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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: luthier

I am not going on on a limb here to predict it will take a fabulously 'famous' mind with a media platform for you to open your mind to truth.

I suspect nothing less will be considered, by you. Not even for a moment. Although I am only basing my opinion on my one prior one-way interaction in this thread and on what you have written in this thread.

Good luck though. Some celeb, peer-reviewed, media-recognized person will eventually come along to point you to the truth and, by gosh, you will maybe-possibly see it if you are impressed enough with the image of the mind it came from.


Uh OK.

But to prove your point on both accounts. There is evidence that consciousness effects reality when referring to observation as the holographic universe studies at fimilabs has shown. My brother did his PhD thesis while working at the lab years ago in some of the earlier theories.

Kant got past Hume's skepticism of the lack of proof we aren't just dreaming this whole thing up by saying we constitute our own reality. If we are dreaming we are still the observer.




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to: luthier

I still don't understand how the fact that our universe seems to exist the way it does, in this present state under these narrow parameters, points to the idea that a god created it. There is not one bit of evidence that points to a god. People simply insert god there because that is the point they are trying to prove. The teleological argument is no more evidence of god's existance than someone saying "i don't know what else could have created the universe, it must have been a god".

The argument would work the same if you inserted a magical ham sandwhich, or an invisible pink unicorn. You have the same amount of evidence to support an argument for any of these things being the creator of all.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver



reply to: luthier

I still don't understand how the fact that our universe seems to exist the way it does, in this present state under these narrow parameters, points to the idea that a god created it. There is not one bit of evidence that points to a god. People simply insert god there because that is the point they are trying to prove. The teleological argument is no more evidence of god's existance than someone saying "i don't know what else could have created the universe, it must have been a god".

The argument would work the same if you inserted a magical ham sandwhich, or an invisible pink unicorn. You have the same amount of evidence to support an argument for any of these things being the creator of all.



If you say so.

I get it you don't like philosophy or have taken the time to understand it. Thats you perogitive.

I think differently but your no more correct than anyone else. And there is the whole infinite regress problem.
I am familiar as I said in our last debate with Russell's teapot. I think it's a fallacy.

Or Hawkings monkey pounding on s keyboard


But honestly I don't care to change your mind It's metaphysics I can't prove anything.

You never did listen to the Luke Barnes interview I gave you did you?
commonsenseatheism.com...

commonsenseatheism.com...


edit on 30-9-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
And someone just recently commented that it was the media that would try to make Carson look like a loon.

No one is commenting on the fact that Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist which in my experience is a stranger denomination than a lot of the extremist mainstream Christian sects.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Welp, there goes his chance of winning (not that it matters anyway). Nobody wants a die hard religious president anymore. Nobody wants a president that denounces science as evil. We are living in 2015, not 1200. If you wish to live your life in fear of new knowledge and pretend science is a tool of Satan, then that is your prerogative, just don't expect anybody to take you seriously. The hard evidence is there. Evolution is just as valid as all other science.

It's kind of funny watching people use products of science in their daily lives (ie computer/internet), and then use those products to denounce science and knowledge as if it is some kind of evil conspiracy just because it conflicts with a literal fundamentalist interpretation of genesis. Can we finally move forward from these outdated archaic religious philosophies already? I get it, you want to be right and you believe it strongly. That's no excuse to attack the foundation of our modern technological society. If you think science is evil, then don't use it to make your life better. It's that simple. Don't get your kids vaccinated. Don't use computers, TV or refrigerators. Don't go to the doctor or dentist. Don't teach science. Don't go to the auto mechanic when your car breaks. Don't learn anything. Live under a rock, nobody will notice or care. It's just the unfounded attacks on science that draw attention to you and show your hypocrisy.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Welp, there goes his chance of winning (not that it matters anyway). Nobody wants a die hard religious president anymore. Nobody wants a president that denounces science as evil. We are living in 2015, not 1200. If you wish to live your life in fear of new knowledge and pretend science is a tool of Satan, then that is your prerogative, just don't expect anybody to take you seriously. The hard evidence is there. Evolution is just as valid as all other science.

It's kind of funny watching people use products of science in their daily lives (ie computer/internet), and then use those products to denounce science and knowledge as if it is some kind of evil conspiracy just because it conflicts with a literal fundamentalist interpretation of genesis. Can we finally move forward from these outdated archaic religious philosophies already? I get it, you want to be right and you believe it strongly. That's no excuse to attack the foundation of our modern technological society. If you think science is evil, then don't use it to make your life better. It's that simple. Don't get your kids vaccinated. Don't use computers, TV or refrigerators. Don't go to the doctor or dentist. Don't teach science. Don't go to the auto mechanic when your car breaks. Don't learn anything. Live under a rock, nobody will notice or care. It's just the unfounded attacks on science that draw attention to you and show your hypocrisy.



