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.

 

Were there 7 Adams and Eves that were placed on the 7 continents

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

You mean like today, notice how we aim atomic bomb's at one another and the text both suggest far higher intelligence (the fruit of knowledge of good and evil) and longer lifespan's.

Personally My take on the human race is that it is a bunch of inbred idiots and even the slightest difference such as skin tone raises there heckles when they are in a herd as they are also inherently xenophobic.




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: pikestaff

You mean like today, notice how we aim atomic bomb's at one another and the text both suggest far higher intelligence (the fruit of knowledge of good and evil) and longer lifespan's.

Personally My take on the human race is that it is a bunch of inbred idiots and even the slightest difference such as skin tone raises there heckles when they are in a herd as they are also inherently xenophobic.


But your 'text' suggests that we're all inbred from day one, first with Adam and Eve and then with Noah and his family members.

So what's your problem exactly?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yea yea. My mind is closed because I can't accept YOUR biases. You have no idea what I've researched, looked into, and have believed. If I tell you that I disbelieve something it's because I found the available evidence not up to my high standards for belief.


How about an ancient body in a decayed space suit on the moon,


What about it? No such thing exists. And you are using pareidolia on those pictures to see something that isn't there.

Being open minded doesn't mean you believe in every sketchy idea that comes across your face. It means you entertain the idea, look at the available evidence, then make a judgment call from there. You also don't just create a bunch of assumptions like you have above and then substitute that for your beliefs.


Right the whole seeing sheep in the cloud's argument has lost it's momentum and is now seen as exactly what it is, a disinformation tool concocted by disinformation specialists in order to faux readers and discredit observation's, Now I am not saying you are such of course as the whole skeptical community of dedicated debunkers who do get a kick our of debunking argument's have since took this disinformation technique to heart and made it there own.

Why then I must ask did NASA used air brush technicians to obscure or remove offending objects from many of there shot's.
youtu.be...
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
www.ufosightingsdaily.com...

Now I also hold that fake moon landing footage was also produced probably as a back up but also for other reasons but I also believe that the astronauts did indeed go to the moon.
shatteringthematrix.com...



www.ufocasebook.com...
nationalufocenter.com...
www.pravdareport.com...


Now I am leaving this thread but I truly believe there is ample evidence of more ancient HUMAN life than is accepted by the fat seat hugging anthropologist community.

By the way have you ever heard of Viral Propegation of DNA between species.

As you know I am sure a virus is just some DNA or RNA, a small strand in a protien shell, that shell has enzymatic propertys which both allow it to pass through cell wall's and to aid it in integrating into the cell nucleas or cytoblasts (though personally I have never heard of a Cytoblast infecting virus but assume it must exist and such would merely kill the cell though it would still repliact in the mitochondria until it split the cell wall and spilled out into the surrounding tissue like any type of virus).

Now Evolution is not a steight A to B progression and it is not always driven by environment, adaptation or even random mutation it can actually be a cross species inheritance.

Some time ago now genetic scientists working on reverse engineering cancer were able to isolate and recreate an ancient virus which is dormant in the whole human species and is passed on like much of our edronic information in the so called junk DNA sequences which are not active or seem to not be so.

So why could a modern, intelligence species living in close proximity for example over a prolongued enough period to other species (Such as the propensity for human's and pig's to share pathogen's etc) not be the recipient of DNA which a virus or virus' may have picked up as they themselves mutate and incorporate host dna into there own strand's, now once it make's this species jump maybe the naturally spliced virus then does not replicate very well and over time much like that ancient cancer virus maybe it become's inactive but maybe not all of it's genetic code is inactive especially as the virus has mutated to infect and hijack the cell's.

Now imagine a group of settlers or survivors in an alien biosphere but one that was biologically compatible or one from which they themselves had arisen many age's before in a previous eco system before fleeing that world when a cataclysmic E.L.E. occured, is it not therefore concievable that they may over the course of generations rising from a small population base be infected and altered in various regions as they spread out across the world so picking up minor traits and some not so minor that set them apart as new sub species and indeed could not a form of De-Evolution into a more bestial state also occur given that hypothetical scenario and no Annunaki in sight except that these survivors or colonists may themselves be the Annunaki (taking from sitchin whom I like but take with a pinch of salt), and would the rest of there species upon discovering them not put that world and them into quarantine but watch from a safe distance as there offshoot's species adapated and changed over time but carefully as the implication's of direct contact could also be dire for them with potential cross racial viral and other pathogenic transfer.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767




Personally My take on the human race is that it is a bunch of inbred idiots .


