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.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 26
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Cuppy
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Better then the universe appearing for no reason and no matter to make it from.

Now you're just insisting on insulting people until they give up and you can boast a victory.


Insulting? If my phrasing sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. People who rise from the dead are called 'zombies'. Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.

But in any case... no, I do not find the idea of Pappa Zombie Lord magicking the universe into existence to be in any way plausible.


This kind of response is the absolute definition of ignorance. At the very best, it's a coin toss as to wheather
or not you will have to explain this after you 're dead. So the smart people are never disrespectful or insulting.
Instead curious and humble would be a lot easier on everyone. You are of the type that's all to common and completely redundant. It's like watching someone play russian roullette with a double barrel derringer.


Madness




He did still have a wound...which is indicative of zombification rather than simple resurrection. There is no evidence that he healed that wound. He was dead, then he was animated once more. He's undead. Not dead


Agreed
You get a cookie!
Thomas was able to put his hand in the wound. But by no means was he dead.


edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
That's not what that would imply. It would mean that the common ancestor is found in the step above that classification of the phylogenetic tree. There is a common ancestor, it would be an early vertebrate...of course, you'd have to go damn far back to get there.

If there is a common ancestor between buzzards and catfish we can't see it. I mean you can point to something and say it was a common ancestor but do we really have the intermediate stages. Not just in theory or in a made up scenario. I would really like to see the fossils that document the change from species X into species Y (Sort of buzzard but like species X) and species Z (Sort of catfish but like species X).
What theory would this be in support of, because its certainly not evolution.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
I don't ignore science at all. Science is the study of God in my belief system... So I think you have me confused for someone else.

Your belief system is based on philosophical drivel and desirable outcomes, and is by no means science



What I do is not put so much faith in flawed theories which are created from flawed experiments which were created by limited and highly blinded perspectives
Experiments are flawed because you think things happened in a different way, though give no evidence to support. Awesome



Science erroneously thinks the universe is 15 billions years old because they erroneously concluded the entire creation of the universe happened at a constant rate... with ZERO proof, only faith.
In your example you believe the speed of light is variable, which obviously contradicts the evidence. Thus scientists have faith that the speed of light is constant. Another awesome


What assumption did I make? Why is it so grand?
See above 2x


Originally posted by uva3021
Again, everything is Hydrogen.



Um... no.... try again. Next time, with less faith.
Give me one element that to a first approximation isn't Hydrogen. I'll make certain you will be awarded the Nobel Prize


There is no reason to think that a paradox is actually the prime cause of continued existence?
Barren drivel



Why do you limit your self to only what the human mind can imagine, and ignore that which the mind can't imagine?
How can I ignore that for which I can't imagine?



I often say... science is like someone trying to figure out how a computer works by staring at the computer screen.... Do you see the inherent flaw of science now?
Welcome to the year 1223 A. D.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
There doesn't need to be a "reason" for anything. "Reason" derived from a very human desire to understand and to make sense of the universe. There doesn't need to be "reason" for the universe's existence, we are a by-product of the universe, no need for some great "master plan".


.... You still don't get it... REASON = CAUSE. Look it up in the dictionary before you post rubbish like you just did.

So, according to your logic... the Big Bang happened for no reason.
Meaning.. it just happened and nothing caused it. An effect without a cause..... You contradict yourself and science and you don't realize it....




Originally posted by john_bmth
Ok, so snapping fingers is ridiculous (I was being "figurative", like you), but making the world in 7 days isn't? Sorry, they're both as ridiculous as each other.


There you go again... assumptions and prejudice.. Did I ever say or claim the world was made in 7 days??? NO I didn't... So why on Earth do you continue to make up things from thin air (like you think the universe was created) and then accuse me of saying it???? I'm done with you...



Originally posted by john_bmth
There is NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER of any "higher power".


WHAT? You mean all this time science is trying to figure out the cause/reason for the Big Bang, and here you are claiming to know that nothing caused it and there is no evidence that anything caused it.... no higher power or force cause the Big Bang... wow... I guess you finally answered the ultimate question of science with your religion erh disbelief erh science?......




