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.

 

Our origin acording to presidential candidate Ben Carson

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SuperFrog

Carson is a surgeon: a people mechanic. He may be good with his hands but he doesn't have to be smart. Making a statement like that pretty much ends his presidential campaign.


Sure, he is not top scientist and does not spend time researching, but again, getting PhD and not believing in simple facts like age of planet we inhabit... just mind blowing.

Sure, if it was normal country and normal election, statement like this would send you home... but here in USA seems more absurd/stupid statement, more likely you will get more followers... tells thing or two about our fail education system tho...




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not sure common sense has anything to do with it. With the stuff that's come out of Trump's mouth in the last several months, my common sense would've told me he buried himself a long time ago.

Polls indicate the electorate is looking for almost anything that's different than what we have today. That encompasses a fairly large area at either end.

Bottom line, we'll ultimately end up with the same choice we always do - compound fracture of a femur, or herpes.

Yay.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

Perhaps you yourself need to become more educated in order to understand a complex problem that is not settled Science.


Define "settled science", because the science I'M familiar with NONE of it is settled. So talking about what is and isn't settled science is a ridiculous notion.


Of course I'm sure you believe Life and the Universe just came into being randomly because... of Science? We all have our fairy tales


This is pure hyperbole.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: CraftBuilder

mathematics, think its called universal law, but please go on with science as fact


Your PC isn't powered solely by mathematics... There is quite a bit of electrical theory in there, which is a part of Physics. What you are referring to is referred to as a Turing Machine, but that is just an abstract concept and isn't a physical computer.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust
How can you have power almost equivalent to infinite power? That makes no sense, though you see the problem, don't you? We're being logical.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I am not sure where to start with this one. How is possible to be well educated, yet not believe in science but rather fairy tales?!

This, among other things Benny has said just does not make sense and it is unbelievable that someone from medical field has issues with some basics of medicine...

I would be worried for education as well for our well being if someone like this becomes president...


I can understand your opinion, and I understand, to a point, the Creationist's opinion as well.

I prefer to think of "Unbiased Science" as providing the schematics for the Universe and "Creationist / Creation Science" as the equivalent to "Idiot's Guide to the Universe". The latter giving the layperson the ability to navigate through and survive with hopefully positive intentions and outcomes, and the former trying to route out what exactly happened to get us to this point.

We've already "hyperinflation" and "relativity" that could explain how things happened so differently from our point of view than what the "Idiot's Guide..." suggests.

A fair comparison is the difference in perspectives with regards to time's passage based on the age of a person. Children perceive time from a "now" perspective, whilst the elders have the past, present and future to consider and as one gets older, the ratios between the three and the ability to process those become reduced.

As an adult, we realize "30 minutes" is a defined period of time, but a child doesn't perceive time within the same constructs: 30 minutes can seem to be an eternity, whilst the elders might consider 30 minutes the blink of an eye in some situations.

So, if you want to convey something to someone not really up to contemplating what you're saying, you try to relate / correlate things in some manner they can ascribe to and understand. The fallacy occurs when those underlings take things literally.

Because of the concept of relativity, time is elastic to some degree. The passage of time in one place, even in the currently defined Universe, isn't necessarily directly correlated to the passage of time anywhere else in the Universe.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: blacktie
whether he is "right on" about his belief in the Creation "myth" or not, personally I prefer a doctor that believes in God and Jesus than one that is a scientific 'genius' athiest, Not believing in a creator is really foolish in my opinion


So you prefer someone telling you what you like to hear...

Here is famous quote from Kurt Wise, who had excellent education, but choose not to follow science, but rather fairy tale dreams...


Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: supermarket2012

Science can prove that the bible is not wholey accurate, therefor not the inspired word of an omnipotent being, therefor the omnipotent being is also a fabrication. Which all makes the bible as reliable as aesop's fables or the Illead. Mother goose at best.

Science debunks religious books every time a snake doesn't talk, Every time a dead body doesn't come back to life,



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: PsychoEmperor



Of course I'm sure you believe Life and the Universe just came into being randomly because... of Science?

Well more things can be proven with science than just believing a magical sky fairy snapped it's fingers and created everything.


"magical sky fairy"? Really?

What intellectual dynamite you bring to this debate!




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
a reply to: Hyperia

If science didn't work you wouldn't have a computer to type your laughter on.



Made by science, I suppose?

You could also argue that if God didn't work then you couldn't imply that "a method for finding fact" created computers.

Either way, the argument is circular, pointless.

The only reason one would take either side against the other is religious fanaticism.


edit on 30/9/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Here's a concept for you: the Creation vs Evolution controversy that Ben Carson spoke about, has little to do with science.

On both sides of the argument.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: supermarket2012

Science can prove that the bible is not wholey accurate, therefor not the inspired word of an omnipotent being, therefor the omnipotent being is also a fabrication. Which all makes the bible as reliable as aesop's fables or the Illead. Mother goose at best.

Science debunks religious books every time a snake doesn't talk, Every time a dead body doesn't come back to life,



Science continually disproves itself, too.

If you paint a cartoon-like picture of the meanings of the Bible, then it looks cartoon like.

The Bible is in fact a book of deep ethics and morality, mixed with poetry and history. It is not a textbook.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

Here's a concept for you: the Creation vs Evolution controversy that Ben Carson spoke about, has little to do with science.

On both sides of the argument.


You might be right, it might have to do with state of his mind, rather then with science...

Dr. Carson has little to do with science, and that is what surprise me, giving good education he had.

I really wonder, what's wrong with him...



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
From those quotes, it's fairly clear that Carson believes in the notion that the evidence of evolution was placed on earth by Satan as a test of faith. This is fairly common retort to evolution by very well-educated Christians who don't accept evolution, because it's basically impossible to refute. If the evidence was created to fool us, it would have to be as convincing as it is. And it would have to appear as though it hadn't been created by an outside agency.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

Here's a concept for you: the Creation vs Evolution controversy that Ben Carson spoke about, has little to do with science.

On both sides of the argument.


You might be right, it might have to do with state of his mind, rather then with science...

Dr. Carson has little to do with science, and that is what surprise me, giving good education he had.

I really wonder, what's wrong with him...


I don't believe he was in any way denying the processes that underlie biological evolution. Please re-read what he said.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: supermarket2012


I'm not sure if you are atheist or what, but you would probably be stunned by the number of scientists and intellectuals who believe in God.


That's not the issue here. The issue is whether Carson has the common sense to avoid straying into an area that can alienate a lot of voters.



Really? Well then that isn't an issue at all, because the majority of people are religious.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Didn't Bush say God told him to invade Iraq? This seems like par for the course with the Republicans, letting religious beliefs interfere with the government and politics. I really hope this guy doesn't win.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
No silly, The image of god is executing 7 year old girls.

Science requires just as much faith as religion.

Do you prefer to put your faith in theories based off fact/reasonable ideas, or a fairy tale



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: supermarket2012

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: supermarket2012


I'm not sure if you are atheist or what, but you would probably be stunned by the number of scientists and intellectuals who believe in God.


That's not the issue here. The issue is whether Carson has the common sense to avoid straying into an area that can alienate a lot of voters.


Really? Well then that isn't an issue at all, because the majority of people are religious.


Actually, even America is becoming less religious and less Christian...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

But again, voters that would vote for Carson... just like I've already said, makes me worry if someone this delusional gets into office and has access to our nuclear arsenal...



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Believing in God as the creator does not require dismissal of science.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join