LMAO
Einstien must have considered this at some point.




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

you forget, though you probably don't believe it, but after the Flood there were only four couples and only three of those couples could reproduce. In those three couples were all the mix Genetic code for all races and it is from them that all the nations/races come.


How can someone forget an event that never happened?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

It has only NOT HAPPENED to those who don't believe the Bible.

Here is some reading material if you are willing to read it with an open mind, tolerance and without prejudice.

www.biblearchaeology.org...

www.biblearchaeology.org...



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Also the entire continental shelf show's river canyon's and valleys which could only ever have formed if water was flowing OFF them but they are mainly now in deep oceanic water, maybe the pressure of the excess water pushed the thinner ocean crust downward this boyed the continent's upward, there are also many flooded continents such as Zealandia of which New Zealand is the sole tiny portion still above sea level.

Of course some of the river valleys which run deep under the ocean such as the hudson bay one are argued as evidence of ancient continental tilting instead but then there are anecdotal tales such as one from the time of the roman empire on a portion of road that past through the apenine mountains today called the spine of italy, in that tale a passing roman, I can not find the account on the net but it doubltess exists somewhere but I read it in a book many years ago.
After a tremor some boulders fell onto the road and out from the space they had made slid an almost complete petrified stone ship according to this account.

Now can wood petrify rapidly, apparently yet it can.
www.icr.org...
www.defendingthechristianfaith.org...
Which bring's me back to this.
wyattmuseum.com...

Now while I believe this is genuine I do also absolutely believe this old man's account.
www.noahsark.it...

www.pravdareport.com...

Which obviously suggests something else, more than one ark or maybe more than one flood.

Now I was interested in the sunken city of the north west of Cuba found by Pauline Zeltsky's expedition, while I genuinely believe it to be real the dating of 50.000 years minimum was something I disagreed with and believed it could be betwen 26 and 11 thousand years old, why well I looked at the basic data available to everyone and of course the sea was lower during the ice age but here was another problem which was being missed and that is that the ice was depressing the continents with the weight of a second virtual continent of ice on top of them for thousands of years so it stood to reason that like if you push a spoon down on a thick porrage the pressure at one point would couse a deformation elsewhere as while you push down the fluid beneath is moved and pushed up elsewhere raisng that part upward, now for me that meant that though at the pressures it is under though semi molten it is as hard as iron the magma beneath the crust must have been displaced and pushed the crust up were the ice was not present.

Cue that city off of the north west of Cuba and the possibility it was above the then lower water level and the land - now an underwater ocean platau it sat on was also at a higher altitude along with probably many other island's and much more coastline than sea level change alone could account for.

I then had a think about what else may have happened as the pressure suddenly relaxed and as well as the usual sinking of land's and the proverbial atlantis' type disasters I realised also that the continent of south america may have tilted rapidly and cataclysmicall pushing it's western sea board upward (lake titicaca has stunted ocean flora and fauna that have adapted to the slow desalination of the lake over the last 10.000+ years and the ruin's of Puma Punku neaby suffered a catachlysm as well as ample evidence of flooding in the region around the lake and apparent ruin's under the lake which would indicate the lake is also tilted but then the andes are still rising at about up to a foot a year on some sears.

Two thing's could have caused this tilting of the continent, the thicker crust of the pacific ocean it is riding over as well as a potential proto continent which may be buried in that crust and the reduction in magmatic pressure in the relatively young (65M at it's oldest) and much thinner atlantic ocean crust as the ice melted and also the increased weight of the ocean as the water returned to the sea pushing that thin atlantic crust downward.

SO maybe the Eastern Seaboard sank just as rapidly, now the effect of this would be horrendous, think a massive fat bloke jumping into a small bath tub and realise the effect would be to send two massive tidal wave's accross the atlantic and the pacific which would have rushed inland, perhaps the mediteranean was land far more recently than the accepted 5 million year period and this devastating mountain crushing flood washed the isthmus of gibralter away flooding that once fertile valley, the mediteranean is still sinking under the weight of the ocean today which is why so many greek and roman period citys are now under water.

