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.

 

How close are you in believing ?

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject

It seems you are adamant that there could be a designer, just because there is no proof otherwise.

There could be, absolutely. What I have been concerned with is your claims that there is no designer, period--you are stating it as a fact. The possibility is highly unlikely, but not impossible. I don't think any reasonable person with a scientific mind would claim with certainty that a designer does not exist. You can't prove that... you would have to look in an infinite amount of places and be given an infinite amount of time, and given the (apparently) finite constraints of the universe, such an endeavour is physically impossible.


Just because science is yet to prove that our existence is due to mass coincidence does not mean other fact proven by science do not already answer these questions.

Again, science doesn't prove anything. It seeks to obtain evidence in support of the null hypothesis. If there is no evidence for the null hypothesis, there is no reason to accept the null hypothesis--however, that does not discount the possibility of the null hypothesis being "correct"; it just means that the evidence doesn't currently support it. Additionally, the evidence thus far suggests that our existence is just a mass coincidence... so there is no real reason to believe that there is a designer.


It can be seen in snowflakes, the ice patterns that are created and fall to the ground have been studied meticulously for there infinite design yet is only due to natural occurring heating up and cooling down processes as it falls.

Of course. I am not disputing that.

This goes back to the age old story told to children. The giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the tall tree's. Religious outlook. Things are made for purpose. The giraffe has a long neck, so chooses to eat the food of tall trees. Common sense, reason.

Giraffes have long necks not because they were designed as such, but because of natural selection. Giraffes that had the longer necks were the most likely to survive thus most likely to reproduce, resulting in giraffes in subsequent generations being born with the trait of a longer neck.
edit on 16-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: peter vlar

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


Too bad Crick didn't say that. That quote is from Astronomer Fred Hoyle and as context is key, was meant to promote Panspermia over Abiogenesis.

Since we're quoting from Dr. Hoyle, he also said

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


For good measure, here's an actual quote from Crick-


"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children?"


Thanks, nice to have manners. Cheers-


I'm sorry that you feel my manners aren't to your liking but from my perspective, it's insulting and terribly frustrating, when people quote mine to support their position and can't be bothered to know whether or not the quote is even legitimate. The same quotes are misattributed time and time again to support the same arguments. You never would have bothered to check the veracity of your attribution had others not pointed out the error to you. So if I appeared rude to you, my apologies, but I was biting my tongue and offering a much more pleasant reply than my initial reaction would have lent itself to after seeing the same quote misattributed to the same individual with the same appeal to authority for the umpteenth time.


You can be forgiven for thinking that everything I say is sarcastic. ;-)

Seriously, thanks for the polite correction. I was alluding to the overzealous rantings of someone else.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Why is it, no one I have ever said the giraffe situation to understands it at all.

I am not asking you to tell me why it has a long neck, I am saying it has a long neck because of evolution and thus eats what IT finds easy to reach. So yes, evolutionary is correct but the point is not that. The point is that you can say the same to all existence on this planet and elsewhere. It is not designed by a designer but an end result to a complex pattern.

I am going to state that yes, there is no designer. There is no proof there is no designer, yes but that does not change anything. It is clear just looking at what we know already that the bigger picture has no designer. Only smaller fractions can be set to be designed. Hence humans cloning or other life forms interfering with us, they could be called a designer of us if that was the case but still, they are not THE designer. They are a product of an undesigned mess.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Again to reply to another person that I tell this situation and does not see it for what I am saying.

It is clear the giraffe has a long neck due to evolution, done. However the point is, the life it leads and the food it eats is only due to its random creation. Just like we eat whatever we get our hands on, however then their becomes preference.

That is all there is to be understood. They are NOT crated for an end reason. They just are.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: logicsoda

Why is it, no one I have ever said the giraffe situation to understands it at all.

Because you claimed that giraffes' necks were "made for a purpose". They weren't "made for a purpose" at all. If that's not what you meant then you did not explain yourself very clearly.


I am not asking you to tell me why it has a long neck, I am saying it has a long neck because of evolution and thus eats what IT finds easy to reach.

It seemed to me as if you were arguing from design rather than evolution in saying "The giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the tall tree's. Religious outlook. Things are made for purpose". I apologize if this is not what you meant, but I only deal with what is stated, not what is intended.


The point is that you can say the same to all existence on this planet and elsewhere. It is not designed by a designer but an end result to a complex pattern.

