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.

 

A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

page: 20
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Do you find veracity in the theory of evolution?

What do you think the best estimate is for the age of our universe?




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

The hell are you talking about? ETA: OHHHHH You are a evolution denier. Gotcha. I'm not going to watch your crummy Youtube video. I prefer looking at science not propaganda.


I think you're being kind be limiting it to denial of evolution when in fact, to get to that point, one must first dismiss multiple scientific disciplines as a whole ranging from Geology to Genetics to Chemistry to Biology. Just look at their citations... Awake and The Watchtower, both JW propaganda rags thst wouldn't know science if Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave them a lap dance while reciting the periodic table. There is no debate, no discussion. Only deflection. It's pretty standard at this point.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: edmc^2


to get 2, 1 needs to exist before the effect.





In order to cross a distance on 100 miles...You must first arrive at the half-way mark of 50 miles..

In order to arrive at 50 miles..you must first arrive at 25 miles..

before that 12.5 miles..

before that...6.25 miles

before travelling 6.25 miles you must first travel 3.125 miles..

Ad infinitum..

The only way to actually move is a succession of teleportation's?

reductio ad absurdum

The Dichotomy Paradox..

It is a Math problem, not a reality problem.


The math for the cat being alive and dead in two boxes simultaneously gets a bit harder. Which is where sometimes these simple examples just fall flat.

Ironically I find some not many but some often applied science zealots who also can't fathom reality may be quite a bit different then assumed. There were people who even staring at the electron microscope findings couldn't believe it was real. A door is solid end of story.

Personally I enjoy open minded people of a kind. The war between atheism and religion is mundane and cliche compared to the intellectual battles. I never minded debating Christian apologists because they had thought about philosophy. The rank and follow church goers often don't think at all about these issues. As far as it goes for them is what is being told reality is every Sunday for an hour.


edit on 18-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I can assure you academically Christians who dispute or feel threatened by evolution are few. It's a rediculous position to take.

It also has nothing to do with God and if it they, he or she exist.

If my computer prints off something I wrote the printer has nothing to do with writing the story.

This isn't meant to say I believe in a creator I am just pointing out how rediculous denying a process is.

Yeah it means the book is poetry but so what. Good books have changed my life too. They didn't have to be written by God for me to allow them to move me.

Ps I know you know that this is a ludicrous view and even not many Christians take it. I am just trying to get out there it's obscure even in Christianity.
edit on 18-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Kind of related..

The Vatican employs a Chief Astronomer..



He believes in the need for science and religion to work alongside one another rather than as competing ideologies. In 2006, he said, "Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it's turning God into a nature god."

en.wikipedia.org...

they also have an Academy of Science


On 8 November 2012 Pope Benedict XVI told members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
"Dialogue and cooperation between faith and science are urgently needed for building a culture that respects people and the planet... Without faith and science informing each other "the great questions of humanity leave the domain of reason and truth, and are abandoned to the irrational, to myth, or to indifference, with great damage to humanity itself, to world peace and to our ultimate destiny....

en.wikipedia.org...

I, myself am agnostic, but I do believe that their is room for faith and science to co-exist..

The concept of religion vs. science is usually made by the most irrational of both fields IMO.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I can assure you academically Christians who dispute or feel threatened by evolution are few. It's a rediculous position to take.


I agree completely. I was one of only a couple of agnostics or atheists in the entire program when I studied paleoanthropology. My mother in law worked at the Human Genome Project prior to it going public and the CEO, Dr. Francis Collins, is a staunch advocate of Christianity and still one of the worlds preeminent Geneticists who also staunchly asserts the solid science supporting MES


It also has nothing to do with God and if it they, he or she exist.


I'm inclined to agree with this. However, many who fall back on their faith as a defense against science do not feel the same way.


If my computer prints off something I wrote the printer has nothing to do with writing the story.

This isn't meant to say I believe in a creator I am just pointing out how rediculous denying a process is.


I don't deny the possibilities of anything provided there is something to substantiate the possibility in question. The only thing I typically deny is an assertion not supported by facts.


Yeah it means the book is poetry but so what. Good books have changed my life too. They didn't have to be written by God for me to allow them to move me.


Hey, there are some lovely passages in Constantines version of Christianity as outlined at Nicea and Laodicea. Some of the Psalms are quite lovely and well written.

