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.

 

Does hydrogen turn into people?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
*sigh* seem's to be a simple question your having trouble with.


I did just state I'd like to start after evidence for your views.





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I find it interesting that when one aspect of a belief is found to be untrue, the rest is immediately deemed false. This is true on both sides of the evol v ID fence. It seems obvious that this kind of thinking is exactly what led to so many holy wars. It is very possible for both sides to be true.

In Hinduism there is the belief in God or Brahman. This isn’t the Papa Smurf caretaker that we’ve all come to know and love/hate. Brahman created the universe many times and will destroy it many more. Brahman is the unifying oneness of the entire universe. Brahman is all intelligence, all matter, and all energy. If I were to say that Brahman created life, then would I be wrong by the definition I gave?

The Judeo Christian God could be described the same way, but with a little more extravagance and a face. This face is probably wholly inaccurate, but it follows some of the same basic principals. If God can be defined in Judeo-Christian belief as that which formed the universe, then other than a few minor details, there is little difference to Brahman.

I’ve always thought that it was silly to claim that either side is 100% correct. Simply because of this, if God created the heavens and the Earth, would he do it in a way that primitive humans could understand? What I mean is, would he actually take 7 days, form everything out of clay, and leave it at that. It makes more sense that he would be much much smarter than human, and make it out of something better (molecules, atoms, quarks, leptons, strings…), then explain it to the primitives as “clay”

You’re arguing over nothing.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
*sigh* seem's to be a simple question your having trouble with.


I did just state I'd like to start after evidence for your views.



I have been providing links all along.

Where you've been?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Big difference, there's no such evidence for a supernatural creation, but there's numerous evidence for these so called supernatural explanations evolving over the course of human history as society change's and new discoveries are made. We can claim supernatural all we want, but without evidence for such we can't claim it as a fact. Do we know for a fact, any of us, for what existed prior to our universe and it's physical properties? Short sweet answer is no. One can't logically conclude a supernatural effect for the birth of the universe and life itself for the simple fact that one doesn't have all the answer's nor can claim they do. Supporters of IDism claim thing's are just to complex and thus evidence for the IDer, but the major flaw here is lack of knowledge. Our species are hardly even considered infant's in term's for the age of the universe, we've only just begun scientific discoveries. Many so called supernatural events have been written away as a result of our scientific discoveries. We may never know what existed prior to this universe as a fact itself, but anything within this universe can be discoverable given time to gorw and learn rather then ignorantly writing off thing's we don't comprehend yet as to being from some magical acid dropping hippy god. Shouldn't our purpose be on of learning and growth, rather then hinderance and fostering ignorance? Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I have been providing links all along.

Where you've been?


Really? Let's quote your response's after my first question for evidence.


Which would you like to start with?

ou really didn't read my thread on this as you claimed, did you?

No.

That is the Creationism paradigm.

Again...can you identify an original thought if you found one?

The Original Creator (aka The Intelligent Designer) manifested The Big Bang. He/She did so with The Light Of The God Force. The Original Creator did not create The God Force, the latter enabled to former to come into existence - in the Spirit - prior to The Big Bang.

...

Look's like that's about it. You see any links there?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I find it interesting that when one aspect of a belief is found to be untrue, the rest is immediately deemed false. This is true on both sides of the evol v ID fence. It seems obvious that this kind of thinking is exactly what led to so many holy wars. It is very possible for both sides to be true.

I agree that Evolutionism has played a small role.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
In Hinduism there is the belief in God or Brahman. This isn’t the Papa Smurf caretaker that we’ve all come to know and love/hate. Brahman created the universe many times and will destroy it many more. Brahman is the unifying oneness of the entire universe. Brahman is all intelligence, all matter, and all energy. If I were to say that Brahman created life, then would I be wrong by the definition I gave?

The Judeo Christian God could be described the same way, but with a little more extravagance and a face. This face is probably wholly inaccurate, but it follows some of the same basic principals. If God can be defined in Judeo-Christian belief as that which formed the universe, then other than a few minor details, there is little difference to Brahman.

The Judeo-Christian god is said to have done a lot of wrathful acts which I don't believe were said to be done by Brahma.

