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.

 

What predictions does Creationism make? (a fundamental requirement in science class)

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It is a shame that having faith in God and science sounds taboo.




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Care to contribute towards the "I Can Prove Man Was Never In Valhalla (and here's how)" hypothesis?

I can; in exactly the same way humans were presumed to be present in Olympus. We can think of more similar heavens within many different civilizations of differing time periods. What is this; a trend of "heaven speak awareness" all seem to have a consciousness of 'heaven' existing (just different names by different peoples).
edit on 2-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No, this whole "all religions basically say the same thing" nonsense doesn't wash. It's nothing more than people trying to rationalize away the fact that thousands of mutually exclusive religions have been cooked up by man but yours is totally the real deal.


I can


Go on, then.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Only if your faith leads you to denying science.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No, this whole "all religions basically say the same thing" nonsense doesn't wash. It's nothing more than people trying to rationalize away the fact that thousands of mutually exclusive religions have been cooked up by man but yours is totally the real deal.

I can


Go on, then.

I was not speaking of organized religious dogma (totally) cooked up by mans overlords.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

NO

I was talking about the view that society has as a whole.

That view is a mix of both sides looking strange to each other.

No need for the usual bs debates cause it is a two way street.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GetHyped

It is a shame that having faith in God and science sounds taboo.

God and Science need to get together in an MMA cage and either corner one another (shove push punch kick each other around) or just shake hands and call it even *FOR NOW*.
edit on 2-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

It would probably be a tyler dyrden fight not worth watchin someone beat himself up.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You have still yet to contribute to the Valhalla null hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why? Only the science denying cultists think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yes, normal people look strangely at creationists, because creationists are delusional.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped
nice. humor Is good.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: vethumanbeing

It would probably be a tyler dyrden fight not worth watchin someone beat himself up.


That would be a new introduction: the "mirror cage". One is introduced to oneself; best 'oneself' wins.
edit on 2-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You have still yet to contribute to the Valhalla null hypothesis.

Pagan. Problem?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
*sigh* pages and pages of off-topic comments with very little substance in between..


originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GetHyped

It is a shame that having faith in God and science sounds taboo.


"Faith" in science isn't faith, by definition. You can understand scientific method and accept the discoveries it makes based on real tangible evidence. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no real tangible evidence, i.e. God. To believe in science is to accept reality, to believe in God is to accept faith.

Nothing about having faith in God is inconsistent with a scientific understanding of the world around us.
Nothing about having a scientific understanding of the world around us is inconsistent with faith in God.

Most religious people do both quite happily, it's the small minority who consider it taboo, like this joker :


originally posted by: vethumanbeing
God and Science need to get together in an MMA cage and either corner one another (shove push punch kick each other around) or just shake hands and call it even *FOR NOW*.


When understood properly, God and science have nothing to do with each other. To force them into a cage to fight is illogical.. This is the kind of nonsense i see time and time again on these forums.. People who think science is anti-God, or that God is anti-science, i'm getting tired of it..



Back on topic: Creationism can be employed to explain anything and everything. At the same time, it can not be employed to predict anything.

For creationism to be taken seriously as a legitimate theory, it would have to be supported by a solid scientific hypothesis and objectively verifiable material evidence. It does not have and will never have either of these things; subjectively interpreted scripture is not a substitute material physical evidence.

If anyone would like to have a go at objectively verifying or even writing a creationist hypothesis, i would be very interested in reading it.
edit on 2-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why? Only the science denying cultists think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

Science now has the arrogance to deny religious belief systems as false (cultish). What say you regarding your 'Chaos Theory' brethren?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why? Only the science denying cultists think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.


to be fair, creationist science has only ever taken credit for what reputable scientists have established. creationist science has contributed nothing except fringe opinions only tenously related to any legitimate field of science, and certainly untested by any. the very core of religion is a methodology incompatible with professional scientific practice. im not talking about morality as i believe morality and religion are not mutually inclusive (topic for another thread) i am talking about "spirit science". faith that pretends to be evidence, presumptions that pretend to be conclusions. apples and oranges, thats what religion and science are.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
I assumed 'creationist science' was understood and am thankful for your clarification (it seems to butt heads with the physical sciences ruling factions). A "Science Oven" is actually a Microwave (read small print instructions at the very back/bottom of) that can allow users to time travel.
edit on 2-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
first: context--->

Descartes
"...on the night of September 16th, Descartes had a dream and in this dream an angel appeared to him, this is documented by his own hand, and the angel said to Descartes, "The conquest of nature is to be achieved through measure and number." And that revelation lay the basis for modern science. Rene Descartes is the founder of the distinction between the res verins and the res extensia, the founder of modern science, the founder of the scientific method that created the philosophical engines that created the modern world. How many scientists, working at their workbenches, understand that an angel chartered modern science?..."

Emanuel Swedenborg - claimed he go his “nebula hypothesis” from a seance and “spirits” or an angel.

Other scientific innovations that originated in dream inspirations are Kekule's molecular structure of benzene, Mendelev's periodic table by atomic weight, Howe's sewing machine, and even in part Einstein's theory of relativity.

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
first: context--->

Descartes
"...on the night of September 16th, Descartes had a dream and in this dream an angel appeared to him, this is documented by his own hand, and the angel said to Descartes, "The conquest of nature is to be achieved through measure and number." And that revelation lay the basis for modern science. Rene Descartes is the founder of the distinction between the res verins and the res extensia, the founder of modern science, the founder of the scientific method that created the philosophical engines that created the modern world. How many scientists, working at their workbenches, understand that an angel chartered modern science?..."

Emanuel Swedenborg - claimed he go his “nebula hypothesis” from a seance and “spirits” or an angel.

Other scientific innovations that originated in dream inspirations are Kekule's molecular structure of benzene, Mendelev's periodic table by atomic weight, Howe's sewing machine, and even in part Einstein's theory of relativity.

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla



Thumbs up!

Too many folks arguing x or y are not actually seeking any sort of truth. I stated such earlier, but thank you for furthering the discussion.

Now to pit them back against each other, how do we know that these comments of theirs weren't made to satisfy the religious culture around them?

-FBB

PS

Also all these people taking observable this or that, measurable x or y, probably can't even define WHAT a number is and/or how it is static and thus a good unit to measure.

Enjoy




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join