Again with the fact claims. I agree with you that all existence on this planet and elsewhere was not designed--we have a pretty great understanding as to how life has come about on this planet and could theorize as to how life could arise on other planets, as well. My only gripe is your claim that there is no designer. You don't know that there is no designer... which is my point, yet you keep claiming as if you know that there is no designer


I am going to state that yes, there is no designer. There is no proof there is no designer, yes but that does not change anything.

As I said before, to prove that you would have to be given an infinite amount of time to look in an infinite amount of places to confirm that statement. The universe (the observable universe) is finite, so that is not possible. Your claim is an ignorant one and is not scientific whatever.
edit on 16-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Yeah I think you misunderstand me totally friend.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda


I don't think any reasonable person with a scientific mind would claim with certainty that a designer does not exist.


you are right, in the same way any reasonable person with a scientific mind couldnt look at a child playing with unicorns and say "those are toys based on a fictional creature" because there is a possibility that a planet full of unicorns is floating around in solar system on the other side of the galaxy. but if i may, i think the question has evolved. for instance, the example of planet unicorn in the south side of the milky way or what have you. what impact would this planet have on our own world? at what point does our world engage with that world and have a measurable effect on one another? the same question applies to designers. what practical impact does this hypothetical being have on our world? do you observe an impact that can be solidly traced back to him/her/it? in the event that some higher intelligence or superhuman agency was indeed isolated the question would become (or has already become) one of relevance. relevance to who we are, what is important to us, what is better or worse for individual, family and species, or what this little blue pearl means to the billions of galaxies oblivious to us and perhaps to themselves. was there a measurable change? what are the dimensions of this change? and does that mean we must change? so many questions. its not just "does god exist? if no, then keep looking. if yes, then submit" and its not just "how close are you in believing?" there are myriad angles to investigate and scores of questions to pursue.


Again, science doesn't prove anything. It seeks to obtain evidence in support of the null hypothesis. If there is no evidence for the null hypothesis, there is no reason to accept the null hypothesis--however, that does not discount the possibility of the null hypothesis being "correct"; it just means that the evidence doesn't currently support it. Additionally, the evidence thus far suggests that our existence is just a mass coincidence... so there is no real reason to believe that there is a designer.


its nice to see you mentioning the null hypothesis. what is the null hypothesis exactly?


In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups. Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.


en.wikipedia.org...

i enjoy the null hypothesis because its a simple expression of a simple idea, which is the whole reason people like the idea of a creator being. but you can translate the null hypothesis mathematically and demonstrate its effectiveness as a filter between causality and coincidence. thats why its simplicity is so wonderful, because its harder to twist simple devices to make them look inept. there are other systems which dont exactly make a secret of blurring that line or filter rather than reinforcing it, because it aids their marketing strategies. its an elaborate version of the shell game. confusion is their ally.
edit on 16-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: logicsoda

Yeah I think you misunderstand me totally friend.


Apparently so. You weren't being clear in saying what you truly meant to say.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I believe in GOD for the reason that, things happen in this world called miracles that science cannot explain. It all comes down to faith. I would rather believe in something, than not believe.
you can't see the air that you breath, but you have faith its there. You can't see the wind, but you know its there.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: hunter189
I believe in GOD for the reason that, things happen in this world called miracles that science cannot explain.

I've never understood this logic. Why does it mean that God is responsible for whatever science can't explain? Science currently can't explain what, exactly, dark matter is--however that does not mean that there will never be a scientific explanation for it. There are many things today that science could not explain even one hundred years ago. Seems like an appeal to ignorance fallacy to me.


It all comes down to faith. I would rather believe in something, than not believe.

Why?


you can't see the air that you breath, but you have faith its there. You can't see the wind, but you know its there.

No, it is not faith. Science has shown us what air is and why we would die without it. We have evidence for air just as we have evidence for the wind.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: solve

That vid was hilarious, good one!




I've always wondered what the relationship is between organic chemistry and that which animates it is? it's bizarre how certain chemicals, even in relatively tiny doses effect the consciousness so profoundly. Is sentience merely the manifestation of billions of firing neurons in the brain? Or does the brain just happen to be the center of the manifestation of sentience?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

The fact is nobody knows the secrets of the universe truly, not as yet and likely never. Eternity is just to vast a number to compute so to speak, and if the universe was created at some measurable point in the "beginning" then what created that? Or doe's physics conveniently allow for something out of nothing in this case?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian





I believe there may be something out there, maybe not. Out of all of the creationist theories, I find the computer simulation model to be the most reasonable. I am open minded.


