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: 9
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

I don't believe the evidence, the lack of fossils may be easily excused by you, that's your choice. I remain unconvinced

That's entirely up to you. Quite frankly I think you would still remain "unconvinced" even if there was an abundance of fossils and they all smacked you in the face.



Your arguments about light and speed, they are strawman arguments, they are things we see and can still be tested, totally irrelevant in context

They are not strawmen arguments whatever. A strawman argument would be if I were to misrepresent your position and attack that position... what I was doing was making the claim that there are certain assumptions that we make based on evidence that has been previously required, and that they are ubiquitous in the realm of science--such was a response to your claim "It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume".


It is entirely up to me, well done you
The lack of fossil evidence is not an issue that we struggle with just for our friend the giraffe, we also have one or two other problems with the fossil record but hey, you can dismiss the millions of invisible fossils and assume they can't be found because or yet

It's assumption
Now you have produced two strawman, one about weights falling from somewhere and the speed of light, both observable and testable and hardly related
Go do a little study

Trying to educate you further would be an effort in futility. Continue to believe in whatever nonsense you believe, just be sure to bring your children up not thinking the way you do (assuming you have/will ever have children). It is very seriously flawed.


Gosh, I hope you dont have children and never do as well, brainwashing them into believing that science is assumption and that they are just animals and what a silly thing I am saying
It is obviously to show you how silly you are in saying what you say

Comparing evolution to an objects fall to Earth, the speed of light whichincidentallymay not be a constant based on previous experimentation and observation.
www.livescience.com...
www.dailygalaxy.com...
www.sciencenews.org...


See cowboy, you could be wrong, the assumption could be wrong, your whole argument could be wrong, its an assumption

Now try and stay on topic, try be a big boy, leave my children out of this argument.

Deal with the topic at hand
and please research the speed of light assumption you seemed to have failed on


originally posted by: logicsoda
and the assumption is made that the speed of light is a constant based on previous experimentation and observation. Assumptions are everywhere in science.


I mean thats funny, you have to laugh at that dont you
Saying the speed of light is a constant based on assumption and modern science has corrected that light is variable and you think the old assumption is right.
Pure Gold




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Gosh, I hope you dont have children and never do as well, brainwashing them into believing that science is assumption and that they are just animals and what a silly thing I am saying

Well, firstly... I never said that science was assumption-- I said that there assumptions are ubiquitous in science. Secondly, they are just animals--they are part of the kingdom animalia, as I and all humans are. It's what the evidence suggests, so why would I not show them what the evidence suggets?


Comparing evolution to an objects fall to Earth, the speed of light whichincidentallymay not be a constant based on previous experimentation and observation.

I wasn't comparing evolution to objects falling to Earth and the speed of light... I was addressing your claim that science doesn't assume by showing you that there are certain assumptions in science.



See cowboy, you could be wrong, the assumption could be wrong, your whole argument could be wrong, its an assumption

Of course I could be. If I am, so be it. I personally don't care if I am incorrect/correct. I update my knowledgebase accordingly.


Now try and stay on topic, try be a big boy, leave my children out of this argument.

My only concern is that you are teaching them this same nonsense that you are spouting.

Deal with the topic at hand

I have been.


and please research the speed of light assumption you seemed to have failed on

I apologize. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, not necessarily as it travels through all mediums. I should have been more clear in what I was saying, that is my mistake.


I mean thats funny, you have to laugh at that dont you
Saying the speed of light is a constant based on assumption and modern science has corrected that light is variable and you think the old assumption is right.
Pure Gold

It absolutely is variable depending on the medium through which it travels. I should have explained what I was referring to, and that was in a vacuum. We are assuming, based on evidence that has been gathered, that light is constant in a vacuum.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Played with numbers so what ?

We keep on getting the same claims on conspiracy sites about people in the past being able to build with more accuracy, draw images like the Nazca lines as if we couldn't simple research proves that wrong.

We are here purely by chance and if you look at the numbers involved galaxies,stars & planets it's easy to see.

No god required


edit on 17-8-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

This is what I am talking about....


Gosh, I hope you dont have children and never do as well, brainwashing them into believing that science is assumption and that they are just animals and what a silly thing I am saying


What a rotten ungodly think to say to another human being. The same thing could be said about you, in regards to "brainwashing."

