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: 41
20
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

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




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.


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


The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.








absolute infinity


You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:









Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.



What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!




Ditto Spy66!

But let's see if you can grasp this - let's assume the multi-universe theory.

If such universes do exist - what separates them from each other?







I have no idea what separates them, if anything. But since you asked the question, I presume you know the answer. So let's have it. What separates them????



Nothing because such concept doesn't make sense. There's no point to it - it's like asking what's infinity +1.


So your question makes no sense. That's the first honest reply you've offered. I'll accept that as an "I don't know anything about science but I'll make believe I do". Thanks.




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Thank you


If you keep following the topic you will probably get Your chance to coment later on.


You're a fish out of water. Can't answer the question. Can't even pose an intelligent question.
Phony baloney. Hypocrite.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Thank you


If you keep following the topic you will probably get Your chance to coment later on.


You're a fish out of water. Can't answer the question. Can't even pose an intelligent question.
Phony baloney. Hypocrite.


If you read my last post you would get some in put.....

You might even have something to add....


I will barry you....you know that dont you?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Time is part of space. That's why it's call spacetime now. It's one thing. Time is basically just the movement of the universe affected by gravity. Remember, the singularity that predated the big bang contained spacetime and energy condensed together. Without movement and stretching of spacetime, there is no time, at least not how you and I perceive it. I know it's complicated to understand, but it's the best explanation science has at the moment. The universe isn't expanding within spacetime. It's expanding WITH spacetime. It is composed of spacetime. We don't know if there is a void of anything outside of this bubble of spacetime. Maybe it doesn't need to expand into anything. Maybe we are really just shrinking and it APPEARS like it's expanding. Too many unanswered questions.

"Well then you have a issue With science dont you.... because the timeline of Our expansion would disagree With you. Becasue when you go back in time Our universe had some kind of a beginning. It can't be scientifically explained yet that is the only reason you bring that up..... And that sort of limits science does it not?"

The expansion had a beginning, but not necessarily the entire universe. Before the expansion we have no clue. It is postulated that the singularity was there before the expansion, but we have no idea what happened before the expansion started, so there is no way to know if there was an actual beginning of everything. Our big bang bubble could be a blip on the radar compared to the entire universe.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs





Time is part of space.


What time are you refering to in this case. Our universe..... Our the one before it?

There is no way you can scientifically know about the time prior to Our universal plank time (Big Bang).




That's why it's call spacetime now.


What does science know about the Space time prior to the Big Bang? Probably nothing..... Cased closed....You have nothing to argue With here m8.




Time is basically just the movement of the universe affected by gravity.


Again you are talking about Our universe......

That is all you can describe and argue........

Why dont you tell us how the Big bang happened With Scientific facts and reasoning? You can't, because science cant. The Scientific model breaks Down at plank time.

There is no way sciecne can With facts describe how the Big Bang happened. THere is no way science can describe With facts how Space time was prior to the Big Bang. That is a damn fact. There is no way science can describe With facts what Our universe is expanding within either. Science is Limited to plank time and 13,799 billion years of expansion... that is it..



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Thank you


If you keep following the topic you will probably get Your chance to coment later on.


You're a fish out of water. Can't answer the question. Can't even pose an intelligent question.
Phony baloney. Hypocrite.


If you read my last post you would get some in put.....

You might even have something to add....


I will barry you....you know that dont you?






I will barry you....you know that dont you?


What is that - some new subatomic particle? You're going to bombard me with barryons?

Your knowledge of science is as shallow as a mud puddle. That's why you can't answer a question - any question about
science for that matter.


edit on 21-8-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66




The Scientific model breaks Down at plank time.


Can you please explain that in the King's English? And look up your spelling - it's "planck" time - plank is a wooden board.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



As i sated before...... i knew what you reply would be...... and this is it.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423



As i sated before...... i knew what you reply would be...... and this is it.



Well at least you admit your own ignorance.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Name me something that has no cause!