Of course I do personally believe the bible account but this is just to show the critic's that there are scenario's which could explain it in a more palatible way for them to swallow though I doubt that anything ever would make them believe.


Personally if I was almighty I would take two parrallel world's, one out of phase were that version of the earth was a water world with a larger diameter and a smaller core, maybe it's ocean surface miles above the mountains of this earth and I would thin the barrier between those reality's so that the water from that other ocean planet earth coalesced into this one, were it appeared in the sky it would just fall like rain but salt water rain and it would rain indoors as well and even inside people's lung's, indeed everywhere then once I had done what I intended I would strengthen the barrier between the parrallel worlds' forcing them back out of phase and as that water was from that world it would vanish of it's own accord back to that native reality and all that was of this reality would stay here.

edit on 18-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
It has only NOT HAPPENED to those who don't believe the Bible.


Actually it's quite the opposite. It's ONLY true to those that take the bible literally. To the rational people in the world, it's just another ancient myth to add to the pile along with Zeus, Horus, Gilgamesh, etc. You can believe it if you'd like, but belief alone does not make something real or accurate.


edit on 2 19 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Stare into the abyss long enough and the abyss stares back into you.

What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.

So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.

It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.

What is a big bang, how does a time space continuum exist, what structure exists in superspace outside the time space continuum to support it and how in a supposed infinite sea of chaos best modelled a just that in membrane theory and that should mathematically cancel to nothing and self anihilate does that structure even exist.

Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.

And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

The difference in the Christian religion is that God the penultimate entity of creation is also our father, we can become like him as we are sentient soul's (or if you like extra universal or extra dimensional entity's whom can with his help make the transission to a higher state of being but time is not a relative there and the time it take's is not measurable on a human scale, this is shared as a concept with many other religion's as well but buddhism is the ultimate trans atheism if you like or ultimate agnosticism, they believe that there ultimate goal is to reach oblivion or nirvana as if they are seeking to calm the storm that is creation and to view creation or reality if you prefer that term as an illusion, for some this is going back to there creator but for other's there was no creator just a liar like the mara whom tempted buddha under his bodie tree.

Personally I am a christian, order has it's place but structures chaos like the struming of a harps string's does too when it is done in harmony.

And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


edit on 19-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.


Who says I believe I am nothing? I just don't take stories written by ancient man as literal truth, that's all.


So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.


This is a question that nobody actually knows the answer to. I don't mind not knowing the answer at all. I am content, but I'm not going to speculate or blindly believe something just because we don't know the answer.


It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.


Or logic, or what we understand about reality. It is a direct contradiction of science, because many of the claims go directly against what has been scientifically understood.


Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.


I'm agnostic. I don't really care to define something we don't know.

You run into that same problem whether there is a creator or not. Nobody argues that everything just poofed into existence magically except creationists. God doesn't answer the question, because he/she/it would need an origin as well. And if you can say god is eternal (which is a cop out), then I can say the universe could be eternal. We simply don't know, so speculation is useless, IMO.


And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

I've heard this argument a million times. First, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts existence. Since there is no objective evidence of any god, it is logical to dismiss it.

Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. Remember, it's you guys that claim god is infinite and all powerful and throw around terms like that as if you can even comprehend it.


And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


Why pigeonhole atheists and generalize them all as immoral selfish scumbags, just because they don't believe in your god or your ridiculous mythology? That is just sad. What you choose to believe in is completely up to you, but you shouldn't put down others for being skeptical of religious claims or having different beliefs. Your religion is far from fact so don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I could never be religious. It is the ultimate reality denial, completely and blindly rejecting the proven science behind evolution, biology, chemistry, geology, and genetics in favor of impossibly unrealistic stories of a bloodthirsty genocidal god written by bronze age goat herders that were barely literate.


edit on 2 19 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
no, adam and eve was dropped on in africa.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Adam and Eve is a fictitious concept. It is impossible to breed a race out of 2 individuals. The human race has not dipped below 2000 reproducing individuals at any point during its evolution. There is a minimum viable population for every species. You would need somewhere between 80-160 unrelated individuals to even have a chance at populating even a single country, let alone the whole world.

Let's get out of this bronze age mythology and look to science for answers. So far science has gotten millions of things right over the years, while religion disappears piece by piece. Science may ruffle feathers at first do to personal biases, but the facts are what prevail in the long run. Deny ignorance.