The Hindu Trinity is made up of "the creator (Brahma), the sustainer (Vishnu) and the destroyer or transcendent (Shiva). The correspondence of these three principles (creation, sustenance and destruction) in our daily existence is to be found in birth, life, and death." From Brahma: God of Creation.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I’ve always thought that it was silly to claim that either side is 100% correct.

I agree with that.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Simply because of this, if God created the heavens and the Earth, would he do it in a way that primitive humans could understand? What I mean is, would he actually take 7 days, form everything out of clay, and leave it at that. It makes more sense that he would be much much smarter than human, and make it out of something better (molecules, atoms, quarks, leptons, strings…), then explain it to the primitives as “clay."


I would not make the assumption that an explanation was intended. Architects and builders do not usually strive to explain to people who see their finished work how they were constructed.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   


I have to admit that I am amazed that people believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough.

Not only that, but the subatomic particles necessary to make hydrogen can appear literally out of "nowhere." I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It happens all the time!

Take your right index finger and touch your monitor in the middle, right under the screen. Now, where did that thought come from? Were you always thinking it? Did that thought exist from the beginning of time? Or did that thought come out of nowhere when I suggested it to you?

Oh, well, you say, a thought isn't a physical thing like a bit of hydrogen. And yet somehow, this non-physical thing was the impetus to get you to move your finger and touch the monitor. Are you saying non-physical things like thoughts have a direct influence on the physical environment? That's what I thought you were saying.

So how could it be so difficult is it to believe that a thought, even one by such an insignificant being as you (or me), couldn't take hydrogen and make people out of it? Child's play, really. The most natural thing in the universe.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hey, could you get on webcam and think a brand new speicies into existance for us? Would help out with your rather wild claim's and weak proofs.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
an electron circling the nucleus of an atom of hydrogen is no more a physical thing than the thought of said electron. At that level, nothing is "physical" as we understand it. These particles are nothing more than the force that they produce, or acts upon them.

THe subatomic is not but a multitude of "ideas"



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
an electron circling the nucleus of an atom of hydrogen is no more a physical thing than the thought of said electron. At that level, nothing is "physical" as we understand it. These particles are nothing more than the force that they produce, or acts upon them.

THe subatomic is not but a multitude of "ideas"


Interesting ... Always good to know our computer's are powered by thought!


gunna go to unplug mine so I can save money from the big bad evil thought controll police.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   


Hey, could you get on webcam and think a brand new speicies into existance for us? Would help out with your rather wild claim's and weak proofs.

Wild claims and weak proofs? Hmmm... I don't see anything wild or weak about any of it. It's simple, I grant you that. But not weak or wild. Rather, strong and obvious.

Here. I just created this sentence. Literally out of nothing. You couldn't ask for more proof. As for new species, that's a complicated process that takes a long time, and I'm not a geneticist. But don't be surprised if one of them cooks up a new species in the next couple hundred years. Out of nothing. Out of their imaginations.

All I'm doing is taking things we absolutely know are real and putting them together:

1) We think.
2) Because we think, we must exist.
3) Our thoughts affect physical reality.

Here's the hard part, and the key part:

4) We (or intelligent beings like us) created the universe in the past by thinking about it in the present or future.

The only thing we have difficulty with is time, because we evolved in such a way to view time as a kind of line, which isn't necessarily accurate. The notion we get hung up on is that our current thoughts and actions only affect our physical reality in the present that carries forward into the future.

It turns out that time is a convention. And that causality (cause and effect) doesn't always move "forward" through time. You can see an effect, then have to wait for the cause.

So there you have all of the necessary ingredients for creating a very convenient universe for us to live in, guided by all of us as a kind of consensus, without having to bring some fuzzy "God" notion into the mix.

Hint: The best way to refute me is to prove that time only moves "forward," and that thoughts are constrained by this supposed forward motion of time. Good luck!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
If you think that's cool, you should check out particle/wave duality. Between that and Heisenbergs uncertainty principal, I'm not sure what the natural state of anything is.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Well, seeing as your the one making the claim, it's more of your duty to provide the evidence for it then it is my duty to refute it. But okies.


