Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

a reply to: swanne

If we start by assuming that the bible is correct and that the world was created in the same week as Adam.

Did you not notice this at the top of the OP...
OP was not asking you to buy it. Only asking that "IF" one buys it then explain the ensuing questions.

Now you're saying the entire globe was BUILT in only one week?

IF,,, he said IF!!!

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Accepting a God means accepting responsibility
Accepting that humanity is accountable
Better to assume nthing than responsibility

Why do I need a God to make me accept responsibility? I accept it anyway. My responsibility is towards others -- my family, my friends and loved ones, my employer or employees, my community, humanity at large. I also recognize a responsibility towards myself -- to stay alive and as healthy as I can. I have voluntary responsibilities too -- to my pets, towards my profession and the arts I practice, stuff like that. If you want life's rewards you must accept life's responsibilities.

It's a simple equation.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I see that your post is merely conjecture. If you say we believe the bible. Those believers have it all covered. All the scientists and all the teachers, all those in government do not need to conspire if they are all duped from the beginning. In order to believe the bible over natural history, one must believe in the devil and his control over us. He sits just over our shoulder and keeps us in perpetual ignorance of his power and existence. So all those people who you mention, all their students and their teachers all, believe the biggest lie (conspiracy) of all time. That the devil does not exist and hence all the things they believe on down the line to be true are not. They are based on a lie and hence are false beliefs.

They call him the father of lies. Under that rubric, if that first lie is not recognized, all that does not come from the Word is therefore false. Simple. They have found that overlying concept to fill in all the questions they might have that run counter to the bible.

Now this is common knowledge that they believe this and really not worth the mentioning but for how it exemplifies the rest of the conspiracy thinking. Instead of the devil, run of the mill conspiracies plug in the powers that be. They blame the hidden hand of the Illuminati. They blame George Soros or the Koch Brothers (well, ah, they may be right with the Koch Brothers). They blame the 'which ever alien overlords". Blame the main stream media. They blame anyone who disagrees with them for fools and brainwashed idiots. And that explains it all for them.

All of these are catch all bogeymen that help explain an overly simplistic belief system.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's interesting however this isn't just a case of someone being lied to. Of course If we blame the devil for misleading everyone from the beginning then that nullifies the religious texts also.

But if the religious texts are true then people are actually manufacturing false evidence and they would need to be discussing these falsifications with their peers to make sure they all point in the same direction.

Unless the devil is planting false evidence. But once again if you can't trust the evidence because it may be planted the same suspicions have to apply to any texts.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Unless the devil is planting false evidence. But once again if you can't trust the evidence because it may be planted the same suspicions have to apply to any texts.

Exactly. And that is what so many believe, that the devil is planting false evidence and has been all along. But many of them also believe that their book is the only text free of that. You and I will apply our suspicions in reading the bible, but they will not because it is the devil that is planting the suspicions.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Because it's a reasonable assumption that mankind evolved from nothing as opposed to a creator

The word "nothing" in physics is not the same as the traditional,lay-men's definition of the word.
Very similar in a way to the word theory in science.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If we start by assuming that the bible is correct and that the world was created in the same week as Adam.

Why? Why not simply start from the assumption that we don't know how it happened and see where the evidence leads us?

Why do all the scientists not making a buck out of the religious go against this idea?

Because the evidence doesn't support a literal interpretation of either of the two Genesis creation scenarios.

We must be talking about a massive worldwide conspiracy. From school teachers all the way up to the highest levels of government, even the Vatican has supported evolution.

Wouldn't it be a much grander conspiracy to have Biblical creationism be the dominant paradigm for a couple of millennia?

Scientists across multiple fields must be colluding before they release their findings. It can't be a coincidence that all the various fields from cosmology to genetics to geology etc. support each other when their premise is incorrect.

People who suggesting scenarios like this have obvious had very little dealing with scientists on an academic or professional level. Put ten scientists in a room and you'll get ten different scenarios (eleven on a bad day) to explain a given phenomenon. When we find examples of scientists committing fraud, it's typically single researchers or research groups -- getting scientists to collude on anything is like herding cats.

This falsification of data on such massive scales must leave a paper trail.

It doesn't need to leave a paper trail. Scientific data is published with methodology. Anyone sufficiently interested can repeat the experiment and try to get the same results. All it takes is one person getting different results than the original researcher(s) to start an avalanche of scrutiny.

So who is in charge of this grand deception and how have they pulled it off?

Along with the concept of getting scientists to collude on something being like herding cats, I'd love for someone to tell me who the Grand Wizard of the Science Clan is.

And more importantly how can they be exposed?

If there's nothing to be exposed, what's the point in figuring out how to do it?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Oh, didn't see this before I replied to your OP and was missing the irony / sarcasm. I'd obviously agree with you -- the absolutely insane amount of data that would have to be falsified and then further stand up to reproducible experiments would be staggering. The resources required to conceal the truth on that level just doesn't make sense... you'd have a majority trying to cover up reality to keep a minority in the dark.