Science also got millions of things wrong.


And please let us know at what point science proves that God does not exist.




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I have no problem with true agnosticism, the principle of "I don't know" and my faith is merey an alternative from your perspective if you are, however when you attack a faith it show's either a belief against that faith or non true agnosticism so you will forgive me if I take your own claim to be an agnostic with a slightly raised eyebrow.

The fact is that in christianity the Oroborous principle or the time loop is also present though it is not ever presented as that and our God is complete at all stages of our existance, our Faith defines a being whom is the same now as he was then as he will be, that is not to say he can not change but that he is Perfect Order in the Chaos like jesus calming the storm as well as the slant on it that he is both a genuine scientist as a creator would be whom know's the true principles of the universe and even established them and also he could be interpreted "Loosely" as a time traveller or outside of time in that he work's from the final outcome back to the beginning meaning that he bring's his plan which is fully formed before him into being with the ultimate harmony of the final work, in other word's we see creation as a work in progress and yes our faith has been poluted over time by interpretations and additions from other religion's but also it is the one which promoted human thought, freedon of choice but with consequences and guidance and the act of both self and religious questioning in order to learn the truth rather than the way of more indoctrinating religion's.

Which is why in the christian founded world Atheism and Agnosticism are free self determined principles which of course they would not be in any culture founded on other stricture's and idiology's.

What you believe is a free choice though you are responsible for your own action's even so, I for instance believe the words' of the bible are truth just our or maybe simply My interpretation of them is flawed and for me Adam could be a race as well as an individual and the concept of eve being taken from him is a little odd for me and contradictory as it also says "Let us create them male and female in our image" which suggests in that passage they were created at the same time and maybe the other passage is allagorical for the teaching of something that went wrong at our beginning.

I could interpret it even as a spiritual being from a no longer physical race whom has perhaps transcended the physical state, perhaps even a gestalt entity looking at the barren world that used to be it's/there home or a recreation of it and deciding to clean it up or remake it then using whatever higher dimensional power's it has over the lower dimensional matter to recreate it's/there race (Some broke a law coming down from heaven and taking wive so polluting the spiritual energy of the pure new race with old energy) perhaps with the intention of reinvigorating there own nature as new soul's formed from whatever energy or universal consciousness principle the soul IS made of - (I have seen spiritual phenomena but that is subjective as there is no way I could analyse it or explain it - you would simply have to experience it yourself which in my case I would not wish on you) - would then be able to coalesce around the quantume computer or interface we call a brain and nervous system with the time and structured principles of the physical universe and mind so developing an identity and forming a structured pattern to that energy making it into a self determining ego which hopefully then would continue for a time before going to sleep again or melding back into the universal field with the danger of falling back into spiritual entropy which is the very thing it may be intended to stop and which may be the reason the physical universe exists in the first place, to form mind, seperate and challenge the newly formed seperate and now unique consciousness and to upon it's return elevate it by this from the coarser material of the spiritual entropic state via the physical existance onto that other plane or dimension through identity, self ego and awareness out of the probable useless state of the pre incarnate spiritual energy.

Of course I also Do not know, I merely go by faith as I do believe in christ even if the old testament is garbled to me most of the time and this is just a hypothetical musing.

edit on 19-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.


Who says I believe I am nothing? I just don't take stories written by ancient man as literal truth, that's all.


So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.


This is a question that nobody actually knows the answer to. I don't mind not knowing the answer at all. I am content, but I'm not going to speculate or blindly believe something just because we don't know the answer.


It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.


Or logic, or what we understand about reality. It is a direct contradiction of science, because many of the claims go directly against what has been scientifically understood.


Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.


I'm agnostic. I don't really care to define something we don't know.

You run into that same problem whether there is a creator or not. Nobody argues that everything just poofed into existence magically except creationists. God doesn't answer the question, because he/she/it would need an origin as well. And if you can say god is eternal (which is a cop out), then I can say the universe could be eternal. We simply don't know, so speculation is useless, IMO.


And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

I've heard this argument a million times. First, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts existence. Since there is no objective evidence of any god, it is logical to dismiss it.

Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. Remember, it's you guys that claim god is infinite and all powerful and throw around terms like that as if you can even comprehend it.