Your thought's. Did they exist before you being born? Noper's.
Your thought's. Do they construct matter out of nothing? Noper's.
Your thought's. Will they disappear after death? Yupper's.
Your thought's. Can they physically levitate and object on the other side of the planet while having the event completly documented under tightly controlled scientific studies. Noper's.

Well, seem's your thought's are consist of your ability to act upon a pre-existing object withing reach of the length of your arm. For example, you thought of your idea's to type down, and thought gee, I should walk over to the computer and type this up yo. You knew sitting would be the most comfortable position to start typing, so you physically sat down. You knew you had to use the keyboard to type out your idea, so you physcially typed it all out. But where did your thought's really affect the physicallity of your being or the keyboard's being or the atom's that make each up? The only difference between man and computer is, man is self aware. Even the lowly animal is more powerfull then computer's of today. But computer's of the future will be capable of advanced AI abilities. But on a more serious note, when and where di your thought's create the universe and all life within it and when and where did your thought's leave the confine's of your brain to direct that initial creation? All your showing is action and reaction through pre-existing knowledge brought about through learning and experience.


[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Your thought's. Did they exist before you being born? Noper's.
Your thought's. Do they construct matter out of nothing? Noper's.
Your thought's. Will they disappear after death? Yupper's.
Your thought's. Can they physically levitate and object on the other side of the planet while having the event completly documented under tightly controlled scientific studies. Noper's.

1. Don't be so sure
2. your perception of matter is what really matters in this case. Since you never have any real contact with matter, all that matters is how you percieve the matter in question.
3. One way or another your thoughts will live on. Whether in a book you have written, a play you wrote, or some other way that you imprinted yourself on this world.
4. you should check out this study done by the USAF into teleportation. Read section 5 and tell me what you think afterward

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   


1. Don't be so sure


Why not?




2. your perception of matter is what really matters in this case. Since you never have any real contact with matter, all that matters is how you percieve the matter in question.


Physical matter is physical despite your perception of it or not. If your at school, does your mom no longer physically exist's due to you not observing that matter that allow's her to exist? That just sound's silly now doesn't it?




3. One way or another your thoughts will live on. Whether in a book you have written, a play you wrote, or some other way that you imprinted yourself on this world.


Say I die 3 hours after this post. Everything I've written here aren't my actual thought's. The thought's going on in my head exist within my mind for the bried second they are formed. Whatever physical interaction's were caused as a result may or may not continue after my death, meaning the mod's could delete all of my post's. Website could go down. Etc etc etc. But the initial thought produced within my mind was only in exsistance for that brief second of it's formation.




4. you should check out this study done by the USAF into teleportation. Read section 5 and tell me what you think afterward


I'll have to take a look at it tomorrow perhaps.





The best way to refute me is to prove that time only moves "forward,"


Well, I've already semi refuted the thought's having action to create a bouncing baby koala bear on the other side of the planet ... we'll move onto time. What I've been reading up on is rather interesting. There is a theory out there for the possibility for a region of space to run backwards in time from our perspective, but the same hold's true for those in that region of space. They see us as moving backwards. Mind you, this is all theoretical physic's, nothing proven in reality. One pretty cool experiment I read about was one of light being observed to seemingly travel backwards in time. Unfortunatly, the possibility for information itself traveling backwards might be impossible, as the article state's. Now, the region's of space discussed as moving backwards in time from our perspective are thought to be possible account's of what we think dark matter might be, unfortunatly it works with a contracting universe headed for a big crunch event. So I took it upon myself to learn more about the shape of our universe, turns out, our universe is proven flat within a 2% margin of error. So, appearently, from what I understand, the reversed regions of space being from a big crunch event are just not possible with our type of universe. Another article on dark matter itself show's evidence that dark matter is 'hot', not cold as once thought, or even an anti-time pocket of space. So now, the possibility of region's of space or even for information, let alone your thought's, traveling backwards in time to have any effect prior to the space/time of our universe to initiate it's birth is effectivley dropped to zero. Then again, despite all the evidence for this case, we could be wrong. So don't loose hope yet.


