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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yes indeed gravity is a fact though variable (even on the Earth, let alone on less or massive bodies). So move your machine around the planet, and there will be barely perceptible differences in the effect gravity has on said balls. So while gravity does indeed exits, it took scientists to begin to understand it. Only very recently have we observed gravity waves for the first time. We predicted them around a hundred years ago.

But to use your analogy. Evolution in the biological sense has been happening for a very long time. There is proof of it in our everyday life if you know where to look. Of course an open mind is needed. One willing to educate its self in how to look for things. You know that is how the human mind works right? We are not born with the ability to read, write, speak our native tongues, drive, or do our jobs.

Oh and one does not "force things to evolve" no things evolve, and we have observed that. Yes indeed we have. We (you and I) have had this very discussion recently.

Now I am assuming that once again this would be a creationist attempting the "big lie technique" logical fallacy, to attempt to hide the facts. Or perhaps you are that unwilling to consider the evidence.




posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
answer me this,

scientist in various fields- biology, astronomy, astro physics, anthropology,historian, archeologists etc-can all agree on the theory of evolution.

why doesn't the collective scientific community mentioned above once and for good disproves the bible, koran, and other religious mumbo jumbo.

it would not take much to irrefutably disprove that the universe wasn't created in a few days nor the mental tales which ensued.
how about that.
if religion is an oppressor, which in my opinion is, why dont scientist do mankind a favor and make the billions or so question everything they ever believed in.
why hasnt this happened?
edit on 19-4-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

How does one disprove something that can not be quantified? No seriously, science can only comment on that which can be measured. Thus a supernatural being (deity, deities, flying pasta thingies) is well super natural, beyond nature, be it imaginary, or whatever. If you can't measure it. You can not disprove it. Further more, you can not prove it.

As for "creation of earth (or the Universe) in a few days". That HAS been disproven.

So neighbour you seem a wee bit confused as to what Sciences job is. It is not "doing man kind a favour" and "destroying religion". That would be like your Doctor being expected to do your taxes



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Simply because for most die hard religionists it doesn't matter what science or even logic says... IF its in their holy book, they're going to believe it...

For example, in the bible there is actually a talking snake, and a talking donkey... Yet people don't even bother to question it... God can do anything is the answer...

To someone well verse in those fields... its a pointless endeavor

And for the most part, they don't really care what people believe... evidence trumps belief when it comes to science




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Well to be honest nor should it matter. Religion is a matter of belief and should not feel threatened by Science, or get involved with it (looking at you Christian "Scientist"). Religion might be involved with talk on morals and ethics, though an atheist can be just as moral as any religious person (note I am not an atheist, nor an agnostic).

Now when religion starts telling people how the physical reality is, and it disagrees with observable things (talking animals, flat planets, etc), then it needs to shut up, and go back to the mystical things. Just like if a "Scientist" decided to "clone" Jesus, Mohumud, Moses, etc for sh*ts and giggles, it (Science) would need to rethink what it was doing
(I am being facetious about that last one).



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


Religion is a matter of belief and should not feel threatened by Science, or get involved with it


And i agree...

the issue arises when actual scientists deliberately distort facts to push their beliefs in their religion... it happens quite a bit as you will see on those "creationist" websites...




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Oh but we are all human, so yeah it is an issue, but it can happen when idjiots push agenda, and distort facts. For example vaccines and autism. Refuted, burried, comes back like a Zombie (and I am talking a smelly brain eating Peter Jackson splatter fest zombie), same goes for "creation science", "Christian Science", and whatever BS other religions pull. I am even seeing my fellow pagans doing this #e now, and wondering where they caught THAT disease from



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
If God is the creator...
Than all of science is the study of his processes and methods...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Which God is that neigbhour? No seriously, why does it have to be Allah/Jehovah? Why not Odin, one of the Titans, or the Tuatha?
Edit or many gods? OR all of them?

None of that precludes science being right
Evolution happens. Perhaps that is the will of the Gods

edit on 20-4-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

That's the definition of God...
the creator of the universe...
Therefore the creator of the universe could only be God...
That's not me saying who he is...

I have already said any and all evolution would have to be allowed for by creation...


edit on 20-4-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Only in an Abrahamic sense neighbour. Care to prove that he is the sole creator? It could be plural, it could be none. QED we do not know. You really need to broaden your horizons. For all we know, the sacred colander is indeed sacred.

You are starting to sound like a deist FYI



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Going off of pure definitions what I said is 100 percent accurate...
Also my comment on any and all evolution would have to be allowed for by creation is also 100 percent true...
Because no matter the process evolution needs something to evolve from...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
answer me this,

scientist in various fields- biology, astronomy, astro physics, anthropology,historian, archeologists etc-can all agree on the theory of evolution.

why doesn't the collective scientific community mentioned above once and for good disproves the bible, koran, and other religious mumbo jumbo.

it would not take much to irrefutably disprove that the universe wasn't created in a few days nor the mental tales which ensued.
how about that.
if religion is an oppressor, which in my opinion is, why dont scientist do mankind a favor and make the billions or so question everything they ever believed in.
why hasnt this happened?