And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


Why pigeonhole atheists and generalize them all as immoral selfish scumbags, just because they don't believe in your god or your ridiculous mythology? That is just sad. What you choose to believe in is completely up to you, but you shouldn't put down others for being skeptical of religious claims or having different beliefs. Your religion is far from fact so don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I could never be religious. It is the ultimate reality denial, completely and blindly rejecting the proven science behind evolution, biology, chemistry, geology, and genetics in favor of impossibly unrealistic stories of a bloodthirsty genocidal god written by bronze age goat herders that were barely literate.




I just love that meme. Did you invent that?

And i don't believe you are agnostic at all by the way you defend atheists by denigrating christians.

Who do you think invented "science"? Man?

Or better yet, who gave man the impetus to develop a system to try and explain the universe.
And more importantly, why?
Why does math fit so well in predicting physical phenomena and interactions?
Without objective order, there would be no science.

Science proves God exists every time they get something wrong or right.





edit on 2 19 2016 by burgerbuddy because: more added for clarity.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.


Who says I believe I am nothing? I just don't take stories written by ancient man as literal truth, that's all.


So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.


This is a question that nobody actually knows the answer to. I don't mind not knowing the answer at all. I am content, but I'm not going to speculate or blindly believe something just because we don't know the answer.


It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.


Or logic, or what we understand about reality. It is a direct contradiction of science, because many of the claims go directly against what has been scientifically understood.


Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.


I'm agnostic. I don't really care to define something we don't know.

You run into that same problem whether there is a creator or not. Nobody argues that everything just poofed into existence magically except creationists. God doesn't answer the question, because he/she/it would need an origin as well. And if you can say god is eternal (which is a cop out), then I can say the universe could be eternal. We simply don't know, so speculation is useless, IMO.


And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

I've heard this argument a million times. First, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts existence. Since there is no objective evidence of any god, it is logical to dismiss it.

Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. Remember, it's you guys that claim god is infinite and all powerful and throw around terms like that as if you can even comprehend it.


And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


Why pigeonhole atheists and generalize them all as immoral selfish scumbags, just because they don't believe in your god or your ridiculous mythology? That is just sad. What you choose to believe in is completely up to you, but you shouldn't put down others for being skeptical of religious claims or having different beliefs. Your religion is far from fact so don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I could never be religious. It is the ultimate reality denial, completely and blindly rejecting the proven science behind evolution, biology, chemistry, geology, and genetics in favor of impossibly unrealistic stories of a bloodthirsty genocidal god written by bronze age goat herders that were barely literate.




Science proves God exists every time they get something wrong or right.



Care to prove that?

Or is that just some opinion?
edit on 190819/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.


Who says I believe I am nothing? I just don't take stories written by ancient man as literal truth, that's all.


So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.


This is a question that nobody actually knows the answer to. I don't mind not knowing the answer at all. I am content, but I'm not going to speculate or blindly believe something just because we don't know the answer.


It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.


Or logic, or what we understand about reality. It is a direct contradiction of science, because many of the claims go directly against what has been scientifically understood.


Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.


I'm agnostic. I don't really care to define something we don't know.

You run into that same problem whether there is a creator or not. Nobody argues that everything just poofed into existence magically except creationists. God doesn't answer the question, because he/she/it would need an origin as well. And if you can say god is eternal (which is a cop out), then I can say the universe could be eternal. We simply don't know, so speculation is useless, IMO.


And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

I've heard this argument a million times. First, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts existence. Since there is no objective evidence of any god, it is logical to dismiss it.

Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. Remember, it's you guys that claim god is infinite and all powerful and throw around terms like that as if you can even comprehend it.


And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


Why pigeonhole atheists and generalize them all as immoral selfish scumbags, just because they don't believe in your god or your ridiculous mythology? That is just sad. What you choose to believe in is completely up to you, but you shouldn't put down others for being skeptical of religious claims or having different beliefs. Your religion is far from fact so don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I could never be religious. It is the ultimate reality denial, completely and blindly rejecting the proven science behind evolution, biology, chemistry, geology, and genetics in favor of impossibly unrealistic stories of a bloodthirsty genocidal god written by bronze age goat herders that were barely literate.




Science proves God exists every time they get something wrong or right.



Care to prove that?

Or is that just some opinion?



Ask yourself, what is science proving?

That this goes with that?
This is how it works?

Doctor, it hurts when i do this.
Then don't do that!