It sounds like you have a beef with anyone that does not believe in God. It sounds like you might have a beef with anyone that doesn't believe in things the way that you do.

Behavior like this is the #1 reason that religion disgusts me. Religious people are so quick to judge others, and have absolutely no respect for other people's points of view and look down on others. If that is what believing in God is, then I want no part in it.

If you need to defend your belief system by attacking other people's opinions, then it sounds like you might not have as much faith as you pretend to have.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Raggedyman

This is what I am talking about....


Gosh, I hope you dont have children and never do as well, brainwashing them into believing that science is assumption and that they are just animals and what a silly thing I am saying


What a rotten ungodly think to say to another human being. The same thing could be said about you, in regards to "brainwashing."

It sounds like you have a beef with anyone that does not believe in God. It sounds like you might have a beef with anyone that doesn't believe in things the way that you do.

Behavior like this is the #1 reason that religion disgusts me. Religious people are so quick to judge others, and have absolutely no respect for other people's points of view and look down on others. If that is what believing in God is, then I want no part in it.

If you need to defend your belief system by attacking other people's opinions, then it sounds like you might not have as much faith as you pretend to have.



Thats so funny, I was tongue in cheek replying to another poster who said simmilar to me, pointing out the vindictiveness, did you miss that?
Then I added this
" and what a silly thing I am saying
It is obviously to show you how silly you are in saying what you say "
but of course you cut that out, quote mined my comments, But hey Winstanian, you wave your flag

Just wondering why you didnt challenge logicsoda for bringing my children into this discussion or even bringing them up?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Its easy to get confused, thats my point



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I apologize, I did not see the previous comments. I would have criticized the post you are referring to.

Terribly sorry!

My mistake. I retract my statement.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SLAYER69


whatever it is we were designed/created to finally accomplish.


Really? Why do you think we are anything other than another branch of life? Assuming homo sapien had never come into being, assuming none of the forebears to homo sapien had come into being, do you think every other species of life - plant or animal - would have missed us? I'm not so sure an arrogance that we are somehow the best of breed holds true personally, and without our footprint, maybe the world would be in a much better place.

If you look at the events that culminated in where our planet is now, anyone of which could have seen our chances to exist dashed, I do hold some thoughts around the possibility of a divine creator for our world - if that was for our species or not (or if indeed any species was targeted) is a different matter.



If we (as we are) were the intended outcome, and it's not just a fluke, and if life as we know it was made by design and with intent, then given the context of the earth-moon-sun and solar system configuration, as positioned within the Milky Way and as it's positioning with the larger cluster of galaxies - then that's some pretty awesome fine-point control of space and time, by anticipation.

If otoh, it's just a number's game and a total fluke, then how to explain those design parameters except perhaps by some sort of sacred geometry also arising from a first cause which once again amounts to a type of design hypothesis by anticipation from a first cause, or we would not be here.

That our single giant moon perfectly eclipses the sun and is the same visible diameter, that's something that can only be potentially meaningful and significant to an earth-based observer and measurer, if one is to assign any degree of significance to it at all in the first place but which, by virtue of our ability to notice it, as we are, makes it meaningful and significant because we would not be here to observe it otherwise.

The design principals imbedded into everything we experience as life, right down to the quantum level, these cannot be so easily dismissed by saying simply that "it's just the way it is" or by invoking a multi-worlds strong anthropic principal. That just doesn't do the sword of reason justice and it's not the least bit scientific to begin with.

The strong anthropic principal simply renders the question meaningless and absurd on the basis that if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here, and that therefore we simply MUST have gotten exceedingly "lucky" to be in the position that we are, and even the universe that we find ourselves in or in other words that we are at the very very farthest end of a great universal lottery where everything just so happened to coalesce in a certain way such that we are here.

When viewed rationally and objectively and when certain things are taken into consideration like the mass of the Higgs Boson being shown to represent an almost infinite series of subtractions and fine-tuning, what we may come to see and recognize (re-cognize) is that the "world" we inhabit, taken in totality, at all levels, isn't some sort of capricious addition from nothing, but to the contrary an intelligent and intentional subtraction or reduction of the absolute formless potential via a reducing filter (to limit it's own absolute, formless potential), in order to make this reality possible, and that therefore, it was indeed anticipated from a first/last cause or "Alpha and Omega" of existence aka Godhead by anticipation and with intent. Fine-point control of space and time indeed!

