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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 76
42
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: TerryDon79

Maybe god is physics.


Physics is a field of study. Gravity, now you might be onto something there...




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

He's asking for scientific papers, not a scientist's opinion.


Oh I see. These well known and highly regarded scientists and physicists' opinions and views which are all over the WWW and TV shows are NOT SCIENTIFIC to you because they are NOT ON PAPERS?

Wow!!!!!!!

TALK ABOUT crying babies! It's like someone got caught in bright daylight and can't take it.

So do you think what they said are not in PAPERS?

Hahahaha....



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

So I'll take that as a no then? Thought not.

You do know that people are entitled to an opinion, even scientists? Doesn't make them right or wrong. It means they have an opinion.

Maybe you should learn the difference between scienve and opinion. Oh wait, I just remembered what thread we're in. You think opinion IS science LOL.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Still waiting for a peer reviewed paper and not someone's opinion.


OK - just making sure I'm reading this correctly. I take it you don't accept what these two leading atheistic scientists/physicists said:



Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

- (Grand Design) Dr. Stephen Hawking


“Nothing,” they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing [they say] is “nonbeing,” in some vague and ill- defined sense….Some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing” as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe. But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.”


- (A universe from Nothing) Lawrence Krauss





May I know why you reject or don't accept what they said?

Is it because I quoted them or they went overboard?




edit on 30-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Only the religious think that "something came from nothing" is what science thinks. It's a strawman.


I hope you're not referring to Dr. Krauss, et al.





These videos are not officially endorsed nor are they sanctioned for educational purposes. At best, they qualify as entertainment, at worst, they are publicity stunts intended for promotional purposes.

a reply to: edmc^2

You are misrepresenting the material. Krause explores the idea that there was always something rather than nothing and then something, while Stephen hawking asserted that a universe was inevitable in the presence of anything. Would you care to update your hawking quote to reflect the "no boundary proposal" instead of persisting with an isolated selection intended to misrepresent the complex ideas involved?
edit on 30-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

So I'll take that as a no then? Thought not.

You do know that people are entitled to an opinion, even scientists? Doesn't make them right or wrong. It means they have an opinion.

Maybe you should learn the difference between scienve and opinion. Oh wait, I just remembered what thread we're in. You think opinion IS science LOL.


Okay - just their opinions. I see.

So if a scientific journal quotes them to support their premise, this is just an opinion. I see. It's not physics or science, just an opinion.

So if they say "we evolved" - is just an opinion of theirs.

Got it.

It's just some scientists making an opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Only the religious think that "something came from nothing" is what science thinks. It's a strawman.


I hope you're not referring to Dr. Krauss, et al.






These videos are not officially endorsed nor are they sanctioned for educational purposes. At best, they qualify as entertainment, at worst, they are publicity stunts intended for promotional purposes.


I wonder if these scientist will agree with you or this is just your opinion?

Talk about throwing them under the bus.




edit on 30-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?


If I may ask...what exactly is it you hope to achieve with this thread? Since clearly you aren't winning any recruits. Is there a secondary objective? Is this a matter of personal satisfaction, or are you just insanely bored?



originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Only the religious think that "something came from nothing" is what science thinks. It's a strawman.


I hope you're not referring to Dr. Krauss, et al.






These videos are not officially endorsed nor are they sanctioned for educational purposes. At best, they qualify as entertainment, at worst, they are publicity stunts intended for promotional purposes.


I wonder if these scientist will agree with you or this your opinion?





Its a YouTube video, neither required nor impressive in any curricular setting. Go ahead and present either of them in a college class room if you care to test it. Please, post a video of the results. The reactions would be priceless, I'm sure. Especially when you unveil this thread as your grand resolution to the ages old question.

edit on 30-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?


If I may ask...what exactly is it you hope to achieve with this thread? Since clearly you aren't winning any recruits. Is there a secondary objective? Is this a matter of personal satisfaction, or are you just insanely bored?


No. Not board at all. Just amused at how proponents of evolution will throw anyone under the bust - even TOP NOTCH physicist so as not to proved wrong.

So Krauss and Hawkings are now under the bus.

Proves my point all along. The ONLY LOGICAL explanation is Creation. It can't be refuted.

BTW - not here to win recruits.

I'm here to prove my point.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?


If I may ask...what exactly is it you hope to achieve with this thread? Since clearly you aren't winning any recruits. Is there a secondary objective? Is this a matter of personal satisfaction, or are you just insanely bored?


No. Not board at all. Just amused at how proponents of evolution will throw anyone under the bust - even TOP NOTCH physicist so as not to proved wrong.

So Krauss and Hawkings are now under the bus.

Proves my point all along. The ONLY LOGICAL explanation is Creation. It can't be refuted.

BTW - not here to win recruits.

I'm here to prove my point.



You clearly don't understand the nature of a conspiracy forum if you think any thing you post here makes a damn bit of difference.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?


If I may ask...what exactly is it you hope to achieve with this thread? Since clearly you aren't winning any recruits. Is there a secondary objective? Is this a matter of personal satisfaction, or are you just insanely bored?


No. Not board at all. Just amused at how proponents of evolution will throw anyone under the bust - even TOP NOTCH physicist so as not to proved wrong.

So Krauss and Hawkings are now under the bus.