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
This is a silly riddle to me.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423



As i sated before...... i knew what you reply would be...... and this is it.



Well at least you admit your own ignorance.


Yes, i am provd that i have a mind of my own, and not being just a Scientific slave who have to wait for some over paied professor to tell you some Scientific religion.

The Scientific community will never confirm anytihng that is within this topic. That would hurt their founding, these People need a job to.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423



As i sated before...... i knew what you reply would be...... and this is it.



Well at least you admit your own ignorance.


Yes, i am provd that i have a mind of my own, and not being just a Scientific slave who have to wait for some over paied professor to tell you some Scientific religion.

The Scientific community will never confirm anytihng that is within this topic. That would hurt their founding, these People need a job to.


You may have a mind of your own but between the ignorance, awful grammar and spelling mistakes I don't know that it's something to be terribly proud of. And then you compound the ignorance with our statement about funding, proving you've got no idea how any of this works. If someone had evidence and could support it, they would be guaranteed a substantial amount of funding. There is no impetus to maintain a status quo within science. If that were the case, we would still be operating under the auspices of "Clovis First", Homo sapiens and Neanderthal weren't able successfully breed, we wouldn't recognize H. Floresiensis or Denisovans, we would still be talking about multi regionalism and on and on and on. And that's just the last 15 years in anthropology and a limited number of items off the top of my head.
There are even more examples in Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology and Geology. Things do not work the way you seem to believe them to do.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Firstly this topic has a great many things which science has confirmed. This invalidates your comments right off of the bat


Secondly. The things which science will not confirm, with regards to evolution (as per the topic of the thread) is the beginning of the universe. It is not related to evolution in the biological sense. QED it is a non sequitur in the argument. The only people who insist in bringing in such things, are those who can not debate the facts regarding evolution.

Thirdly. You misrepresent science. I'm a scientist. I hold a number of post graduate qualifications (including a PhD) in several different Scientific disciplines. You do not understand how peer review works. I will give you a hint, its not religious, it changes with the examined evidence. That is scientific method. I'm also no academic. I work in a scientific industry. I produce things which you may have the need to use, though I am sure you are more the homeopathic kinda guy


Fourthly There no "over paied (sic) professors". If you look at the pay scale for academia, and science as a whole, it is pathetically low, compared to other industries. To gain the rank of professor (in the sense of the non US title, as opposed to that misapplied by those not in the know) you publish a great many peer reviewed articles, in periodicals. You work your rear off to get to that rank (professor). For the most part, senior academics welcome new discoveries. The few examples of those who do not, are execptions to the rule. As I mentioned, science is more than academia. I've literally bleed (glassware is sharp when it breaks) to bring advances to humanity. I've given up having a life, and almost lost my family due to the hours I work. I'm not over paid, my hourly rate (I am salaried so that is moot) is quite low when all the hours are taken into account.

Try again.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423



As i sated before...... i knew what you reply would be...... and this is it.



Well at least you admit your own ignorance.


Yes, i am provd that i have a mind of my own, and not being just a Scientific slave who have to wait for some over paied professor to tell you some Scientific religion.

The Scientific community will never confirm anytihng that is within this topic. That would hurt their founding, these People need a job to.



I'm encouraged that there's only one of you!



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
What time are you refering to in this case. Our universe..... Our the one before it?


I'm referring to time, as we perceive it now. It's a proven fact that gravity and speed directly affect how we experience time. For somebody in orbit in the ISS, time will go by faster, than for somebody on earth. Granted it's not a huge difference, but if the ISS was moving a lot faster it would be a big difference.


There is no way you can scientifically know about the time prior to Our universal plank time (Big Bang).


There is no way to know anything about anything prior to the big bang, just that scientists have figured that spacetime was part of it and expanded along with everything else, which means if the singularity existed as scientists postulate, then time would have been almost at a standstill before it was set into motion by the big bang. Before that, all bets are off because we don't know the state of the universe prior.


What does science know about the Space time prior to the Big Bang? Probably nothing..... Cased closed....You have nothing to argue With here m8.