What would be the "purpose"? To share, it would seem, and to make life as a domain of potential, actualized. Design and intent imply a plan and a purpose.

Coming back to your idea, you may wish to consider the role of observing man in the creation. Would it be as beautiful if man were not around to appreciate it, and observe it, measure it, participate and be a part of it?

If we were in fact included and not excluded from the blueprint for life, then again, we would not be here to appreciate it and may therefore conclude that the Universe is actually friendly to our being part of it.

There is nothing cold, dead and impersonal about it, about the experience of being alive, which by it's very nature, cannot be isolated but is intrinsic to the whole of it all, with a design and a plan and a purpose. Life is itself that which makes it valuable, meaningful and significant, with we ourselves of immense value since our own inclusion is integral to it's larger plan and purpose, whatever that may be..

Who can stand apart from themselves and their own experience and proclaim that it should not be what it is, or that it could have been anything other than what it is, since that's obviously not the case.

Thus, the problem with the "skeptic" is that they simply MUST abide by the "fluke" or coincidence hypothesis or make a last ditch appeal to the strong anthropic principal which really amounts to nothing but an infinite ocean of absurd possibilities; absurd, because none of those came to pass.

Even if all possibilities at one time came to pass in the fullness of eternity, and our actuality is the byproduct of that trial and error process, then how could that not be described as a form of intelligent design where after trying everything that didn't work, a way that it would was worked out in some sort of epiphany of creation which might even have began, on a whim.



"God has no wish for any other means of perfecting his creation than by our help. He will not reveal his Kingdom until we have laid its foundations"

"We are living in an unsaved world, and we are waiting for redemption in which we have been called upon to participate in a most unfathomable way"

~ Martin Buber, Theologian


edit on 18-8-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: typo



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

And please understand my comments were subjected to my own ridicule, I called my comments silly

Anyway, cool, don't stress it, easy done



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
If we were designed, its a terrible designer. Who designs an air tube that is shared with a food tube?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: doclec
If we were designed, its a terrible designer. Who designs an air tube that is shared with a food tube?


Someone who wanted a compact neck, also can you think of a reason it might be better that way, think about it logically



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: doclec
If we were designed, its a terrible designer. Who designs an air tube that is shared with a food tube?


Someone who wanted a compact neck, also can you think of a reason it might be better that way, think about it logically


what about all of these flaws in the human anatomy?

io9.gizmodo.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Just wondering why you didnt challenge logicsoda for bringing my children into this discussion or even bringing them up?

Probably because you said "I hope you never have children" vs what I said, which was "Continue to believe in whatever nonsense you believe, just be sure to bring your children up not thinking the way you do (assuming you have/will ever have children). It is very seriously flawed."



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: doclec
If we were designed, its a terrible designer. Who designs an air tube that is shared with a food tube?


Someone who wanted a compact neck, also can you think of a reason it might be better that way, think about it logically


what about all of these flaws in the human anatomy?

io9.gizmodo.com...



The Dual Function of the Pharynx

This is one of the most problematic "features" of the human body — and the cause of innumerable deaths throughout human history. Like many other primates, we're forced to use the same anatomical structure for both ingestion and respiration. But when obstructed, airflow is blocked, which can lead to choking, and in some cases, death.

Our Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin C

Vitamin C plays a crucial role as an anti-oxidant and in collagen synthesis. But certain animals, such as primates, guinea pigs, and some bats and birds, have completely lost the ability to synthesize this compound. So, when Vitamin C-rich food sources are scarce, such as fruits, we experience a weakened immune response — not to mention scurvy in extreme cases.

The Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Tract

The urinary tract in males passes through — rather than being routed around — the prostate gland, which can swell and block urinary function.

The Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum

Not only is this aesthetically displeasing, it's also unhygienic. Combined with our short urethras — especially in women — this leads to frequent urinary tract and bladder infections (UTIs) (remember, front to back, ladies). As the character Darald quipped in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, "Let me just say that if God was a city planner he would not put a playground next to a sewage system."