Originally posted by john_bmth
You start with the presumption that for this figurative rabbit to exist, there has to be a magician (creator) by using the analogy to explain the origins of the universe. That becomes your entire premise. It is a circular argument.


No it is not circular. What you fail to understand is that I am ultimately talking about the force or forces that caused the Big Bang.... You are sitting here claiming that the Big Bang just happened for no reason, and I am saying that is a highly flawed and ridiculous belief.

Your problem here is your preconceived idea of what God is...


Originally posted by john_bmth
What is there to debate? "God dunnit.", "there is no evidence of any form of higher power. let alone one that is responsible for the creation of this universe", "GOD DUNNIT!"


What is there to debate??? The cause of the Big Bang...



Originally posted by john_bmth
Exactly!


Exactly... how do you expect me to debate and reply to someone who says something stupid like "what is there to debate?"...

Good day....



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Insulting? If my phrasing sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. People who rise from the dead are called 'zombies'. Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.


Yes. All Christians are Catholic. I think there's a TV trope for that one.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Your belief system is based on philosophical drivel and desirable outcomes, and is by no means science


What? You don't even know my belief system...

My main belief is that the entire Universe as a whole is One entity. This is a irrefutable FACT. It is a scientific fact none the less....

So your words are baseless and formed from assumptions.


Originally posted by uva3021
Experiments are flawed because you think things happened in a different way, though give no evidence to support. Awesome


No, the experiments are flawed because I KNOW humans have a very limited perspective of the entire Universe, and there is more than enough evidence to back that up. Humans have not existed for millions of years, so there is no way of really knowing the exact age of the Universe. No matter how many measurements you make that say the universe is 15 billions years old, that measurement is based on assumptions that the creation of the Universe happened at a constant rate which is pure FAITH.

Too bad you can't understand what I am saying or you would agree with me... you are blinded by your own religion erh science...

You have even been brainwashed to believe without a doubt that the Universe is based on logic and math.... Yet you can't even prove that math and or logic are constant through the entire Universe. For all we know the entire Universe can be created or caused by what is seemingly illogical, and scientists have overlooked the answer all these years because they are looking for what they assume should be logical. Logic alone is a human invention or should I say is subjective.. and the progression of science is based on it.. it's all flawed and there is nothing you can do about it. All of science is basically an illusion and you don't even realize it.

It's all just a bunch of arrogance based on human invented theories that the Universe should be mathematically or logically perfect. That is pure faith based science... you have faith that the Universe is mathematically logical simply because you have made a few observations that things in OUR part of the Universe are able to be mathematically described and logically sound...

Basically, it's like saying, "Voltage equals amperage multiplied by resistance!! It must be like that all over the entire Universe!!11!1!1!!!"...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


If you had read your own reference, you would have realized a few things. One, the concept is trivial and appears to be a convenience for calculations in quantum mechanics. And two, things that are found to have a variable speed of light based on these calculations are immaterial anyway because there is no transmission of information along these pathways. Regardless of these little cute side notes on c, c is constant.

Having said that, you have just shown scientists take this into consideration, that the speed of light could in some cases be variable under very specific conditions. Thus even further validating their theories and predictions

Again, grand assumptions are made, with no supporting evidence, that the science is blatantly wrong. And your gravity statement is laughable. I suggest doing a google search on gravity.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
If you had read your own reference, you would have realized a few things. One, the concept is trivial and appears to be a convenience for calculations in quantum mechanics. And two, things that are found to have a variable speed of light based on these calculations are immaterial anyway because there is no transmission of information along these pathways. Regardless of these little cute side notes on c, c is constant.


Where is your scientific evidence that c is constant throughout the entire universe?

I won't hold by breath waiting for it.....


Originally posted by uva3021
Having said that, you have just shown scientists take this into consideration, that the speed of light could in some cases be variable under very specific conditions. Thus even further validating their theories and predictions.