What is the point of science?
To pollute our world?
To stop suffering?
Make life easier?
Make killing each other easier?
To prove there is no God?

Science just answers HOW and even that is iffy.
Just because i understand science, doesn't mean i'm not bored with it.


edit on 2 19 2016 by burgerbuddy because: added



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What this mean's is that you believe you are nothing so you are nothing but of course there is a little tiny problem with that, you ARE something or to be more exact you ARE.


Who says I believe I am nothing? I just don't take stories written by ancient man as literal truth, that's all.


So how does something come from nothing, what is the impetus, the originating force, the power that moves were there is nothing, is it too nothing then are you anything or are you nothing.


This is a question that nobody actually knows the answer to. I don't mind not knowing the answer at all. I am content, but I'm not going to speculate or blindly believe something just because we don't know the answer.


It always was, it just is, hmm not according to science?.


Or logic, or what we understand about reality. It is a direct contradiction of science, because many of the claims go directly against what has been scientifically understood.


Which is more foolish to believe in a creator EVEN if you do not define him, it, that principle whatever it is or to believe it just went POOF and appeared like a magic trick with no magician and what is more appeared along with a stage and an audience.


I'm agnostic. I don't really care to define something we don't know.

You run into that same problem whether there is a creator or not. Nobody argues that everything just poofed into existence magically except creationists. God doesn't answer the question, because he/she/it would need an origin as well. And if you can say god is eternal (which is a cop out), then I can say the universe could be eternal. We simply don't know, so speculation is useless, IMO.


And since you can not define that principle were is the proof that there is no GOD, if the universe is infinite then by default God like being's must exist but even more if it just came into being and is a limited and finite universe then that mystery is even more strange as what caused it or ever could have to exist.

I've heard this argument a million times. First, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts existence. Since there is no objective evidence of any god, it is logical to dismiss it.

Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. Remember, it's you guys that claim god is infinite and all powerful and throw around terms like that as if you can even comprehend it.


And I could never be an atheist it is the ultimate self denial reducing man to animal and promoting the me, now, mine, self, self, self mentality of the hopeless, soulless herd mentality.


Why pigeonhole atheists and generalize them all as immoral selfish scumbags, just because they don't believe in your god or your ridiculous mythology? That is just sad. What you choose to believe in is completely up to you, but you shouldn't put down others for being skeptical of religious claims or having different beliefs. Your religion is far from fact so don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I could never be religious. It is the ultimate reality denial, completely and blindly rejecting the proven science behind evolution, biology, chemistry, geology, and genetics in favor of impossibly unrealistic stories of a bloodthirsty genocidal god written by bronze age goat herders that were barely literate.




Science proves God exists every time they get something wrong or right.



Care to prove that?

Or is that just some opinion?



Ask yourself, what is science proving?

That this goes with that?
This is how it works?

Doctor, it hurts when i do this.
Then don't do that!

What is the point of science?
To pollute our world?
To stop suffering?
Make life easier?
Make killing each other easier?
To prove there is no God?

Science just answers HOW and even that is iffy.
Just because i understand science, doesn't mean i'm not bored with it.



And that answered my question how exactly?

I'm also guessing by your response that you have a belief that an old dude with a beard did it.

Science bad! Fairy tales good! Ug!



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It proves structure to the universe, every time a theory has to be redesigned or a new theory formlulated to fill the error's which build up over time through observational deviations form the hypothetical model it show's more and more layers of structure and intricate pattern which may be interpreted as design.

Science today has embraced the concept of Chaos theory in order to append the blame for flaws in the standard theoretical model's when observation deviates from time to time, there is no chaos but the system is too complex for them to model so it is a catch all to cover zero point or rather vacuum energy fluctuation's, the principle that when you get down to it you can not identify the exact location of a sub atomic particle and of course quantum multiple universe theory's of which there are more than one form, parallel reality's, other universes and superspace membranes.

I shall also warrent that there are many whose IQ left the most intelligence atheists currently in the world today behind.
www.famousscientists.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Indeed I would also say that many of these scientists and theoreticians are seeking God, they are trying to define the finger prints of the creator and see the divine pattern as they try to understand a part of the plan in there mind's.

There is a passage I can't quote off the top of my head but it says his footsteps echo in the deep, there is a reverberance that is attributed to the big bang in the background cosmic radiation of the universe so is that the footprint's of god echoing in the deep?.