Proves my point all along. The ONLY LOGICAL explanation is Creation. It can't be refuted.

BTW - not here to win recruits.

I'm here to prove my point.



You clearly don't understand the nature of a conspiracy forum if you think any thing you post here makes a damn bit of difference.


That maybe the case. But you've just proved me right as to my op:

It's nonsensical if you ask me! In fact, the way I see it, it was done by word equivocation and mental gymnastic. "Nothing" becomes something because it was defined "as the absence of something" (a quantum vacuum as it is called). Which leads us to (in Prof. Krauss' mind) the reason why the Universe came into being.

Incredible or I should say unbelievable don't you think? "Nothing" is really not nothing but something because Prof. Krauss defined it as "physical" but just "the absence of something."

Now, how could that be? Could it be that he's referring to an invisible entity but just don't want to admit it? You know, like God? If so what would that make him?

In any case, if you see the logic in Prof. Krauss' statement or that of Prof. Hawking, that it's scientific or that it make sense in its purest term, I'm all ears. But be forewarned, both professors are considered world class scientists. So if you can outdo them, then more power to you.

Unfortunately, however irrational, - (philosophical) - ideas like these are promoted as scientific facts in many books and in many academies. And atheists alike clung to them and repeat them as if they are the ultimate truth, the word of "god". After all, they come from the great minds of great (atheist) scientists. So why doubt their minds? Why question their great intellect? Would you?

What a dilemma. To accept or not to accept a faulty logic from authority.

But compounding the dilemma, atheist face many more problems, including the difficulty of explaining how nothing can produce a thinking intelligent mind. Why or how "nothing" can create a highly fine-tuned universe? How "nothing" can create law and gravity, how nothing can create intelligibility in nature, etc?

...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I guess scientists aren't allowed opinions now.

Still waiting for a peer reviewed paper to back up ANY of your points.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Everyone's got opinion.

YouTube videos aren't peer reviewed science papers. But you already know that. You just wanted to post them to try and prove a point, but you failed. AGAIN. Just like this thread is a big fail.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

I guess scientists aren't allowed opinions now.

Still waiting for a peer reviewed paper to back up ANY of your points.


Why does it matter? Since Krauss and Hawkings had been thrown under the bus by you and others, why does it matter if what they said are their opinions or scientific?

All along, my op was on target.

TY.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Your op is an opinion with no evidence.

Here's a challenge.

The only logical answer is unicorn farts created life.

I won't post any evidence though, because we all know it's true. You just have to have faith.

Refute that.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Why are you asking me something about YouTube videos? I requested peer reviewed papers, NOT a scientists OPINION.


hahahaha...is that an opinion?


If I may ask...what exactly is it you hope to achieve with this thread? Since clearly you aren't winning any recruits. Is there a secondary objective? Is this a matter of personal satisfaction, or are you just insanely bored?


No. Not board at all. Just amused at how proponents of evolution will throw anyone under the bust - even TOP NOTCH physicist so as not to proved wrong.

So Krauss and Hawkings are now under the bus.

Proves my point all along. The ONLY LOGICAL explanation is Creation. It can't be refuted.

BTW - not here to win recruits.

I'm here to prove my point.



You clearly don't understand the nature of a conspiracy forum if you think any thing you post here makes a damn bit of difference.


That maybe the case. But you've just proved me right as to my op:

It's nonsensical if you ask me! In fact, the way I see it, it was done by word equivocation and mental gymnastic. "Nothing" becomes something because it was defined "as the absence of something" (a quantum vacuum as it is called). Which leads us to (in Prof. Krauss' mind) the reason why the Universe came into being.

Incredible or I should say unbelievable don't you think? "Nothing" is really not nothing but something because Prof. Krauss defined it as "physical" but just "the absence of something."

Now, how could that be? Could it be that he's referring to an invisible entity but just don't want to admit it? You know, like God? If so what would that make him?

In any case, if you see the logic in Prof. Krauss' statement or that of Prof. Hawking, that it's scientific or that it make sense in its purest term, I'm all ears. But be forewarned, both professors are considered world class scientists. So if you can outdo them, then more power to you.

Unfortunately, however irrational, - (philosophical) - ideas like these are promoted as scientific facts in many books and in many academies. And atheists alike clung to them and repeat them as if they are the ultimate truth, the word of "god". After all, they come from the great minds of great (atheist) scientists. So why doubt their minds? Why question their great intellect? Would you?

What a dilemma. To accept or not to accept a faulty logic from authority.

But compounding the dilemma, atheist face many more problems, including the difficulty of explaining how nothing can produce a thinking intelligent mind. Why or how "nothing" can create a highly fine-tuned universe? How "nothing" can create law and gravity, how nothing can create intelligibility in nature, etc?

...


If such a dilemma exists, then it is your dilemma. Quit projecting your insecurities and do something constructive with your superior notions. All I see so far is you attempting to secure a cheap victory on a discussion forum in exchange for a hollow sense of satisfaction that will leave you exactly as successful as when you started.
edit on 30-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Energy can not be created or destroyed based on physics. This means you need a God that created energy outside of the universe and then inserted it in afterwards. The Big Bang was literally god banging the universe and spraying his energy everywhere.

G + U = E Logical 101, boys.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Toothache

Unless the energy actually came from something else that's has always been here that we don't know about yet.

Like unicorn farts.







 
42
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join