But, at the end of the day, it's a compilation, a book that was put together with one goal in mind. To make it easier to convert then entirety of Roman territory to Christianity as a state religion. It wasn't ever actually intended to reveal any truths aside from those purported by whichever bat $#it crazy Emperor was debauching his throne that particular year.

When you get right down to it though, I've read beautiful passages in the , the Bhagavad Gita, Norse epics and many other "religious" based writing of the last few thousand years.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I can assure you academically Christians who dispute or feel threatened by evolution are few. It's a rediculous position to take.


I agree completely. I was one of only a couple of agnostics or atheists in the entire program when I studied paleoanthropology. My mother in law worked at the Human Genome Project prior to it going public and the CEO, Dr. Francis Collins, is a staunch advocate of Christianity and still one of the worlds preeminent Geneticists who also staunchly asserts the solid science supporting MES


It also has nothing to do with God and if it they, he or she exist.


I'm inclined to agree with this. However, many who fall back on their faith as a defense against science do not feel the same way.


If my computer prints off something I wrote the printer has nothing to do with writing the story.

This isn't meant to say I believe in a creator I am just pointing out how rediculous denying a process is.


I don't deny the possibilities of anything provided there is something to substantiate the possibility in question. The only thing I typically deny is an assertion not supported by facts.


Yeah it means the book is poetry but so what. Good books have changed my life too. They didn't have to be written by God for me to allow them to move me.


Hey, there are some lovely passages in Constantines version of Christianity as outlined at Nicea and Laodicea. Some of the Psalms are quite lovely and well written.

But, at the end of the day, it's a compilation, a book that was put together with one goal in mind. To make it easier to convert then entirety of Roman territory to Christianity as a state religion. It wasn't ever actually intended to reveal any truths aside from those purported by whichever bat $#it crazy Emperor was debauching his throne that particular year.

When you get right down to it though, I've read beautiful passages in the , the Bhagavad Gita, Norse epics and many other "religious" based writing of the last few thousand years.


I don't think there is much room for "beliefs" in cosmology because it's truly unknowable in its entirety as far as the anthropic principle is concerned I mean.

I don't think the burden of proof in cosmology is the same as you may be implying. String theory isn't very evidence based. It's more can it withstand a from of philosophical scrutiny of logic.

A necessary being as much as I don't follow it's argument I respect because it eliminates infinite regress in the argument which is often where scientists fail at philosophy. Now it can easily be replaced with a panthiest like model or purely the universe itself is its own cause, but these are two possibilities logically speaking if you follow the philosophy of falsifiability.

It's not ever going to be a subject like anthropology or biology. You can't really expect the same emperical evidence in metaphysics or the ontological side of cosmology.

Biology can answer which came first technically but it can't answer the true nature of the question.
edit on 18-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Good point, Evolution isn't a singular field of science. It encompasses and is aligned with many different fields. Hell the entire field of Genetics would be a lie if Evolution wasn't true. One of the biggest fields of science you'd have to deny to deny evolution is modern medicine. This usually paints evolution deniers as hypocrites too, because I'm sure they aren't putting their beliefs to the test there and all go to modern hospitals when sick or injured.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Ghost147
Could you elaborate on why you believe evolution cannot occur?

Put words in someone’s mouth: Cambidge Dictionary (with a question in this case, I guess the "are you saying..." games have all been played too much already on this forum):

to say that someone means one thing when the person really meant something else:



How am I putting words in your mouth?

Here's a direct quote from you...

"And frogs turned into princes, we've all heard the stories (or swap out frogs with fish). I don't think some of you are truly hearing yourselves, as in getting it ('know thyself', which I prefer to phrase as "understand thyself"). Tyrannosauri-Rex turned into chickens like Darwin's 'bears turned into whales'-story? Uhm, 'right...'"

If you don't accept that a species can arise through the divergence of another by reproduction with change over time, then you don't believe that theory of evolution functions as described.

I'm not making fun of you... I was simply asking why you believe so.

If I'm wrong, you're more than welcome to show how I misinterpreted the post of yours I was responding to, instead of insinuating I'm "putting words in your mouth"



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: peter vlar

One of the biggest fields of science you'd have to deny to deny evolution is modern medicine. This usually paints evolution deniers as hypocrites too, because I'm sure they aren't putting their beliefs to the test there and all go to modern hospitals when sick or injured.


