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.

 

92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
well i dont know about the other guys but i interpret biblical and other religious scripts which demonstrate scientific accuracy. i then cross reference both with an ancient mystic key to the universe for truth.


Wow. So you take some bull****, cross reference it with more bull**** and astound yourself that the answer it still bull****.

If there were ever a larger case of confirmation bias I have yet to see it.




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: John333
well i dont know about the other guys but i interpret biblical and other religious scripts which demonstrate scientific accuracy. i then cross reference both with an ancient mystic key to the universe for truth.


Wow. So you take some bull****, cross reference it with more bull**** and astound yourself that the answer it still bull****.

If there were ever a larger case of confirmation bias I have yet to see it.


well im not sure what ur saying since u called everything bull****. i wonder if u recognize one of those was "accepted scientific facts".

there is no confirmation bias. the predictions were made before the scientific discovery. then when the scientific discovery was made, it allowed me to make more predictions of other text and then the discoveries would come out to support that and so on. the scientific process is observed in its full objectivity.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: John333
well i dont know about the other guys but i interpret biblical and other religious scripts which demonstrate scientific accuracy. i then cross reference both with an ancient mystic key to the universe for truth.


Wow. So you take some bull****, cross reference it with more bull**** and astound yourself that the answer it still bull****.

If there were ever a larger case of confirmation bias I have yet to see it.


/slowtearfulnoddingclap


edit on 25-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Except, the only one that believes this is you.

Ergo, BS.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
well im not sure what ur saying since u called everything bull****. i wonder if u recognize one of those was "accepted scientific facts".


I am saying your method is bull. Religious scripts do not demonstrate 'scientific accuracy' unless you have some sort of fundamentalist confirmation bias.


there is no confirmation bias. the predictions were made before the scientific discovery. then when the scientific discovery was made, it allowed me to make more predictions of other text and then the discoveries would come out to support that and so on. the scientific process is observed in its full objectivity.


Sure you did. I must have missed your peer reviewed work in all the science journals. Maybe you can link us to your extraordinary efforts?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Ok,

so not to throw this thread of topic, but..... i was just searching google for "Shape of the universe" pictures that i could add to this thread, in some way simplifying (hopefully) the understanding....

Well........

When i searched for images of "shape of the universe" somehow, this image was there:


(I know WTF!!)

maybe its it, maybe we are part of a dead mouse on the side of Hovis thick slice, be it god, or that we are part of the space expanding matter, maybe all that matters is someone somewhere, bought a loaf with the universe attached to it..

Just saying
edit on 25/12/15 by Phatdamage because: i'm BATMAN!



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Perhaps they "self-published"?

Seems to be a trend, these days.

(Let's see if we get a link)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Perhaps they "self-published"?

Seems to be a trend, these days.

(Let's see if we get a link)


I am curious to see the maths he used.

B=MC^2 (Bible=Mathematical Crap squared).



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Look at everyone...acting like they can "explain" the inexplicable (aka the universe)

If youve read this far into the thread, STOP NOW, for you are only getting dumber!



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Hear hear!

John, would you share the "Unified Field Theory" with us, with backup, research data, mathematical methods and proofs, etc?

Much appreciated!



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
There estimate of the age of the universe is based on a theory. This theory is relevent to there being a big bang. There is no way that these theories can be proved right and also there is no way to prove them wrong. This means we cannot challenge the accepted practices unless we have proof to show them all wrong. There is no way from this point in the universe that we can say how and when it was formed, we only guess based on evidence who's structural design is to prove the theory. This evidence could be applied to many different theories that can be thought up.

Much of science is this way, chasing theories that we could never disprove because evidence to the contrary will not be accepted. It would cost a trillion bucks to disprove the big bang theory and much of that would go to pay for salaries and research (sort of a bribe) of influential scientists. There is corruption beyond belief in the scientific world and these people doing it do not even realize it is corruption.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

... but ... er ... didn't YOU read this far into the thread, as well?

Paradoxical, no?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Almost everyone knows if you can get a look at the universe from far enough away, it looks like the face of jesus and it is crying. That is why his face is also seen on toast, tortillas and Cheetos. The small mirrors the large.

I am pretty sure it can't be disproven.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not that i'm throwing this off topic (again) but...... if god created everything 3 thousand years ago..... and light travels at consistent speed of 299 792 458 m / s, then how can we see stars that are 13 Billion years old,

Surely if God created the universe, Wouldn't the sky at night be dark???



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

... so, we should have remained sitting in the mud, weaving fetishes from twine and bone to make the monsters stay away?

What's your alternative to science?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: six67seven

... but ... er ... didn't YOU read this far into the thread, as well?


Thus, giving validity to my comment.

See, you ARE getting dumber.

Lol (no offense). Merry Xmas!



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Almost everyone knows if you can get a look at the universe from far enough away, it looks like the face of jesus and it is crying. That is why his face is also seen on toast, tortillas and Cheetos. The small mirrors the large.


Dude. This was so mind blowing Steven Hawking just got up and walked.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not that i'm throwing this off topic (again) but...... if god created everything 3 thousand years ago..... and light travels at consistent speed of 299 792 458 m / s, then how can we see stars that are 13 Billion years old,

Surely if God created the universe, Wouldn't the sky at night be dark???



What if God created the universe entire a microsecond ago ... and will recreate it one microsecond entire from now?

I know nothing of gods. I can only judge reality by what I see, hear, feel and touch, and of course, the application of some sort of reason and/or logic to those observations/sensations.

You'll have to ask someone else about imaginary creatures.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: six67seven

... but ... er ... didn't YOU read this far into the thread, as well?


Thus, giving validity to my comment.

See, you ARE getting dumber.

Lol (no offense). Merry Xmas!


I am getting dumber because you are getting dumber?

Does that follow? I mean, logically, if reading to the point of your post made us all dumber, weren't you getting dumber at the same rate? If so, doesn't that call your assertion, either way, into question?

Happy Holidays.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: trifecta
The Big Bang is a Hoax.

The Universe has no shape.

Creation happens on a quantum level. It's a cocktail of Plasma, Ether, Hydrogen, and Dust particles.

Thought expands the Universe. The Universe was never "born", it is REFINED. The materials were always there.

The Soup of Chaos.

It's possible that there have been infinitely many universes before ours. The standard theory of the Big Bang allows for this, because it doesn't really say what came before (although some physicists have attempted hypotheses and theories on what came before, and theories on "what banged?").

So science is not in disagreement with you that maybe the materials were always there. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there was no "Big Bang", nor is it necessarily true that science says the Big Bang was the beginning of "everything" -- science and the Big Bang Theory simply postulates that it was the beginning of this current place that we call our universe.


edit on 12/25/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join