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.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 83
36
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Since this thread has been off topic for some 80+ pages now, I figure I'll just leave these here:



The reasoning that gets exposed near the end reminds me quite a bit about this thread.



This one is just funny, especially around 5:45.



Here's a classic.



Abiogenesis.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.


Who funds the educational institutions?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Tuition unless everyone is getting a free education these days. Or are you implying the government pays for all higher education these days?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




But randy, why should we go out of our way to "find" the demanding "God" that stays so hidden, elusive, and absent?
We're supposed to "respect" someone we've only heard of, never seen, never spoken to, and who has never done anything to try to be 'found'? (And you know I don't think "God" is a person - or anything like a 'person' in any way at all.)


I would have to disagree Buzzy.
It only takes three syllables two words and one name to refute that.
Jesus Christ



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.


Who funds the educational institutions?


Believe me, I have worked on Wall Street and my clients were College Professors who were mostly science related educators. I have seen how the system works, constant paperwork trying to get approved for the next grant so they can continue to have an income. I am speaking of tier one universities.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I said at the same time to see what you would say to learn the truth for myself...

I concluded you were saying God had to earn your respect based upon your response...

you agreed with my conclusion with your affirmation...

Thank you...


edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ..



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.


Who funds the educational institutions?


Believe me, I have worked on Wall Street and my clients were College Professors who were mostly science related educators. I have seen how the system works, constant paperwork trying to get approved for the next grant so they can continue to have an income. I am speaking of tier one universities.


But I don't believe you. I have worked as an Anthropologist and have had to apply for those very grants you refer to. My father in-law heads the economics department at one of those very top tier universities and his brother, my wife's uncle, was a physicist at an Ivy League University before becoming the youngest president in the history of another prestigious university... none of us agree with your assertion. I just don't see how working on wall street gives any insight into the inner workings of anyone working in a university department, science or otherwise. I just don't see a correlation between investments and writing grant proposals. And even if that did somehow give a glimpse into the inner workings, if you are a tenured professor, assoc. prof. etc... you have an income. It is not dependent on receiving grants, which aren't necessarily government related anyway. You may have seen how the system works, but I have worked within the system and many members of my immediate and extended family still do work within that very system. It isn't dependent on government handouts in order to continue to receive a paycheck.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.


Who funds the educational institutions?


Believe me, I have worked on Wall Street and my clients were College Professors who were mostly science related educators. I have seen how the system works, constant paperwork trying to get approved for the next grant so they can continue to have an income. I am speaking of tier one universities.


But I don't believe you. I have worked as an Anthropologist and have had to apply for those very grants you refer to. My father in-law heads the economics department at one of those very top tier universities and his brother, my wife's uncle, was a physicist at an Ivy League University before becoming the youngest president in the history of another prestigious university... none of us agree with your assertion. I just don't see how working on wall street gives any insight into the inner workings of anyone working in a university department, science or otherwise. I just don't see a correlation between investments and writing grant proposals. And even if that did somehow give a glimpse into the inner workings, if you are a tenured professor, assoc. prof. etc... you have an income. It is not dependent on receiving grants, which aren't necessarily government related anyway. You may have seen how the system works, but I have worked within the system and many members of my immediate and extended family still do work within that very system. It isn't dependent on government handouts in order to continue to receive a paycheck.


You are correct, in the sense tenured professors have an income from the university. But as a Financial Adviser you see all a person's finances, probably more than their own spouse. Ha Ha.

I must clarify an earlier post, my education is Engineering, but I have worked in Finance most of my life.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Absolutely untrue. Especially so in the Biological and Earth sciences, the ones that deal with evolutionary theory, geology etc.... The vast majority work for an educational institution. Their jobs are dependent on doing good science and publishing their results, not on a government handout.


Who funds the educational institutions?


Believe me,


Why?


I have worked on Wall Street and my clients were College Professors who were mostly science related educators.


Evidence?


I have seen how the system works, constant paperwork trying to get approved for the next grant so they can continue to have an income. I am speaking of tier one universities.


and how does that show the scientific method at fault?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

you are right it also needs funds from others of like mind who wish to have their way of things promoted or aid in their cause...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

so what?

There are plenty of hi IQ people who choose to believe in religion, occult, chemtrails, and other nonsense......IQ dose not correspond with anything except hi IQ, and at least Annee is honest enough to acknowledge her limitations and let someone else explain something



You are correct. IQ means nothing. And I would not normally talk about such things. If you think all things coming from the scientific community are true and factual because they are smart, think again.


I think that things coming from science are true and factualy correct because they have followed the scientific method and are the best we know at the moment.

The IQ of the people who did the work is of no importance.


I posted that comment for a reason.


appeal to authority??


You should not blindly follow all things that you are told. Rather, do research and examine whether there is truth and facts behind the scenario.


it is a foolish thing to require people to do all their own research to establish the objective truth of absolutely anything - you saying it should be so is evidence of the stupidity that high IQ can engender!!


Hence I shall not believe what you tell me


Correct in the sense that scientists mostly only get paid by the government and special interest groups. The results better prove to be in line with those who give them their grants. Otherwise, scientists generally would be out of work.