Well neither do you. You are the one that said "the infinite" exists, but there is no way to possibly know that. That was the point. By saying that you are claiming to know more than science about the state of the universe before the big bang.


Again you are talking about Our universe......


The word universe means "everything in existence". If our big bang bubble is the only one, then it is THE universe. If it's not, then it is merely part of THE universe. Since we can't measure or detect anything outside of it, there's no point in speculating about whether it is infinite. We don't know.


Why dont you tell us how the Big bang happened With Scientific facts and reasoning? You can't, because science cant. The Scientific model breaks Down at plank time.


Of course I can't, but you said there was evidence of the infinite, so I was wondering what that evidence was?

edit on 8 24 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

IS there only one? There seems to be quite a few in ATS



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs





I'm referring to time, as we perceive it now. It's a proven fact that gravity and speed directly affect how we experience time.


Correct, its about how science observe the Properties within Our universe.





There is no way to know anything about anything prior to the big bang, just that scientists have figured that spacetime was part of it and expanded along with everything else, which means if the singularity existed as scientists postulate, then time would have been almost at a standstill before it was set into motion by the big bang. Before that, all bets are off because we don't know the state of the universe prior.





There is no way to know anything about anything prior to the big bang


That is actually not true. There is at least one very Clear Clue we should be able to know about, and that is the state of the void of space prior to the Big Bang. The main Clue is that the singularity (a compressed energy mass) could expand as soon as it was formed. That is a major Clue. It is not a dead end.

And that gives us a general idea about the void of Space the singularity was formed within. Why do compressed energy mass expand and emitt energy? If you don't know this... you have no basis for understanding the concept of expansion.

If you grasp expansion, you would also grasp why the void of Space surrounding Our expanding universe must be a absolut vacuum.

A expansion is also measured in time (Space time). But what do we measure to observe expansion, and what can we not observe? Very important to grasp this.

A vacuum void of space is a void of Space Without expansion but With time. It must have time because it exists. It is just that it's timeline is a constant, because there are no changes or expansions (no motion) taking Place within it's void of Space that we can observe. We can only observe the Properties of Our universe moving through the vaccum void of empty Space.




Well neither do you. You are the one that said "the infinite" exists, but there is no way to possibly know that. That was the point. By saying that you are claiming to know more than science about the state of the universe before the big bang.


The infinite must exist. We would not exist if it didnt.

There was time before Our time started. The big questions is what kind of time was it before Our time began. And how could such time form Our beginning (Our universe).



If Our universe is a compressed energy mass and the surrounding void of Space is not. That sort of brings up some serious questions does it not?

How can a empty void of Space form a compressed mass like Our universe?

How can something that we precieve as a constant form anything?







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

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




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.


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


The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.








absolute infinity


You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:









Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.



What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!




Ditto Spy66!

But let's see if you can grasp this - let's assume the multi-universe theory.

If such universes do exist - what separates them from each other?







I have no idea what separates them, if anything. But since you asked the question, I presume you know the answer. So let's have it. What separates them????



Nothing because such concept doesn't make sense. There's no point to it - it's like asking what's infinity +1.


So your question makes no sense. That's the first honest reply you've offered. I'll accept that as an "I don't know anything about science but I'll make believe I do". Thanks.


Wow. I thought this thread has already ended. I guess not.

As for the multi-universe- yes it doesn't make sense because the concept itself doesn't make sense. It's a very poorly constructed hypothesis in order to skip the obvious / reality of a beginning.

That is, the age of the universe - per the CMB phenomena.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

BTW - you keep throwing this nonsensical statement "I don't know anything about science but I'll make believe I do" as if you're the only one who does.

Nope - in fact, the constant use of such statement makes your argument weak. It's kinda like bullying.

Oh well, one must do what one can only do - I guess.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: edmc^2

Name me something that has no cause!



I can name several but let me just posit these two:

The concept of Infinity and outside of the material universe.




top topics



 
20
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join