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.
originally posted by: Seede
Are you so blind as to not realize that there are great Christian scientists that do regard some science as true science and some as garbage.
Scientists are people like everyone else and can have whatever personal opinion or belief they like, fairies, bigfoot, santa, even christianity (a delusion usually the result of an enforced early age fear based brainwashing). When they let their so called "science" be swayed by their own particular religious psychosis however, it isn't really science any more. It's then the opposite, it's pseudo/anti science (ie. (un)intelligent design).
As for your follow-on assertion you do have a small point. As long as science can't yet explain something, then it proves God did it? I believe Dr. Tyson had a little to say about that: "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument."
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Scientists are people like everyone else and can have whatever personal opinion or belief they like, fairies, bigfoot, santa, even christianity (a delusion usually the result of an enforced early age fear based brainwashing). When they let their so called "science" be swayed by their own particular religious psychosis however, it isn't really science any more. It's then the opposite, it's pseudo/anti science (ie. (un)intelligent design).
Most certainly all scientists have their own personal beliefs such as the universe created and creates it self. I don't think that is even on the table but to then say that ones who believe Christianity are delusional is a matter of you proving your statement. Are you now trying to convince others that you are a great psychiatrist among all of your other superior attributes? All it shows is your smugness and ignorance in trying to cover your pseudo science of age, global warming and other such silly beliefs with no proofs. That is your religion and it certainly is flawed.
Many of the stories in the bible are not only absurd to begin with, but are demonstrably false. This god (like many of the other thousands of versions) as outlined in this particular belief system, has no genuine possibility of existing as anything more than a concept in the psyche of believers. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise. The story of jesus is obviously mythical (whether loosely based on a historical figure or not). The only difference with scientology is that christianity seems slightly more far fetched and is better at brainwashing young minds. There is that.
originally posted by: Seede
Is your memory so short that you have forgotten the OP presentation. Who is calling who names in regards to the Tanakh and Greek bibles? I understand that BS in this case does not refer to Before Sunday. Would you regard that as an insult to your faith if I would call you wannabes armchair half wits? Of course you would even though I would not call you an arm chair half wit.
Are you so blind as to not realize that there are great Christian scientists that do regard some science as true science and some as garbage. It is not me that is on the offense and is trying to sell the crap that is not true science.
You tag a name called science on about everything that has been for many years without any regard as to where you start from.
You have no idea where to start so you pick a theoretical time or place and start your man made formulas from that point. When that point is shifted you then pick another point and call it correction. Most of the sheep will accept the science crap along with true science and go through life as halfwits.
Where is your proof that the sciences of your 13.8 billion years ago is as we have them today? You can't prove it by any stretch of any imagination. You nor anyone can prove that 13.8 billion years ago was even here 13.8 billion years ago.
If evolution is a fact then the sciences of your 13.8 billion years ago certainly must have changed. Earth's magnetic force for one which affects many formulas of some sciences. From a closed environment to an open environment which is a legitimate argument among true science. Speed of light which is proven to vary in certain environments. Many non biblical scientists argue these points among themselves so it is not limited to biblical only.
Before 13.8 billion years ago what existed if anything existed? Can anything exist without being created and what existed to produce existence? Where did existence come from? You nor anyone can answer that and therefore your theoretical beginning is proof that it is flawed just the same as you propose that the Hebrew theology is flawed. Both are vain imaginations without hope of proof. Pot and kettle?
If you had a single piece of objective evidence that 13.8 billion years were truly the start of existence then you might have a point here, but there is zero evidence of 13.8 billion years ever existing.
If you take the stance that all modern science holds more weight then facts then you also deserve to be ridiculed.
Blindly attacking theology of God is not enough when surrounding and connecting facts verify the tradition.
Neither can you produce any science. All you can do is show what is and has been created. We call that source God while you have no answer as to where it came from.
originally posted by: Seede
When you say that some stories in the Bible are absurd to begin with and are false are you then saying that some are not absurd to begin with and are true? If that is what you infer, then that makes you the judge of thousands of the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and other literature that is non biblical. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that outside of some ATS readers?