Here's the link's to the article's I read.

www.spaceref.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.livescience.com...
www.mc.vanderbilt.edu...
www.time.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
news.bbc.co.uk...

I threw in one that talks about how we learn in reverse as another article briefly touched up on it. Enjoy.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Physical matter is physical despite your perception of it or not. If your at school, does your mom no longer physically exist's due to you not observing that matter that allow's her to exist? That just sound's silly now doesn't it?

Not really. If I'm asleep and dream of a person that I haven't seen in years. I can touch them, smell them, speak to them and they reply. Everything about them is real, except I'm in a dream. When I wake that person is gone. That person disappeared. They no longer exist because I can't percieve them.




Your thought's. Did they exist before you being born? Noper's.
Don't be so sure
why not

Because it's never good to be so sure about anything.


Say I die 3 hours after this post. Everything I've written here aren't my actual thought's. The thought's going on in my head exist within my mind for the bried second they are formed.

Have you ever heard of electroencephalography? Basically, it is the study of the different frequency waves produced by the brain. If a thought can be interpreted as a wave by an outside machine, then it doesn't exist contained entirely in your brain. Who knows how long the wave can exist after the transmitter stops transmitting.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   


Not really. If I'm asleep and dream of a person that I haven't seen in years. I can touch them, smell them, speak to them and they reply. Everything about them is real, except I'm in a dream. When I wake that person is gone. That person disappeared. They no longer exist because I can't percieve them.


Difference there being, it's within the mind, not a construct of physical reality. The person you dream of isn't composed of particle's of matter in the same sense you and I are. It's a far cry from mum not existing because you can't see her physically at school.





Because it's never good to be so sure about anything.


True, but evidence can give one a more definitive view of reality rather then just relying upon personal opinion's. For example, evidence suggest's my name is ... Produkt on ATS. I'm sure this is the name I picked and you can be sure this is my name on ATS as I'm pointing out the evidence directly to you ensurring that you can be sure of the evidence's validity.




Have you ever heard of electroencephalography? Basically, it is the study of the different frequency waves produced by the brain. If a thought can be interpreted as a wave by an outside machine, then it doesn't exist contained entirely in your brain. Who knows how long the wave can exist after the transmitter stops transmitting.


I have heard of EEG reading's. Common medical technology to measure the electric current of the brain. You can even use similar technology for biofeedback to measure the frequencies generated through meditation that alter your body(hormonal outputs) and emotion's. Your not affecting the technology being used, it's doing nothing more then measuring the existing currents that make up your brain wave's.


[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Have you ever heard of electroencephalography? Basically, it is the study of the different frequency waves produced by the brain. If a thought can be interpreted as a wave by an outside machine, then it doesn't exist contained entirely in your brain. Who knows how long the wave can exist after the transmitter stops transmitting.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]


EEG measures the changing electrical activity of the brain, the synchronised activity of neurons, neurons are in the brain, EEG measures these neurons functioning. When the brain stops producing electrical activity, well...

But if I save the waveform to a hard drive, it can exist for a long time


[edit on 6-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
That's right. The neuron's that make up your brain and create the electrical current's, require a source of fuel to function. You take away that fuel, the neuron's start to die off. One of the reason's people get brain damage when the brain cell's are without oxygen for a certain length of time. Now obviously, some magical soul that we attribute to being our conscious mind surely wouldn't be affected by some mundane physical process now would it?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Difference there being, it's within the mind, not a construct of physical reality. The person you dream of isn't composed of particle's of matter in the same sense you and I are. It's a far cry from mum not existing because you can't see her physically at school.

Everything is in the mind, and not so very constructed in a physical reality. When you can place your hand on something, and know you're not touching it, it makes you wonder if it's really there. One dream in another dream in another. My point being what if you woke up from this existence tomorrow.

Aside from that, of course the rest is personal belief. Nothing so scientific about it. Most of the reason I believe this philosophy is because of the parallels Hinduism has with modern science. Further than that, the concept is fairly solid (as leaps of faith go). I don't necessarily ascribe to Hinduism as my religion, but the texts are fascinating, and makes sense to me.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join