A particularly salient point given that Whereislogic derives all of their "science" from the Watchtower and Jehovahs Witness doctrine and not scientific journals so I'm curious how far they take those doctrines when it comes to their own health.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


some posters derive far too much enjoyment from posting "buzz questions" that are intended to stump the audience as opposed to providing actual information, disguising rhetoric as profundity and non-answers as solutions. the OP is one example among many.


If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?


literally everything has a cause, unless you are too lazy to actually dedicate the time, skill and resources to deducing and confirming the cause. simply tying a knot in a really long rope is a cheap and sloppy substitute for finding an end of the rope. this is what your so called fix to the infinite regression problem amounts to. a silly roadblock that is interpreted as the conclusion of the investigation but really just tells everyone that you gave up prematurely. congrats, now sit down and let the real experts have a crack at it. honestly...did you expect a clap on the back for taking shortcuts? you are too easily satisfied and it shows. Smh

/mic drop
edit on 18-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2


some posters derive far too much enjoyment from posting "buzz questions" that are intended to stump the audience as opposed to providing actual information, disguising rhetoric as profundity and non-answers as solutions. the OP is one example among many.


If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?


literally everything has a cause, unless you are too lazy to actually dedicate the time, skill and resources to deducing and confirming the cause. simply tying a knot in a really long rope is a cheap and sloppy substitute for finding an end of the rope. this is what your so called fix to the infinite regression problem amounts to. a silly roadblock that is interpreted as the conclusion of the investigation but really just tells everyone that you gave up prematurely. congrats, now sit down and let the real experts have a crack at it. honestly...did you expect a clap on the back for taking shortcuts? you are too easily satisfied and it shows. Smh

/mic drop


So by your statement "literally everything has a cause", your answer to the question is, yes.

Great. Now, let's explore the "rope" a bit further.

If, as you say, "literally everything has a cause", then you're basically saying there's no end to the cause.

That is, the cause has an unending cause. The 1st cause was caused by the one that preceded it, the one that preceded it was also caused by the one that preceded it, and on and on we go - ad infinitum.

That's where you're logic breaks down.

So what to do?

What's the alternative?

Do you want to pick up your mic?









edit on 19-4-2017 by edmc^2 because: zzz



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2


some posters derive far too much enjoyment from posting "buzz questions" that are intended to stump the audience as opposed to providing actual information, disguising rhetoric as profundity and non-answers as solutions. the OP is one example among many.


If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?


literally everything has a cause, unless you are too lazy to actually dedicate the time, skill and resources to deducing and confirming the cause. simply tying a knot in a really long rope is a cheap and sloppy substitute for finding an end of the rope. this is what your so called fix to the infinite regression problem amounts to. a silly roadblock that is interpreted as the conclusion of the investigation but really just tells everyone that you gave up prematurely. congrats, now sit down and let the real experts have a crack at it. honestly...did you expect a clap on the back for taking shortcuts? you are too easily satisfied and it shows. Smh

/mic drop


So by your statement "literally everything has a cause", your answer to the question is, yes.

Great. Now, let's explore the "rope" a bit further.

If, as you say, "literally everything has a cause", then you're basically saying there's no end to the cause.

That is, the cause has an unending cause. The 1st cause was caused by the one that preceded it, the one that preceded it was also caused by the one that preceded it, and on and on we go - ad infinitum.

That's where you're logic breaks down.

So what to do?

What's the alternative?

Do you want to pick up your mic?










What we do is keep moving forward and keep improving our knowledge with the help of science until one day, hopefully, we can answer the mother of all questions.

What we don't do is automatically jump to a supernatural explanation if we haven't got an answer for a question yet.

Its OK to not know. Nothing wrong with that at all
edit on 19-4-2017 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

oh joy - another round of mental mastrubation

the opening line :

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause "

is all you need to read to know that everything following it is appologetics beaten to provide the " correct " answer

it amazes me that people so critical of science - leap so readily [ and desperatly ] to the most pathetic special pleading immaginable



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

awww, we're so innocent. Never seen that one before after being exposed for the usual routine. Go play the other routine again giving people the impression we've never danced before like Krazyshot did when he made his response and used 'oh, you're a...' (literally: "OHHHHH You are a evolution denier."); to help with the earlier 'we're so innocent, we're making so much sense, we don't use propagandistic arguments and fallacies' all the time on ATS and especially when someone like me dares to say anything about it (with the intent of giving the impression that I have no justification for saying something about it when the behaviour is repeated endlessly, as if it's the first encounter and I'm jumping to conclusions or wild unsubstantiated accusations), incl. picture painting and a whole bunch of...