Please explain how evolutionary science specifically, led to everyday technology and I will then consider this particular argument valid.

The truth is that there are those (and understand, I am not including yourself in this group) who wave the flag of 'science' in support of their beliefs, but their knowledge of, and participation in, said science, is minimal.


edit on 1/10/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please explain how evolutionary science specifically, led to everyday technology and I will then consider this particular argument valid.


My point is that evolution is science. All technology is derived from scientific knowledge. Science is science. Separating evolution from science is dishonest, but even still, plenty of technology and medicine is derived from evolutionary knowledge, vaccines for example.
edit on 2-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I'm not going to debate the validity of religion versus science. I have my own belief system.

I just don't want to see anymore religious nuts in government. Period.

-dex



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Firstly a belief in a creator does not mean you subscribe to a religion. Many people from all walks of life including many of the greatest scientific minds believe in a creator.

2nd Science describes that what we can measure, it does not describe that which we can not, that is to say that is what is outside our universe which by definition a creator would need to be.

By not understanding this fundermental concept both sides of this argument lose. Science can not explain what created the singularity and can only believe and speculate - just like any one who believes in a creator. It all comes down to faith, do you have faith that your life has no grand purpose and was inevitably created by infinite possibilities or do you have faith that you are here for a reason by some Devine force.

Either way science is the examination of the code of our matrix, it can not tell it is running on a PC, because it itself relies on code. At some point you have to choose what you speculate for yourself lies beyond the code because nothing of the code can tell you unless you believe the developer left a message in the code on purpose.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: byteshertz
Firstly a belief in a creator does not mean you subscribe to a religion. Many people from all walks of life including many of the greatest scientific minds believe in a creator.

There would be no idea of creator if it wasn't for religion. Religion(s) in their attempt to explain nature and life around us went to great length to attribute everything to one super being - God, just because they did not know better.

As for great scientific minds, please tell me today who is great scientist that believe in existence of creator.

Top scientist are rare that believe in God.




originally posted by: byteshertz
2nd Science describes that what we can measure, it does not describe that which we can not, that is to say that is what is outside our universe which by definition a creator would need to be.

You're missing that little thing - evidence... you have idea on wishful thinking... and not much... based and created on religious dogma that there has to be creator... and science tells us no, it does not. There is no need for creator.


originally posted by: byteshertz
By not understanding this fundermental concept both sides of this argument lose. Science can not explain what created the singularity and can only believe and speculate - just like any one who believes in a creator. It all comes down to faith, do you have faith that your life has no grand purpose and was inevitably created by infinite possibilities or do you have faith that you are here for a reason by some Devine force.

Grand purpose??? That really makes me laugh... We humans... humble beings with great purpose... and there is some divine plan and purpose... George Carlin used to explain failure in this thinking...

God created divine plan, then people with 2 bucks book come along and pray so that he changes his plan...





originally posted by: byteshertz
Either way science is the examination of the code of our matrix, it can not tell it is running on a PC, because it
itself relies on code. At some point you have to choose what you speculate for yourself lies beyond the code because nothing of the code can tell you unless you believe the developer left a message in the code on purpose.

This tells that you don't know much about science... and mention of voodoo does not help your argument...
edit on 4-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

As for great scientific minds, please tell me today who is great scientist that believe in existence of creator.

Top scientist are rare that believe in God.


I personally don't understand how ANY adult can continue to believe in a religious God.

I was assimilated from birth, like many others, to believe in this fairytale. I questioned the ridiculousness of it until I stepped completely out of the God Circle.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Doesn't Carson also not understand what makes gravity work? How can the man be such a moron?



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please explain how evolutionary science specifically, led to everyday technology and I will then consider this particular argument valid.


My point is that evolution is science. All technology is derived from scientific knowledge. Science is science. Separating evolution from science is dishonest, but even still, plenty of technology and medicine is derived from evolutionary knowledge, vaccines for example.


Vaccinations existed 112 years before Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

While it is true that there is much evolutionary data gained on disease mutation and spread, as far as I know, biologists are not in a position to generate new vaccines BEFORE the pathogen has mutated and is 'live'.

Again You have generalized that evolution is representative of all science and vice versa.

My original question still stands.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Vaccinations existed 112 years before Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".