Yes, I also showed that you were wrong, and light could in many cases be variable and not constant. What I did was prove that the scientists theories of the age of the universe is highly speculative and based on faith that light is more constant than not.

What about this:

Speed of Light No Longer the Limit

Doesn't the ability for light to travel faster than previously thought throw a monkey wrench your scientists THEORY of the age of the Universe? Yes, it sure does...

Age of the universe.


This is however only the estimated time since the Big Bang. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations.[3]


Hmm... "IT IS NOT KNOWN IF SOMETHING EXISTED BEFORE THE SINGULARITY THAT WE CALL THE BIG BANG"...

I should probably add to the wiki page, "AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW".

Wow, precious science hits a road block.... I guess you can all just shut your minds off now since you can't go beyond the Big Bang....


Originally posted by uva3021
Again, grand assumptions are made, with no supporting evidence, that the science is blatantly wrong.


No, there is plenty of evidence... It's just you suffer from science induced disbelief so you don't think the evidence exists...


Originally posted by uva3021
And your gravity statement is laughable. I suggest doing a google search on gravity.


Hmm.. I don't recall saying much about gravity... What exactly do you think is laughable?
edit on 24-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 
Again, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Your ABC News article misrepresents the entire idea, and the study did not meet standards of peer review. I remember reading this article in Nature and there are many things that need to be understood. Things that appear to go faster than the speed of light, at the quantum level, are meaningless because no information is transmitted, and its not an observation more than a convenient calculation that resolves some variance. What is found to go faster than the speed of light, is in fact, nothing. Literally nothing, empty space, goes faster than the speed of light, which does nothing but toy with our philosophical strings.

And concerning gravity, you implied Hydrogen has nothing to do with gravity. I beg to differ good sir, do a google search.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 
Again, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Your ABC News article misrepresents the entire idea, and the study did not meet standards of peer review. I remember reading this article in Nature and there are many things that need to be understood. Things that appear to go faster than the speed of light, at the quantum level, are meaningless because no information is transmitted, and its not an observation more than a convenient calculation that resolves some variance. What is found to go faster than the speed of light, is in fact, nothing. Literally nothing, empty space, goes faster than the speed of light, which does nothing but toy with our philosophical strings.


I beg to differ... I am pretty certain that light can go faster than light (the speed limit we observe). Although we think of the vacuum of space as being pure emptiness, I believe that forces of gravity and possibly other forces which criss-cross throughout the entire universe prevent light from traveling faster than we have measured in our local area... But in places where this gravity and or other forces are minimal light can travel faster.

Basically, the vacuum of space is a medium, and it is causing light's speed to stop at a limit, and there may be areas of this universe unknown where the vacuum of space or the medium is different and effects light differently.

But of course, I have been studying advanced concepts lately, so some concepts that you hold dear to you like a religion may be challenged and of course you will lash out in anger and or arrogance claiming it is wrong simply because science is your dogma.

Anyway, this is getting off topic.....


Originally posted by uva3021
And concerning gravity, you implied Hydrogen has nothing to do with gravity. I beg to differ good sir, do a google search.


I never implied Hydrogen has nothing to do with gravity. But thanks for at least trying to understand what I have typed....



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
That's not what that would imply. It would mean that the common ancestor is found in the step above that classification of the phylogenetic tree. There is a common ancestor, it would be an early vertebrate...of course, you'd have to go damn far back to get there.

If there is a common ancestor between buzzards and catfish we can't see it. I mean you can point to something and say it was a common ancestor but do we really have the intermediate stages. Not just in theory or in a made up scenario. I would really like to see the fossils that document the change from species X into species Y (Sort of buzzard but like species X) and species Z (Sort of catfish but like species X).

