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.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: SLAYER69
Religion states we are flawed, we are born in sin. Destined to do sinner stuff and all the consequences. Flawed beings cannot pull their collective butts into a state of perfection. Observational evidence suggests this is the case, greed lust etc.
I guess where I separate myself from Religion and being a 'Believer" is that I don't follow "Their" dogma.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: TzarChasm
If, that all YOU gleam from it. I'm ok with that.
what is the point you were attempting to discuss?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.
If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.
If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.
True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).
Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.
If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.
True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).
Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.
No there wouldn't be someone else in your chair, there would be no universe in which a chair is possible.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.
If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.
True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).
Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.
No there wouldn't be someone else in your chair, there would be no universe in which a chair is possible.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: flyingfish
Awesome reply
Thank you.
I was going to go into a completely different topic based discussion but this thread ended up in a completely different forum than it was originally perceived for.
I'll try again in time under different verbiage..
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You are still trying to make the past fit the present. Like I said you are doing it wrong. You make the present fit the past, not the other way around.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak
But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.
"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick
The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion. Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p. 14
"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children?"
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You are still trying to make the past fit the present. Like I said you are doing it wrong. You make the present fit the past, not the other way around.
When scientists study the cosmic background radiation they are studying the past to fit it to the present. Why are you not critical of them doing exactly what you state is the wrong way to do things?
Your statements are hypocritical nonsense.