Our Over-Loaded Lower Backs

This is also a consequence of our transition from four-legged to two-legged creatures. According to paleoanthropologist Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio:

When humans stood upright, they took a spine that had evolved to be stiff for climbing and moving in trees and rotated it 90 degrees, so it was vertical—a task Latimer compared to stacking 26 cups and saucers on top of each other (vertebrae and discs) and then, balancing a head on top. But so as not to obstruct the birth canal and to get the torso balanced above our feet, the spine has to curve inwards (lordosis), creating the hollow of our backs. That's why our spines are shaped like an "S." All that curving, with the weight of the head and stuff we carry stacked on top, creates pressure that causes back problems—especially if you play football, do gymnastics, or swim the butterfly stroke. In the United States alone, 700,000 people suffer vertebral fractures per year and back problems are the sixth leading human malady in the world. "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through to about 40 or 50," said Latimer. "After that, you're on your own."

Our Achy Knees

Again, an aftereffect of bipedalism. We have to distribute all our weight on just two limbs, which often leads to aches and pains. You can also add achy, or arthritic hips, to this list.

Our Inefficient Sinuses

Humans have several sinuses — air-filled cavities that help with drainage of mucus and fluid. But our maxillary sinuses, located on our cheekbone, drain upwards. This often leads to the build-up of fluids and mucus, which can cause an infection.

The "Blind Spot" in Our Eyes

Our so-called "blind spot" is the result of a quirk that happens during embryological development. To deal with this, we've had to evolve elaborate and costly perception-correcting mechanisms.


just a few examples of how "intelligently" we were "designed". lol?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
This reminds me of Brandon Levon's work/threads. At least the display of the ages he puts up.





I have only watched 1-5 then skipped to 8.

The part about Joseph of Arimethia was something l'd never heard regarding landed property in England.Though I have heard of him being a tin miner there taking along Jesus as a boy.?.

These videos are certainly not about 'Religion' but about the numerical codes and astrological signs in the Universe, imo.

The connections he made with all the numbers from earth, sun, moon, structures was astounding, how they added up to 9 very interesting.

Why must there be a separation between Science and a Creator (Universal Mind) as I call it.

There is something far more intelligent than all beings in our vast Universe my belief. Science is the proof of this grand design.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Just wondering why you didnt challenge logicsoda for bringing my children into this discussion or even bringing them up?

Probably because you said "I hope you never have children" vs what I said, which was "Continue to believe in whatever nonsense you believe, just be sure to bring your children up not thinking the way you do (assuming you have/will ever have children). It is very seriously flawed."


If you can justify bringing my children into this argument
All the better for you
Please reflect on the fact I was taking your comment to its only logical conclusion and I wasn't serious

Truthfully, I am of the opinion you are the character with the serious flaw
How I bring my children up is not your buisness, I will teach my children both storys, you in fear will only teach yours the one story you want them to believe

What bothers me is you demand others believe what you do, that's what Stalin, Hitler and Mao dos in the past, and then forced it



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no logic to it, otherwise whats the point of a giraffe from a design standpoint? If you are an intelligent design supporter I think you have to examine your position mich closer. Why design an appendix, if it can kill you? Why design tonsils? Why design a cell that can backfire and destroy the whole body. Are these really "intelligent" designs?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no logic to it, otherwise whats the point of a giraffe from a design standpoint? If you are an intelligent design supporter I think you have to examine your position mich closer. Why design an appendix, if it can kill you? Why design tonsils? Why design a cell that can backfire and destroy the whole body. Are these really "intelligent" designs?


Why design Wisdom teeth, why design whale pelvic bones, why design..

It doesnt matter, there is plenty of information about all that, you have chosen not to research it.
Not much point me trying to tell you anything, I am the last person you will listen to



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

All those things that you mentioned are evolutionary developments rather than instantaneous designs though. I could do all the research you want me to but the conclusion would point to stages of animal development that are leftovers from previous anatomies. Looking for an intellegent design in these structures is just...illogical.
edit on 8/18/2016 by doclec because: Misspelling



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: doclec

Logic?

To whose understanding, ours? What parameters? Our own?

I understand that may seem simplistic to some but is it?

We are but one specie, on one planet, trying to not only figure out our own existence but to define life and all it's secrets and significance based on one tiny blue marble worth of experiences out of Billions or even 1e+120 of combinations of experiences.


edit on 18-8-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join