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.

 

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

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

The word nothing means nothing, maybe in physics they need to make up a new word that means something, because the word nothing means exactly nothing
If some people are foolish enough to believe that nothing means something then thats their choice

youtu.be...

Thanks to "whereislogic"on another thread
Dawkins being foolish saying what you are saying, just look at what a goose everyone thinks he is


originally posted by: whereislogic
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and (sometimes) moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
...
AS MEANS of communicating have expanded...the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language [the whole video, but emphasized by Dawkins himself at 2:42], and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15)
...
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.




This thread www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


To be honest I've never given it any thought, although how I explain them is irrelevant to the thread.

But to answer the question I'll say it has something to do with the crust shifting over billions of years creating weak points where the magma underneath comes through. Although I'm sure that's either completely wrong or ignorantly oversimplified.

Dead on. If the world is that old how was it made 'the same week as Adam'? Thats the part I don't get your perspective on.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Typo on my part... should have read "not what evolution states", not "now".



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Ok no harm no foul
I am just tired of people ramming other scientific theories and hypotheses together as suits them



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Dead on. If the world is that old how was it made 'the same week as Adam'? Thats the part I don't get your perspective on.


I don't think the world was made the same week as Adam nor have I said that I do.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

The word nothing means nothing, maybe in physics they need to make up a new word that means something, because the word nothing means exactly nothing
If some people are foolish enough to believe that nothing means something then thats their choice


To define no thing you need to start with what some thing is.

What would be your definition of something?



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

i think we greatly underestimate the intelligence of nature. Evolutionary design is intelligent that does not mean a God made it. It is a sentiment being unto iteself and works over long periods of time.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I don't have to worry about something
The word nothing is very well established and understood

Well by most people who have the capacity, I won't include physicists, if they are silly enough to believe that nothing is something, if other people think physicists are smart because they believe nothing is something then ...

Maybe in some people's worlds were logic and reason needs to be suspended so the lie can be fertilized, nothing being something can exist

Not for me

No thanks

I want even engage in the ludicrous assumption nothing is something



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

I just read physicists suggesting nothing is something

I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of the known

By the way
Do you believe life evolved from dirt and water?



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Oh well. 4 pages in and no creationist has actually attempted to answer the initial questions.

Granted, only a handful have actually answered the questions (Or read them it seems), but I still find this interesting.






edit on 12-4-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: clarification



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: 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 do all the scientists not making a buck out of the religious go against this idea?

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.

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.

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

So who is in charge of this grand deception and how have they pulled it off?
And more importantly how can they be exposed?


It's not hard to work out

Because they choose to believe that
Because they have no other option other than God and they don't like God
What are the other choices
Natural or God

The grand deception or no choice

Question answered



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

It's not hard to work out

Because they choose to believe that
Because they have no other option other than God and they don't like God
What are the other choices
Natural or God

The grand deception or no choice

Question answered


I guess your comprehension skills match your grammar.

Thanks for trying.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh look. Another thing that raggedy man doesn't understand. Even after it's explained to him. It's not the scientistific def of nothing thats still refers to something. It is the ley def.

If you and i are standing in a room together, and i open a box that appears to be empty. I ask a ley person, "what's in this box?" Their answer might be nothing, but they are scientifically incorrect. There are uncountable items still in that box. Just on a scale which we cannot percieve them. (Dust, germs, bacteria, mold, electrons, quarks, ect....

The scientific def of nothing means, none of those particles are in that box. It is quite difficult to free an area of all particles well enough to consider there to be nothing in it. It requires a vacuum chamber to be brought to an atmospheric pressure of approx -30. (Without looking it up). And even then, somethings seems to flitter in and out of the respective area.

It is the ley def of nothing which still means something. Which is why scientists had to redefine the way the term is used. For them, it actually means nothing.

Now that you have been told, don't use it in your arguments again.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Dead on. If the world is that old how was it made 'the same week as Adam'? Thats the part I don't get your perspective on.


I don't think the world was made the same week as Adam nor have I said that I do.