I ask you once more to demonstrate your 13.8 billion years fantasy.
If you have that proof, which true science would show if true, then you can share it with the foolish Christians as well as foolish scientists who believe otherwise. That in itself will dispel all of this bantering among people.
If the universe creates itself and if the universe is eternal then radiometric dating is flawed
If you choose to believe that radiometric dating is true then you will have to argue with your own science and not biblical theology. Your science religion is as fractured as that of biblical theology to say the least.
Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts, and when more data is discovered they are updated. It's the opposite of bronze age religion, where everything is blindly accepted as unwavering fact that never changes despite being SEVERELY outdated.
What does that even mean? Prove that 13.8 billion years ago, that it was 13.8 billion years ago? That doesn't even make sense. Why don't you give us evidence that points to ANY OTHER DATE and explain why. It's not logical to deny it just because it is a large number. Text
originally posted by: Seede
When you say that some stories in the Bible are absurd to begin with and are false are you then saying that some are not absurd to begin with and are true? If that is what you infer, then that makes you the judge of thousands of the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and other literature that is non biblical. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that outside of some ATS readers?
originally posted by: SeedeI ask you once more to demonstrate your 13.8 billion years fantasy. If you have that proof, which true science would show if true, then you can share it with the foolish Christians as well as foolish scientists who believe otherwise. That in itself will dispel all of this bantering among people.
originally posted by: Seede The universe is eternal? Yes? The universe creates itself? Yes?
originally posted by: Seede If the universe creates itself and if the universe is eternal then radiometric dating is flawed and if flawed in one respect then suspect in other respects. If you choose to believe that radiometric dating is true then you will have to argue with your own science and not biblical theology. Your science religion is as fractured as that of biblical theology to say the least.
originally posted by: SeedeYour concern for other people's beliefs is puzzling. If there is no God of Christianity then why should you bother to play in this theological field? Why should you and others of your ilk waste your time to try to convince certain people that they are wrong and foolish. What benefit is there in your success to convert even one to your religion of science. What do you have to offer to replace the Christian afterlife? Why the insistent attacks towards Christianity as the chief victim? Certainly you must have a reason for all of this wasted effort to destroy a God who does not exist.
originally posted by: SeedeTo waste time on foolish people who believe in a foolish religion is more foolish then the fool who believes in the foolish religion. I say that with a smile but am still puzzled as to why anyone would continue this foolish bible bashing unless that one has an agenda that is fostered by other intents other than that of themselves.
originally posted by: Seede
Prove? You have a short memory. It is you and not me that claims 13.8 billion years. The rules of debate do not change and the burden of proof lays upon you. You said yourself that science is based upon verifiable facts and I have repeatedly challenged that verifiable fact. Show me the verifiable fact that 13.8 billion years has ever existed. As far as me proving a date has already been established, ridiculed and dismissed. My date is in the theological realm and never claimed by me as to be verifiable fact. This entire debate hinged upon the one statement of science claiming that this world is 15 billion years old. You corrected your fellow scientists in the verifiable fact that it was 13.8 billion years old.
If I were to believe your 13.8 billion years then that would mean to me that the last two or three days of creation were at least 13.8 billion years ago and that one day of creation would have had to be billions of years. Therefore Adam most likely would have been billions of years ago.
originally posted by: SPECULUM
Well, I'm sure there are many faceted proofs that for the most part, the Bible is BS. But this Element in the Bible takes the Cake by far
"Tower of Babel" I mean, Come on. All peoples of the Earth are living in the same location? and happen to build a Tower to the heavens and pisses God off, so he changes everyone nationality and language
Hell he doesn't even change their location...They all seem to find their way...Its Amazing
It takes 3000 plus years and google translate and we're back where we started
Wonder how God will feel if we start building that Tower again?