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.

 

The Interface Between Science and God

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: slowisfast




It's not that he's arguing that 100M+ were killed in the name of Darwin's theory (I could be wrong maybe he is) It's that the worldview that Darwin proposes, that the Universe, as well as human persons, is a by-product of time+chance acting upon matter leads to an entirely subjective view of existence.


I'm quite sure that is exactly what he meant - he posted the same sentence in another thread in response to another poster. If he meant something different, then he should have included an explanation. Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler certainly don't provide that explanation. It only leaves question marks.

Darwin's observations were rudimentary at best. He didn't have a laboratory with the instrumentation that would eventually demonstrate that his fundamental idea of natural selection was in fact valid. That said, Darwin's discovery changed the world. It opened up a whole new field of study.

I have mentioned this before, but since you might be new on this particular board, I will repeat: there are over 500 recognized scientific journals which focus on some aspect of evolution including Darwin's theory. Within those 500 journals are thousands of research articles which contain verified data derived from methodologies which could only be done in today's modern lab environment.

Regarding "chance", randomness is a mathematical concept. There are hierarchies of randomness - it's not just the luck of the draw. This article explains what it means and how it's used. The terms "chance" and "random" mean different thing to a scientist and a layman. Since you're delving into science, it would be worth your while to read the article:

Randomness and Mathematical Proof

Scientific American 232, No. 5 (May 1975), pp. 47-52

by Gregory J. Chaitin

www.cs.auckland.ac.nz...





This view of the world, where there is no objective moral values and duties, no innate value given to human persons, can lead to situations(has led to situations) where 'might makes right' and governments and tyrants have executed that worldview to it's logical end. Mass genocide of valueless talking animals. In that worldview Governments take the place of the transcendent and are the arbiters of 'right' and 'wrong' which, as history has shown, can be quite detrimental to human beings on the short end of that stick. Unless there is some sort of objective code to differentiate between right and wrong, we have no business looking back on history and claiming what they did was evil or good or whatever. It just was.



Darwin never implied any of this. He was a scientist, an observer who recorded his observations and his theory. He had religious leanings, but no where did he state that his observations could lead to "right and wrong" decisions.

Raggedy has a bad habit of making statements that he can't substantiate. Then again, we knew that. But we probe him/her anyway!


edit on 8-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
E = mc^2: Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

This is the exchange rate between that which is seen and unseen - matter and energy. The fact that the speed of light is encoded into this exchange deepens the metaphysical significance of light.

Another thing too - if mass is simply densified energy, why do we base our theories on the workings of matter when it is secondary to energy? Just some thoughts.


Not quite the whole story - "m" or mass is relativistic mass. An object's rest mass and energy is fixed. But a moving object cannot travel faster than the speed of light but it can gain momentum and energy. Einstein - special relativity - at least that's how I understand it.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


This is the exchange rate between that which is seen and unseen - matter and energy. The fact that the speed of light is encoded into this exchange deepens the metaphysical significance of light.


or maybe light is just a pretty convenient basis for measuring stuff that we cant physically access.


Another thing too - if mass is simply densified energy, why do we base our theories on the workings of matter when it is secondary to energy? Just some thoughts.


because matter is a more stable lab material than pure energy.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here is astounding, revolutionary, hard, mathematical evidence for the existence of the interface between scientific facts/discoveries and the transcendental, as revealed in the mystical traditions of religions and ancient philosophy:
smphillips.8m.com...
Because the volume of evidence is encyclopaedic and entirely new, you are advised to begin your study at the start of the section Sacred Geometry and work you way towards the more advanced sections.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
Here is astounding, revolutionary, hard, mathematical evidence for the existence of the interface between scientific facts/discoveries and the transcendental, as revealed in the mystical traditions of religions and ancient philosophy:
smphillips.8m.com...
Because the volume of evidence is encyclopaedic and entirely new, you are advised to begin your study at the start of the section Sacred Geometry and work you way towards the more advanced sections.


i dont suppose this encyclopedia of sacred geometry comes with a copy of standard trigonometry and calculus for reference purposes?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Oh phantom calm down

I reply to your threads about how religion causes violence by highlighting the violence caused by atheists and their political machines

I like to use the 100 million PLUS figure because it's true

Slow is fast is right, though you knew that anyway

Blaming religion for wars and violence is as stupid as blaming Darwin.
I like to play your game

Just as an aside, did you watch your video, it was interesting, I don't think you did.

You have a bad habit of hypocrisy



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's the point?
I guess it's just pointing out your unwillingness to be honest.

That's all.



Really, really are you asking what is the point based on naivety or not understanding my post

Hitler may not have been telling the truth, note how dishonest US politicians are, maybe hitler was not very honest either
What do you think?

I guess old Adolph in your opinion was truthful so was telling the truth then, hmm, ok



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's the point?
I guess it's just pointing out your unwillingness to be honest.

That's all.



Really, really are you asking what is the point based on naivety or not understanding my post

Hitler may not have been telling the truth, note how dishonest US politicians are, maybe hitler was not very honest either
What do you think?