Whoops… opening line in OP…


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

You read what you want to.
edit on 12-4-2016 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

So dust germs bacteria mold electrons quarks are something
Your premise is flawed

I never referred to a box with nothing in it

I was talking about nothing, nothing can't be called what you have listed, they are something

Define what the scientists call nothing, do scientists call what you listed as nothing, it was their term not mine, it was their description not mine, they said nothing.
That list, in scientific terms are they actually nothing, is that what scientist call those things, they are not you know, they are all somethings

It was the scientific community who labeled it as nothing not me, I think it was something, I think it was something, that's why I queried the nothing

Am I wrong for asking them to explain nothing in detail
Your list of nothing, is that scientific, they called it nothing, I just related their description
Don't play your games at me, I just reported what they said
If they think those things are nothing then it's the science community's issue not mine

If I am lay and they are snot, shouldn't they define the something as something like you have.
Are the non lay so incredibly silly that they call something nothing, who's ley around here, me I would call that list something, I would call them by name as they are found, I wouldn't call them nothing if they are something, that's just really really really silly

Leave the empty box by the door, let's talk about how nothing is something, be they quarks that are somethin, dust something electrons something, scientists shouldn't call something nothing if you can label them as something

Your word games and box are silly, so is calling something nothing when it is something
Don't they know the names, did they see the empty box and call the box empty or say there was nothing in it. What did they expect to find in the box
Nothing, they were wrong, it was empty but full of air, air is something

You are silly, attacking me for saying what a scientist said
You should think a little more before saying what i said, I said nothing, just repeated something scientists said

I have nothing more to say unless something comes to mind

Once there was nothing and then everything came from it, can you refer to nothing as an it?
edit on 12-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well I couldn't have imagined it was hard to work out

Evidently it is
For some....

... that's an ellipses



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

So dust germs bacteria mold electrons quarks are something
Your premise is flawed

I never referred to a box with nothing in it

I was talking about nothing, nothing can't be called what you have listed, they are something

Define what the scientists call nothing, do scientists call what you listed as nothing, it was their term not mine, it was their description not mine, they said nothing.
That list, in scientific terms are they actually nothing, is that what scientist call those things, they are not you know, they are all somethings

It was the scientific community who labeled it as nothing not me, I think it was something, I think it was something, that's why I queried the nothing

Am I wrong for asking them to explain nothing in detail
Your list of nothing, is that scientific, they called it nothing, I just related their description
Don't play your games at me, I just reported what they said
If they think those things are nothing then it's the science community's issue not mine

If I am lay and they are snot, shouldn't they define the something as something like you have.
Are the non lay so incredibly silly that they call something nothing, who's ley around here, me I would call that list something, I would call them by name as they are found, I wouldn't call them nothing if they are something, that's just really really really silly

Leave the empty box by the door, let's talk about how nothing is something, be they quarks that are somethin, dust something electrons something, scientists shouldn't call something nothing if you can label them as something

Your word games and box are silly, so is calling something nothing when it is something
Don't they know the names, did they see the empty box and call the box empty or say there was nothing in it. What did they expect to find in the box
Nothing, they were wrong, it was empty but full of air, air is something

You are silly, attacking me for saying what a scientist said
You should think a little more before saying what i said, I said nothing, just repeated something scientists said

I have nothing more to say unless something comes to mind

Once there was nothing and then everything came from it, can you refer to nothing as an it?
haha. Lol. I see what the problem is, Your reading comprehension is laughable. Read my post again.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well I couldn't have imagined it was hard to work out

Evidently it is
For some....

... that's an ellipses


You are right. Realising your comprehension skills matched your grammar skills wasn't hard at all.

Although congratulations on your trolling. To look up ellipses and then purposefully use them wrong is a stroke of genius. I'm a little ashamed to even mention it.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

What a box and a vacuum, was the vacuum cleaning the box

Scientists said everything comes from nothing, irrespective of your boxes and vacuums, that's stupid
Get it
It's stupid
Your box and vacuum is ludicrous, irrelevant when assuming everything comes from nothing

Like you I typed in lots of stupid, repetitive useless nothing words with no meaning, irrelevant
Nothing comes from nothing, scientist, layity, fish or frog, the premise is stupid
Defining nothing, face palm moment
Get it, wake up

Now you have been told...



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do love misquoting science don't you? Its as if you begrudge science its place in a modern world.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join