Because they cant answer the simple questions with science.
They cant offer anything but assumptions
Because many scientists across fields dont believe in evolution
to many question marks

www.scienceagainstevolution.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ah yes, the totally unbiased creation.com.


Please learn, study, dont just believe what you are told


Thanks again for the laugh. I love it.

Don't believe what you are told, but go to creation.com and believe what they tell you!

I'm giving you a star for this one. Brilliant satire. My faith in humanity has been restored.



As opposed to your totally unbiased atheist sites, ahem ?

Even evolutionists question evolution and they have serious concerns

I know you will complain quote mining but, never the less

thetruthwins.com...

I know you will ignore the link because it teaches holes in your faith

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?


But hey I am just a troll, who knows nothing

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

What's with the kirk fetish comment?
Always some form of personal attack from you...
As for your comment on me losing a chemistry debate with you I asked you one question...
And that was to determine if you had any actual knowledge...And that has been the extent of our chemistry conversations...

I find it rather odd the need you have to lay claim to being a scientist in every thread I've seen you in...
Yet you are unwilling to provide your doctoral thesis...
Especially given the level of narcissism you portray...
I think you are lying...
I think you Googled the answer...


Tis strange
I keep getting something about number 11, who knows. I think it makes him happy so best leave him to his games, it helps him feel special
I would also suggest you let him claim the victory, he needs something to feel proud about, mixing medicines Doesn't make life exciting. Can't be, he needs to claim his occupation to identify his value
I don't doubt he is a chemist, being a chemist isn't that exciting, isn't that special either.

Noinden, I don't care about number 11, I don't care about your occupation, just answer the question, simple



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I've answered the question lad. You just ignore that.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem very confused. Science is not atheistic or theistic. Anymore than a site such as food.com is a religious or areligious site. Science is a set of tools, not a religion. I know how you find this very hard to understand, but a great many scientists are indeed religious. Hindus's, Jews, Muslims, Christians of all flavours, Buddhists, etc

Thus a scientific site is just that, a site with science in it. While a Creationist site is a biased towarsds Christian (and perhaps Abrahamic) dogma site. Trying to twist the data to show god, rather than take the data, as information.

Oh and if you can't get the 11 reference, your google -fu is weak.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem very confused. Science is not atheistic or theistic. Anymore than a site such as food.com is a religious or areligious site. Science is a set of tools, not a religion. I know how you find this very hard to understand, but a great many scientists are indeed religious. Hindus's, Jews, Muslims, Christians of all flavours, Buddhists, etc

Thus a scientific site is just that, a site with science in it. While a Creationist site is a biased towarsds Christian (and perhaps Abrahamic) dogma site. Trying to twist the data to show god, rather than take the data, as information.

Oh and if you can't get the 11 reference, your google -fu is weak.


Calling me lad, thats so cute, Mr Chemist

Science is a tool, it CAN be used by people to sell tobacco, can be used to sell medicines, GMO, lies and profit


The question of origins (where did everything come from) has only two possible answers. Either the universe arose by itself or it didn’t. If it did then some sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account for reality. If it didn’t then there must be a Creator. There is no third option.1
creation.com...

therussells.crossfit.com...

articles.mercola.com...

www.ucsusa.org...

If you dont know that, I am terribly sorry for your ignorance, confusion and gullibility

Or science can be used as it should be, to test theory

Oh and just as a by, I am not interested in your 11 enough to google, its your game



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Anyone who leads off with creation.com as something to bolster their argument, clearly has a weak argument. It is also clear that you do not know what a reputable source is. This is in full evidence with your arguments, and refusal to read what people post as sources.

So back on OP. No a naturally occurring universe is no conspiracy, anymore so that the belied Deities created it is.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Anyone who leads off with creation.com as something to bolster their argument, clearly has a weak argument. It is also clear that you do not know what a reputable source is. This is in full evidence with your arguments, and refusal to read what people post as sources.

So back on OP. No a naturally occurring universe is no conspiracy, anymore so that the belied Deities created it is.


Says someone who identifies himself as a chemist to bolster their argum...

I noted you ignored the other links that were supplied, non religious sites, how very convenient, all explaining the corruption of science by scientists and business to earn more cash?
This is in full evidence with your arguments, and refusal to read what people post as sources.

So back on OP.
Its easier to do that, back on OP than argue evidence that shows the corruption of science by scientists

and you know what, I consider your atheist science sites corrupted, more so than creation sites
It is clear that you do not know what a reputable source is.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join