I guess old Adolph in your opinion was truthful so was telling the truth then, hmm, ok



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You accept lies told to you about religion and "evolution is fake", but dismiss butler because he might be lying?

Hypocrisy much?
edit on 882016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: slowisfast

It's not that he's arguing that 100M+ were killed in the name of Darwin's theory (I could be wrong maybe he is)
It's that the worldview that Darwin proposes, that the Universe, as well as human persons, is a by-product of time+chance acting upon matter leads to an entirely subjective view of existence.

This view of the world, where there is no objective moral values and duties, no innate value given to human persons, can lead to situations(has led to situations) where 'might makes right' and governments and tyrants have executed that worldview to it's logical end. Mass genocide of valueless talking animals. In that worldview Governments take the place of the transcendent and are the arbiters of 'right' and 'wrong' which, as history has shown, can be quite detrimental to human beings on the short end of that stick.

Unless there is some sort of objective code to differentiate between right and wrong, we have no business looking back on history and claiming what they did was evil or good or whatever. It just was.


Hi slowisfast
That's exactly what I think
The unhappy crowd around here know that as well, it's a tired old argument, it's very accurate as well if you strip Darwins theory down to its bone
Sadly it can't be argued against and many evil people throughout history have used it for genocide
Look at the Amarican Indians, inhuman savages, mere animals

Darwins evolution theory has been used as a philosophy, it is easy to paint a picture of the violence that has fruited from its tree.
Far worse the violence from Darwins tree than religion.

It's true my argument is not fair, it has a few holes, circumstances and issues, though based on death counts, it certainly proves that the atheists champion, the theory, well it's no passive belief
That based on that theory many millions have been sentenced, far more than those by religion
Pointing out the inconsistencies in the atheist argument causes quite some conflict, defensive rhetoric, attacks and bluster.

As an aside, religion is evil, it causes violence, terrible violence, it should be stopped, so is any system that is trying to become totalitarian, like atheism and it's bed partner evolution, as used in this situation.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Look at the Amarican Indians, inhuman savages, mere animals


you mean native americans? thats who you are calling inhuman savages?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
So randomness proves evolution, really
Randomness proves evolution, seriously

That's a pathetic assumption, randomness proves things happen at random, nothing else

Darwin never sis imply any of that, it's true, though we can see clearly, look back at recent history and see how it was used by some atheists, canny you and I

I won't wait for an answer,meat grienf



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

According to some evolutionists they were not as evolved as white man, neither are colored, Asians, Indians, the Irish, Eastern Europeans etcetera
It's not my belief, I am a Christian, for me we all have two common ancestors, we are all from the same paternal parentage, human, created, but you know I believe that

That's our argument



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

You accept lies told to you about religion and "evolution is fake", but dismiss butler because he might be lying?

Hypocrisy much?


No, common sense shows me evolution is fake, the butler was a liar and I don't accept religion or its lies either

So completely wrong on all counts, please, by all mean have another attempt



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't accept religion yet, here you are, shouting about your religion.

You're funny.

What's the next joke?

Oh, wait. "Atheists killed 100+ million people". You crack me up!



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't accept religion yet, here you are, shouting about your religion.

You're funny.

What's the next joke?

Oh, wait. "Atheists killed 100+ million people". You crack me up!


according to the black book of communism, this is an arguable statistic.
edit on 8-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

According to some evolutionists they were not as evolved as white man, neither are colored, Asians, Indians, the Irish, Eastern Europeans etcetera
It's not my belief, I am a Christian, for me we all have two common ancestors, we are all from the same paternal parentage, human, created, but you know I believe that

That's our argument




i dont see anyone else claiming that native americans are inhuman savages. those are YOUR words. libel is a serious offense, did you know that?


li·bel
ˈlībəl/
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

edit on 8-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh I am terrified tar, absolutely terrified, I won't ever come back here to ats because of my fear
You win by default
I have libeled someone, some atheists, oh woe is me

What shall I become, destined to wander poor, penniless, the wastelands forever, in my XA coupe and trusty dog eating cans of dog food and battling outlanders for the meat sniff of guzzoline

Your funny



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Oh I am terrified tar, absolutely terrified, I won't ever come back here to ats because of my fear
You win by default
I have libeled someone, some atheists, oh woe is me


i know, silly of me to think for even a second that you might reconsider your strategy. its worked so well for you this far.


What shall I become, destined to wander poor, penniless, the wastelands forever, in my XA coupe and trusty dog eating cans of dog food and battling outlanders for the meat sniff of guzzoline


or just not make this about race? religion vs science is more than enough conflict for one thread, no need to add baking soda to the vinegar.
edit on 8-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You would deny that the US government used the sub human card on the American Indians?

Are you that naive, you didn't study history did you.
They were described by your own government as savages, murdered as inferior, libel


Yeah, go get the US government to sue me for libel, I will pay off your debt to China for you, billions I tell you, billions

Tar you are silly
edit on 8-8-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join