Not at all - the studies that dot' support the funders just never get published - it is one of the great scandals in scientific world - especially in medicine.

and of course eth fact that it is being publicized has resulted in some change - some contrarian results aer now being published - eg study on butter funded by diary industry is not good for butter.

The idea that scientists are anything other than human beings with biases, cares, concerns, need for income to support their families, able to be pressured, etc., is nonsense - it is something put out by proponents of the war against science as if science is supposedly always perfect and therefore imperfections show the whole to be false!

But "science" doesn't claim to be perfect - unlike religion.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
So I gather you think all scientists adhere strictly to scientific method. There is no such thing as a scientist who lies, cheats, steals, or makes any decisions to their own advantage. I think you are naive.
edit on 11-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

and I think you are trolling - I just wrote that scientists are humans, with all the human foibles....

Perhaps your IQ doesn't extend to basic reading skills??



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
How times have changed. Those who were at the forefront of science such as Galileo and Newton, were very religious. There is no coincidence that the great religious scientists were mocked. Today, the scientific community seeks to stifle the religious. It is the same tactic from a different direction.
edit on 11-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
No one on this planet can prove anything... especially when it comes to life or the reality we exist in.. Intellect and philosophy is nothing but a coping mechanism... A creator? I am not an atheist, yet I do come to my own conclusion that the understanding I have of reality is more than likely wrong....

As a matter of a fact I do not think we will ever have the comprehension to understand the purpose of the science and our purpose.. We are instinctive and we cannot even understand that, the best thing we can do is associated it with death...

To even proclaim you understand and can prove their is a creator makes you look a bit foolish...

You cannot make such a claim...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
Today, the scientific community seeks to stifle the religious. It is the same tactic from a different direction.


I don't see that being the case at all. Look at Francis Collins for example. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, a world renowned geneticist and ardent Christian. His faith played no role in his work in genetics whatsoever. It did not impede his ability to utilize the scientific method or perform quality work. His hypothetical and theoretical models always held up to scrutiny. The only time there is a problem is when that same level of dedication to craft doesn't come into play.

In fact, I think it's safe to say that not a single YEC proponent can even demonstrate a hypothetical model supporting their position. None of them have anything based in science to support their claims, no published papers supporting their positions, just faith in Hebrew scripture as a literal model for how things work. Nobody cares about whether you believe in Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't come into play, it isn't brought up during work and as long as you follow proper protocols and adhere to the scientific method your personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant.

It's when someone begins with the desired end result and then formulates a rationale to prop up those beliefs without a shred of data to support it that a problem arises. Its a problem when they ignore all of the data that contradicts what they want to believe and only accept the few scant scraps that supports their tenuous position when removed from proper context. We don't seek to stifle the religious. We seek to encourage good science.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
How times have changed. Those who were at the forefront of science such as Galileo and Newton, were very religious. There is no coincidence that the great religious scientists were mocked and in Galileo's case put to death.


Galileo was not put to death.

congratulations on demonstrating ignorance.



Today, the scientific community seeks to stifle the religious. It is the same tactic from a different direction.


Science doesn't care one jot about religion - it is religion nutjobs who are trying to carry on a war on science - and faiing miserably because science doesnt' care a jot about religion!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: TheChrome
How times have changed. Those who were at the forefront of science such as Galileo and Newton, were very religious. There is no coincidence that the great religious scientists were mocked and in Galileo's case put to death.


Galileo was not put to death.

congratulations on demonstrating ignorance.



Today, the scientific community seeks to stifle the religious. It is the same tactic from a different direction.


Science doesn't care one jot about religion - it is religion nutjobs who are trying to carry on a war on science - and faiing miserably because science doesnt' care a jot about religion!


Ha! you are correct!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TheChrome
Today, the scientific community seeks to stifle the religious. It is the same tactic from a different direction.


I don't see that being the case at all. Look at Francis Collins for example. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, a world renowned geneticist and ardent Christian. His faith played no role in his work in genetics whatsoever. It did not impede his ability to utilize the scientific method or perform quality work. His hypothetical and theoretical models always held up to scrutiny. The only time there is a problem is when that same level of dedication to craft doesn't come into play.

In fact, I think it's safe to say that not a single YEC proponent can even demonstrate a hypothetical model supporting their position. None of them have anything based in science to support their claims, no published papers supporting their positions, just faith in Hebrew scripture as a literal model for how things work. Nobody cares about whether you believe in Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't come into play, it isn't brought up during work and as long as you follow proper protocols and adhere to the scientific method your personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant.

It's when someone begins with the desired end result and then formulates a rationale to prop up those beliefs without a shred of data to support it that a problem arises. Its a problem when they ignore all of the data that contradicts what they want to believe and only accept the few scant scraps that supports their tenuous position when removed from proper context. We don't seek to stifle the religious. We seek to encourage good science.


I am crushed. You ruined my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I agree with what you say, good science is great. God created us with the capability to learn. The one thing I disagree with, is drawing a conclusion without sufficient facts. Science has repetitively done studies and made a conclusion, but reversed the conclusion a few years later when more facts were understood.

Why not avoid making a conclusion, and say "we don't have enough facts to make an assumption"? I would rather say "I don't know" than say something that is proved to be false later.




top topics



 
36
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join