There exist a serious rift in physics between classic physics and Quantum mechanics. This is the new frontier in physics, combining the two theory's into the ultimate theory of everything!
Theoretical physicists know there is an underlying reality waiting to be discovered and believe a unified theory could reveal this mystery. But, it is highly unlikly they will find some OZ pulling the ropes, it's more likely we will discover new particals and their mechanisms, than a anthropomorphic deity doing the work in background.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

I am pretty sure that we are just vessels for something that is eternal, all the answers are hidden within the mind.
They are hard to find, but they are all there, because we are here. Now.

And i am not joking about what i have posted on this thread, i truly believe.

But then again, i am mentally ill, but that does not mean anything to me. we are all ill.
Especially those who think they are not.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69



What is it that's making you question modern science?


Modern Science attempts to answer What Is
Relying on advanced technology to see and hear what the senses can not

Modern technology only gleans a small percentage of Reality ... the rest is up for grabs so to speak

Humans are limited by their senses (for good reason) .... Information overload being the factor.

However the spiritual aspect of Humanity can not be denied
To do so is to do both yourself and the Universe a dis service

Yet to cling onto ideas that have be proven scientifically invalid is folly ....

Science has yet to disprove the existence of the soul
And spirituality has yet to prove the existence of "God"

All religion aside ... spirituality still is and will always be

I personally am 99% sure of the soul's existence through personal mental verification.



edit on 17-8-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: uncommitted

Again to reply to another person that I tell this situation and does not see it for what I am saying.

It is clear the giraffe has a long neck due to evolution, done. However the point is, the life it leads and the food it eats is only due to its random creation. Just like we eat whatever we get our hands on, however then their becomes preference.

That is all there is to be understood. They are NOT crated for an end reason. They just are.


So, rather than read the very interesting link that, given the expertise of those postulating a theory has comments from people more qualified to give a view than you, states there is at this moment nothing to rule in or out as to why the giraffe's neck extended, you decide you are right and that's it.

Respectfully (or not) I'll leave you to it.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This discussion is usually biased towards the perception of the commenter. God is not one set thing; God isn't one overlord, or man or being. God encompasses everything, including you, me, and everything else that exists within this universe, or well that's my opinion.

It gets a bit twisted when evolution can prove about as much as a religious person can show. The reason people tend to accept evolution more than the idea of God is that religion destroys the concept of God by making it seem as if God is a definite character with powers beyond that of an average human and is in full control of us. It's what they've learned, and they propel the misconception of one man for thousands of years. The majority who are unable to think for themselves will continue to spread this propaganda, and so it will become a horrible tale which spreads like wildfire across the land.

As for evolution, it's unproven. It just seems significantly more logical than the big man in the sky with eyes looking down at us controlling us yet we have free will. Yes, it is by far more logical if you're to accept another man's misconception of God. However, you'd see these two ideas are much of the same, once you can break free and understand your concept of God.

Both things are correct. We didn't appear out of thin air; WE WERE CREATED. Be it by the force of nature or the universe, we were first created. After all, we are but just unified atoms. And WE DO EVOLVE; we are highly adaptable, and this shows every three years. The reality in which we live changes significantly over the course of 3 years. This isn't a fact but a rough estimate. The changes are due to the technology which becomes available to us, and we see ourselves getting with it while some of us cling on to older technology. It'd be just the same with our physical characters, as you can see year by the typical human changes.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Considering it was the Christian movement that started the advancement of science I find your post a little ill informed.

Prior to the reformation, the church controlled science, after the Protestant movement broke out, education became accessible

I can't think of any non religious bodys that have ever excelled in education before the Protestant movement

Atheism did not breed science, atheism didn't come into science to recently



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This always confuses me too. Science is FAR more exciting, breathtaking, and plus it changes as opposed to a belief structure that has remained the same for thousands of years. Science tells us SOOO much more about the universe than any one religion (or even all of them combined) could ever hope to tell us about the universe.



This always confuses me
That a person can deny the amount of religious people who were the foundations of science
As if some of the greatest names in science never existed because they were christians, Muslim, not atheist

Should we show a list of the greatest scientists, more than half would be religious

It's like science has become a religion of atheism and only atheists can claim it as their own

That's really sad



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

I can understand and accept that as a very good theory, what I can't accept is the complete lack of fossils of the other species of animals with a neck length that is at stages between a giraffe and what ever animal they were supposed to have evolved from

That's not science, that's why I can't believe in evolution

It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume
Assuming takes science into the regions of faith



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join