The most intelligent atheist I know of is Stephen hawking an athiest but without Einstein whom believed in god were would hawking be today and unlike einsteins theorems which are still being proven today despite that fact he had no direct observational data to base some of them on how many of hawking's theorys shall stand the test of time? and remember Albert worked in his head not a computer model.

I can not provide you with Proof of God and I can not provide you with proof of YOU so it is a subjective argument and a circular one based on simple denial and disbelief, that is your choice but I see reality as evidence of more and the structure of reality which led many top quantum theorists to find religion as evidence of design or conscious principle to the structure of the universe, even the earth is unique and odd, you live at JUST the right time to see it's moon as the same size as it's star the sun, it can even eclipse it almost perfectly, though off by a fraction of a percent and a few small decimals it is almost 400 time's closer to you than your sun and also about roughly 400 times smaller.

Coincidence or design and I shall not get into the human eye and the similar ratio's involved there.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Science also got millions of things wrong.


Since there are millions, perhaps you could be kind enough list say a dozen, and please be sure they were based on the scientific method, not some bronze age claim that the earth was flat when that wasn't a scientific viewpoint in the least. Science takes time but it gets us to the answers and the method obviously works. If it didn't, I wouldn't have the capability to converse with you on the internet.


And please let us know at what point science proves that God does not exist.


You can't prove anything does not exist without complete knowledge of the universe, so it's a logical fallacy to ask somebody to prove that. Like I said in my last post, burden of proof is on folks who claim he does exist. You can't provide this. Therefor, I have no reason to believe in it as a logical intelligent person. Similarly, I don't believe in fairies, gnomes, the easter bunny, wizards or flying invisible crocodiles. If evidence turns up one day, then my opinion could be swayed and I could believe, but until this happens I plead the logical default.


I just love that meme. Did you invent that?

And i don't believe you are agnostic at all by the way you defend atheists by denigrating christians.


Meme? I guess you didn't catch that my statement "denigrating christians" was a parody of his attack on atheists. Funny how you condone his generalizing attacks and pretend they do not exist, while nitpicking mine, when mine was satire, and his was an actual attack.


Who do you think invented "science"? Man?

Or better yet, who gave man the impetus to develop a system to try and explain the universe.
And more importantly, why?
Why does math fit so well in predicting physical phenomena and interactions?
Without objective order, there would be no science.


Science relies on objective verification of all claims. Humans are an inquisitive species. They want answers to everything. Nobody gave that trait to them, it evolved over time as the brain slowly got larger and we got smarter. Man invented math, there is no objective order, it is man's counting system.


Science proves God exists every time they get something wrong or right.


Does not compute.



Ask yourself, what is science proving?

That this goes with that?
This is how it works?

Doctor, it hurts when i do this.
Then don't do that!

What is the point of science?
To pollute our world?
To stop suffering?
Make life easier?
Make killing each other easier?
To prove there is no God?

Science just answers HOW and even that is iffy.


The point of science is to learn how things work and see how it can be applied to our lives.


Just because i understand science, doesn't mean i'm not bored with it.


Umm, how can you say what you said in the previous quote and then finish it off by saying you understand science. Based on your responses thus far, you clearly do not.


edit on 2 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
I have no problem with true agnosticism, the principle of "I don't know" and my faith is merey an alternative from your perspective if you are, however when you attack a faith it show's either a belief against that faith or non true agnosticism so you will forgive me if I take your own claim to be an agnostic with a slightly raised eyebrow.


True agnosticism? All it means is that they don't speculate on the unknown. I am technically an agnostic atheist (like most atheists). I reject all current versions of god, and admit that we do not know whether there is one. I could be convinced by evidence, but until I see it, I will continue to lack belief in any type of god or deity, so atheist fits as well.

My point by that and the satire was that generalizing people is not a valid argument, so your attack on atheists was uncalled for, my personal belief system is irrelevant. Claiming that all atheists are immoral holds no merit whatsoever. And denial that humans are animals is laughable.

As for the rest, you are welcome to interpret your faith that way. I don't really follow what you're saying, but that is your choice. I can respect that, but you can't seem to respect atheists when their interpretation is simply different than yours. It's not objectively or morally superior. They just place their faith elsewhere, and they acknowledge the scientific method as a reliable way to learn things.
edit on 2 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join