You're twisting my words on purpose, as per usual bringing up the usual red herrings, straw men and picture painting routines, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend with you that it's not deliberate. Cause it's pretty obvious to me that it is. Including playing ignorant and innocent about it, same routine again as always (including the quick quotation of my words to pretend that now you aren't twisting anything I've said or implying to the audience a certain picture of what I'm arguing for or saying, including changing your 'interpretation' of what I said a little bit, rephrasing it to distract from the way you painted your picture earlier of which the underlying thought or notion is still the same even with the rephrasing; why not just respond directly to anything I said or brought up rather than interpret my words to your liking that fits better with the picture you want to paint? Or the picture or box in your mind of me that you want to fit me in? A box with a label. The label conveniently promoted by Krazyshot just before your comment, nice timing; good mind triggers for those who already want to think that way about someone else and a particular way of thinking about these subjects).

Tip: Don't play along with those using the propagandistic label "evolution denier", cause some people will call you out on it occasionally. No matter how many red herrings you throw up. Those* who simply like to talk past or ignore someone painting someone else with the label "evolution denier" in a conversation they seem to want to get engaged in, is silently condoning propaganda. Anyone playing along with it by adding some more brush-strokes of the same paint (black) even without using the exact same label or terminology, is using propaganda (whether it's inadvertent because they're victims and repeating the ways of thinking and arguing that they've been conditioned with or not).

*: most of those actually, there are different situations
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: peter vlar

Good point, Evolution isn't a singular field of science. It encompasses and is aligned with many different fields. Hell the entire field of Genetics would be a lie if Evolution wasn't true. One of the biggest fields of science you'd have to deny to deny evolution is modern medicine. This usually paints evolution deniers as hypocrites too, because I'm sure they aren't putting their beliefs to the test there and all go to modern hospitals when sick or injured.





Your right If Evolution was fake gene therapy wouldn't work. And archeologists who Found fossils that prove evolution occurred. For example Archaeopteryx our half dinosaur half bird. we can trace back changes in species such as horses and whales. I think what people get wrong is evolution by no means tells us how life started many believe it does.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

it should be accepted that humans evolved from Apes through their diet of psychoactive plant building the DNA structure of the brain, CBD for example has been shown to perfectly fit, to have lasting effects against human ailments like anxiety. the continued diet that fills in this structure over hundreds or thousands of years wuld see the gaps that are filled to improve brain structure evolve to stay as part of that structure...... when you look at the scientific evidence it is obvious that this is how we evolved.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I do not believe there is any veracity in the myths about "walking whales" which is clearly implied to be a part of what others call "the theory of evolution" in the video I shared earlier.

Wikipedia mentions:

The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (10^9) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.


Seems astronomers and physicists have a logical reason to come to that conclusion. Unlike certain other claims made by evolutionary philosophers about "whales that had feet and walked on land", i.e. "walking whales". That's right, that's one of the many claims and myths included and connected to the so-called "theory of evolution" (and then disconnected in the definition given for that terminology by those selling the myths and debating the myths).

Note that assigning an "age" to something, even just attempting to, implies acknowledging a beginning to that thing (in this case the universe). Which leads to having acknowledged (but not spelled out) that the universe is not eternal.
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

This is really easy, I don't understand why this is supposed to be baffling?
I am an atheist and I don't know what you define as a 'cause'. Of course things that pop into existence do this because of 'something'. This could be as 'simple' as an alignment of quarks, which will cause existence.

We don't know YET, but the question of the mystery of existence could one day very well be explained by science.
We just don't know enough , but we do know an awful lot more than the people who wrote the bible and who thought a bearded man made living things out of clay [which I personally believe to be a metaphor for something that may sound even crazier to the bible crowd, so I won't go into t].

The big question is 'what is existence'? Where does it start. We now know about particle physics and we are getting closer.
I have great belief in human's ingenuity, curiosity and scientific advancements.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

the funny thing about the age of the universe is this........

"The age of the Universe is a little bit higher than we expected. A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old.

Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years."

So the universe aged 100 million years in the space of a few years........ so in reality we don't know what age the universe is.
we can speculate, but that speculation can and has shown to change, new discoveries could see that number change again.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join