The implications of using science and research to disprove and debunk science and research is just too ironic to be a target compared to Religion.

And then you'd think they wouldn't(like your op), but they do all the time.

It's similar to proving the Earth is flat. No one likes you when you try. And they have good reason to.

However the fact Christian Reasearchers constantly consistently come up with bull#### proofs, is just prime example of their agenda, while atheist scientists run around calling quantum particles "the God particle", the truth is science turns a blind eye to bias and Religions do not.

If your doctor has a Christian Degree of any sort, I recommend a new Doctor that has an accredited degree as Holy Water doesn't cure Cancer yet so it seems God does not care.

Basic questions:
Why was said Q document not constructed until a minimum of 30 years after Jesus life? NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY wrote about Jesus for THIRTY YEARS. It took 100 years for Mark to be completed. 100 YEARS? Why did it take 200 years from the implications of Mark before ANYONE substantial agreed?

The process of Science is PEER REVIEW, and so using documents to prove his existance basically shows misunderstanding of SCIENCE as that's the worst start to peer review story ON EARTH.

Time Machine is LITERALLY a smarter scientific answer than attempting to interpret those documents.

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's simple

This should be good...

Because it's a reasonable assumption that mankind evolved from nothing as opposed to a creator

Except that's now what evolution states. At all. In the slightest. This is the definition of a strawman argument.

Accepting a God means accepting responsibility
Accepting that humanity is accountable
Better to assume nthing than responsibility

Now you're conflating evolution with atheism, which is another logical fallacy on your part, and then committing the standard arguments from ignorance about atheism. Suggesting that people who either subscribe to evolution or are atheists do so because they wish to be free of accountability is so stupidly wrongheaded I'm tempted to think you're just being a Poe. You know who we feel accountability to? The rest of humanity... our friends, our family, our community, the world at large. It's called empathy. Look into it.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Occam's razor would allow us to conclude that the world was NOT created the same week as Adam. Why must one start by assuming the Abrahamic faiths are the only correct ones?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If we start by assuming that the bible is correct and that the world was created in the same week as Adam.

But i dont think we know.

Sincere Regards, Mannegishi

a reply to: iterationzero

Actually evolution does NOT say life evolved from nothing. It is about changes in life, once it existed. There are other hypotheses (not theorems, as evolution is) about this. BUT they are unrelated to evolution.

a reply to: Noinden

We look like little dinosaurs in our mothers stomach..

Sincere regards, Mannegishi

a reply to: Mannegishi

Ummm.... ok that is nice. That has nothing to do with what I said, but good for you!

To clarify (mmm butter) what I said was that EVOLUTION has nothing to do with HOW LIFE BEGAN. Just in case it is not clear.

a reply to: Noinden

Im gonna try the spiritual approach instead of the scientific, i believe the secret to our past lies deep within our mind.
( literally ).
Evolution is about adaptation to our surrounding, i believe the OP was looking towards the concept of genesis.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Woodcarver

Absolutely serious.

It boggles my mind how people can actually believe in creationism.
However if we were to assume it's true it opens up a pandora's box of lies and deceit across the globe which needs to be addressed.

People don't believe in religion because it makes sense. They accept it because, otherwise, they will be shunned from their families, communities, work places.

I see it all the time. Parents using the fear of god to keep their little tots in line. Santa clause, the tooth fairey, ect, ect.

Fill them full of fear and they comply.

Even sites like this (purposefully or not) serves to keep even adult minds, befuddled with nonsensical claims and points of view. The human mind has a real hard time discerning the truth from convincing (and nonconvincing) claims.

I always think of the truth as subjective towards your cultural dogma, what an American think is the truth might be different from an Indian. Just be happy.

Sincere regards Mannegishi

a reply to: Mannegishi

Well the OP was looking at the spiritual texts of the Abrahamic faiths, there are plenty of other spiritualistic out there; ) I belong to one such non Abrahamic faith.

BUT since the OP mentioned a conspiracy of scientists (guess what I am also one of them ). I can only assume that the OP wants a abiogenesis or evolution vs the Bible comparison? I strongly doubt they want my Indo-European view of creation vs the Semetic (Abrahamic) one?

a reply to: Noinden

I believe that the concept of Abrahamitic religions is part of the vedic scripture, neolithic socities and bartering stations when it was refered to as the spice route, before it was extended to China during the Han-dynasty in 200BC.
The "gate" lies at Jerusalem which seperates East from West.
But its just a conspiracy

a reply to: Mannegishi

You can believe that, I've seen very little evidence to support that, the Indo-European cultures (and thus their spiritual ideas) were as wide spread as from the British Isles and Ireland, down to Persian (pre Zoroastrian) and the Vedic areas. So my own gnosis on this is that they are not that similar You don't see the same motifs in those cultures. Especially in their creation myths. The creation myths of the IE cultures are usually order came from Chaos, the divine twins were involved, but not the driving force for the creation.

So my conspiracy would be people take the bible at face value to easily