Your point? Evolutionary understanding is used in vaccines TODAY. This makes them more reliable and can account for evolutionary changes in viruses.


While it is true that there is much evolutionary data gained on disease mutation and spread, as far as I know, biologists are not in a position to generate new vaccines BEFORE the pathogen has mutated and is 'live'.


evolution.berkeley.edu...

This link explains it pretty decently and simply.


Again You have generalized that evolution is representative of all science and vice versa.


No I have not.

I said that evolution IS science.

All technology comes from science.

Science is the common denominator here.

How hard is this to understand? It is hypocritical to claim evolution is not science and then use products developed using the same exact method. The scientific method has been proven reliable time and time again. You can't doubt it in one isolated field of science, while agreeing with everything else.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Vaccinations existed 112 years before Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".


Your point? Evolutionary understanding is used in vaccines TODAY. This makes them more reliable and can account for evolutionary changes in viruses.


While it is true that there is much evolutionary data gained on disease mutation and spread, as far as I know, biologists are not in a position to generate new vaccines BEFORE the pathogen has mutated and is 'live'.


evolution.berkeley.edu...

This link explains it pretty decently and simply.


Again You have generalized that evolution is representative of all science and vice versa.


No I have not.

I said that evolution IS science.

All technology comes from science.

Science is the common denominator here.

How hard is this to understand? It is hypocritical to claim evolution is not science and then use products developed using the same exact method. The scientific method has been proven reliable time and time again. You can't doubt it in one isolated field of science, while agreeing with everything else.


[sarcasm] All science is a subset of everything that exists in the universe.

Therefore, yay universe (it's the common denominator, here)!

How could anyone deny the universe, right? How iggorant of 'em. God doesn't exist because, you know, universe!
[/sarcasm]

Carson was talking about a moral issue of people who use science as a justification for their atheism and are vociferous about science somehow disproving God. He did not denigrate any science or deny evolutionary process.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So knowledge about evolution is not gained via the scientific method? The scientific method applies to all scientific theories and facts. I'm confused at the point you are trying to make here. Science directly leads to new technology, just like it directly leads us to knowledge in anything that is studied by it. Attempting to separate it as if it's valid in one case but not in another is flat out wrong.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You got it wrong there, bud.


All universe is subject of science, we try to learn it all...

God does not exist actually for different reason - it never did. We have very clear evidence that we - humans - invented many Gods, including one you pray to. Creativity in humans was somewhat obstructed by religion, but we are still well capable to invent as well to recognize what is slowing our progress...

So, speaking scientifically, we can't prove God as you don't have any evidence it exists, just the same with unicorns, spaghetti monster or angels... but we can conclude that humans are very creative... and that many myths are already recognized as false, just mythology... and religion is step away to get the same treatment...



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: chr0naut

You got it wrong there, bud.


All universe is subject of science, we try to learn it all...

God does not exist actually for different reason - it never did. We have very clear evidence that we - humans - invented many Gods, including one you pray to. Creativity in humans was somewhat obstructed by religion, but we are still well capable to invent as well to recognize what is slowing our progress...

So, speaking scientifically, we can't prove God as you don't have any evidence it exists, just the same with unicorns, spaghetti monster or angels... but we can conclude that humans are very creative... and that many myths are already recognized as false, just mythology... and religion is step away to get the same treatment...


The universe existed before there were any scientists.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

So knowledge about evolution is not gained via the scientific method? The scientific method applies to all scientific theories and facts. I'm confused at the point you are trying to make here. Science directly leads to new technology, just like it directly leads us to knowledge in anything that is studied by it. Attempting to separate it as if it's valid in one case but not in another is flat out wrong.


Firstly, I never denied that knowledge about evolution is gained by scientific method, so your argument would seem to have totally missed the point (but I will venture the opinion that it is not as rigorous in the application of scientific method as some of the other sciences).

Your argument that technology is dependent upon biological evolutionary science is as valid as saying that truck tire compound chemistry has been vastly improved by the science of psychology.

Only by vague generalization is it true.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Your argument that technology is dependent upon biological evolutionary science is as valid as saying that truck tire compound chemistry has been vastly improved by the science of psychology.

Only by vague generalization is it true.


Let me try this again.

My argument is NOT that technology is dependent upon evolution (although some definitely uses evolutionary knowledge; ie medicine). My argument is that they are BOTH dependent on the scientific method and the knowledge gained from it. The method doesn't change, it doesn't matter which field or area of expertise we are referring to. My original argument was pointing out that it is hypocritical to deny one field of science while supporting others that are based on the same method.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join