explain it. Just as hard as explaining the concept of 'up' to 2d people.
This is religion in a new wrapper.

Well despite what you believe everyone dies, everyone is going there.

So we haven't been arguing with a creationist, we've been arguing with a New Age mystic who likes to dripfeed ideas piecemeal rather than lay it all out at once. Fab.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
And not explained by development from lifelessness here, either (the theory of evolution).


Enough of the lies! The theory of evolution does NOT state that. Common ancestry does not mean origin of life from "lifelessness" as you describe it. How many times will you ignore this fact? Evolution is not about origin of life, it's about how life changes over time.


What amuses me is each side is staunch in their affirmations that they have the truth of where life comes from (however they cage that), and they get sorely incensed when somebody suggest otherwise.


No. People get annoyed when lies are posted about evolution and repeated over and over again, for example the lie that abiogenesis is required for evolution to be true, or the lie that evolution claims to explain the origin of life.



Its always been there. Thats science problem, they are bounded by their limited imagination, yet claim to understand infinity and eternity.


The lies keep flowing. Science does not claim to understand infinity and eternity. This is YOU who makes these claims with zero objective evidence.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Half the things david icke and alex jones says is full of # anyway...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: gell1234

You give them too much credit. I'd say it's closer to 80 - 90% of the things they say.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Somehow I doubt that we agree…

This ain't the tree of life either.
link


edit on 7-4-2015 by intrptr because: fixed link



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You're right it's a "Webpage is not available" site.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry about that, fixed it.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Somehow I doubt that we agree…

This ain't the tree of life either.
link



Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.


While we're talking about the 19th century, what about Darwin's Dilemma? OMG that has never been addressed and we all know evolution hasn't changed at all since its invoking!!!

edit on 7-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr What amuses me is each side is staunch in their affirmations that they have the truth of where life comes from (however they cage that), and they get sorely incensed when somebody suggest otherwise.

To me its a no brainer.




Thats not really true, atheists dont claim to have the truth. And any honest atheist would say that the origins of life are, as yet, unknown. That doesnt necessarily mean "God did it".
Many atheists think there is a possibility for a "divine creator", that spawned the universe. But not an interventionist God that sticks his fingers into everyones lives, granting free will then demanding obedience.
People keep painting atheists as claiming they have the answers, where that is so untrue.
An atheist realises how few answers we have. Is in awe of the universe. As each new scientific discovery is made, new avenues of research are opened, how much we thought we knew becomes overshadowed by what we didnt realise we dont know.

Make believe has exploited people for too long, snake oil sales and woo hasnt gone away, its just gotten a lot more sophisticated.

I dont care about anyone holding whatever beliefs they like, as long as it causes no harm to others, and I dont have to be told about how I will burn in hell if I dont subscribe. I dont want to be judged "unworthy" by some hypocritical zealot who thinks they know better, because they believe in a fairy tale. I dont like the "holier than thou" mentality held by many "of faith" and I will not be judged by them. I have become a fan of Christopher Hitchens and he was right, religion poisons everything. He saw the coming of ISIS, and tried to fight against it. Unwittingly supporting the very war which rushed their arrival, but we are where we are. No one is right about everything.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


Because i think life was created somewhere else and brought here doesn't mean I buy into religions creation story. That part of the biblical record is hand me down fairytales, grown in the telling.


Yet your viewpoint has as much supporting evidence and perhaps less actually, than religious creationism. You simply replace God with extraterrestrial biological entities and the rest is pretty much the same. Including the baseless denial of science and the extreme levels of ignorance displayed regarding the premise that evolutionary science is based on I.E. Over a century and a half of well documented and well researched evidence and data in support of it. Despite your protestations, the Theory of Evolution is one of the best documented and evidenced theories in the history of science. Denying it is little more than a peacocking display of ignorance if you are incapable of describing or explaining any actual issues with the theory itself. And misinterpreting what the theory does, does not or may have in the past stated is not the same thing. Especially if you can cite it.



And not explained by development from lifelessness here, either (the theory of evolution).


Since you're the only one in this thread making the claim the TOE has ever been premised on the origins of life on Earth the onus lies upon you to demonstrate a citation to support YOUR claim. It's a ridiculous notion to require others to prove a negative which is typically impossible. You must provide evidence that the theory has, in your own words, moved the goal posts. Something that had not taken place anywhere except your imagination. It's time to stop throwing toddleresque tantrums and time to start supporting out arguments with something aside from "In my day,
I waS taught" and "I believe we were created elsewhere" especially when the former is untrue and the latter completely ignores the question of who created your creators, which I have previously addressed and have been ignored.



What amuses me is each side is staunch in their affirmations that they have the truth of where life comes from (however they cage that), and they get sorely incensed when somebody suggest otherwise.


From my perspective, you're completelyusubderstandingnor misrepresenting the facts. NOBODY in science has ever stated they KNOW where life comes from. There are hypothesis and there are experiments demonstrating the viability of those hypothesis but nobody has ever claimed absolute knowledge of the origins of life. Thru have merely hypothesized and attempted to prove those hypothesis. The fact that science has no theory for the origin of life( and until you can provide a citation stating otherwise, TOE does not not has it ever encompassed such a notion) is in an of itself quite telling on what biologists and chemists think on the matter. The reason people get "incensed" as you put it, is because you're the one placing things in a cage of your own creation and then attempting to pass it off as science. It's Bull S# and anyone with a nose can tell it doesn't pass the smell test. Please start supporting your statements with evidence and citations and I will promptly tuck my tail and do an about face. Until then you just come off as a whackadoodle making baseless claims that can't be cited.


To me its a no brainer.


Then you should have no difficulty evidencing your claims to demonstrate the error of out ways to all us Luddites. Any time you want to prove me wrong all you have to do is cite a piece of scientific literature supporting your claims that TOE includes or included the Origins of life. And any evidence in favor of your off world hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Precisely... In 156 years it's obviously never occurred to anyone to address any of Darwin's literature. Hell, most
Biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc. have probably never read any of his books. We all just parrot what we've heard like its Sunday morning Catechism class. Nobody has EVER questioned a line of his work. Oh no... Never



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs

Precisely... In 156 years it's obviously never occurred to anyone to address any of Darwin's literature. Hell, most
Biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc. have probably never read any of his books. We all just parrot what we've heard like its Sunday morning Catechism class. Nobody has EVER questioned a line of his work. Oh no... Never


Just as most christians have never read the bible.
And as most muslims have never read the Koran.

They just claim the faith because its the family religion.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I was being facetious though. Everyone in my Anthro program read On the Origin of Species and Descent of Man. I still have them. Of course most of us were also a little more well read on Christian scripture than the typical adherents as well...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join