I'm not just trying to be difficult. I just honestly don't see examples like that and I have looked for them. All I ever hear is the routine, "Well conditions are not always good for the creation of fossils."
edit on 24-5-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)


Ever heard of the Platipus? I mean comon', that thing's still alive...you don't even need to look at the fossils you so obviously don't care about enough to look them up



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 
You said:


"everything is hydrogen". That is wrong... Light is not hydrogen... Gravity is not hydrogen


You are embarrassing yourself guy. And someone who disagrees with your fantastical beliefs is by no means lashing out. You keep stating what you believe, belief is meaningless without evidence. I'm not stating what I believe, I'm merely reiterating assertions of scientific fact. I've already "conceited" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Beyond our horizon there is nothing, an empty void, which is obviously traveling faster than the speed of light because it is beyond light. However, it doesn't matter. Emptiness is not an information spectrum, and thus in terms of quantifying matter, emptiness doesn't exist.

edit on 24-5-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Ever heard of the Platipus? I mean comon', that thing's still alive...you don't even need to look at the fossils you so obviously don't care about enough to look them up




The group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna—is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago.

Although classified as mammals, they retain a number of primitive characteristics—including egg-laying—that are thought to have been passed down from mammal-like reptiles that lived over 300 million years ago.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Son in other words they don't have any substantial hard evidence but they have thoughts about these theories. That's great for them during coffee talk times but it doesn't prove anything. Funny thing about this. Evolutionist have lots of thoughts about things that they "thought to have" or "thought that they" were some thing or another. Again nothing specific. That would require hard evidence.


  • Frog thought to have been extinct for 30 years discovered in Australia

  • Snail thought to have been extinct since Roman times is found living in harbour pond

  • Birds are generally thought to have evolved from small theropod dinosaurs

  • The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago

  • The first forms of life are thought to have appeared about 3800 million years ago

  • All cats belong to a family called the felids and were thought to have evolved 12 million years ago

  • the last common ancestor of all animals is thought to have existed about 610 million years ago

    Do I need to continue? There are lots of thoughts about how things evolved and what split from what but no fossil records documenting the changes. It would seem that Evolution is more of a philosophy than a science although I'm sure there are some reading this who have thought that Evolution was a science.

    edit on 24-5-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



  • posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by john_bmth

    Originally posted by Cuppy
    reply to post by john_bmth
     


    Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Better then the universe appearing for no reason and no matter to make it from.

    Now you're just insisting on insulting people until they give up and you can boast a victory.


    Insulting? If my phrasing sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. People who rise from the dead are called 'zombies'. Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.

    But in any case... no, I do not find the idea of Pappa Zombie Lord magicking the universe into existence to be in any way plausible.



    This is probably the funniest thing i have ever read in my life im quoting it because you're statement is wonderful and i will now save it in my text on my computer of best quotes ever .

    THANK YOU


    Starred



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates There are lots of thoughts about how things evolved and what split from what but no fossil records documenting the changes. It would seem that Evolution is more of a philosophy than a science although I'm sure there are some reading this who have thought that Evolution was a science.


    And, in the other corner, we have the unquestionable Word of the One True God, which, of course is not based on any thought whatsoever, but is rather the undying Truth as written in Genesis.

    Right?



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
    link   
    reply to post by masqua
     

    Hey, you got to have faith. The Bible is up-front and direct about that part of the deal. No denial from me on that one.

    EDIT: Of course creationists or intelligent design inclined people can point to the complexity of just the human body as proof (or what we thought to be proof) of design. The holes in the fossil record supports my position.
    edit on 24-5-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:07 PM
    link   
    reply to post by randyvs
     





    Science can't even put the human body together.


    We cloned sheep from scratch, and nothing but laws stops us from doing the same with humans.




    Let alone bring the life force ( the soul ) to it.


    We don't even know what the soul is, or if it exists.





    Just exactly the same way it would never happen by accident ( primordial soup ).


    Creationists keep on repeating this nonsense over and over and over and over again. Scientists don't say it happened because of an "accident", they say life started based on natural laws. Why? Because everything we can explain today is based on natural laws. Human evolution, how mountains come to be, the tides, and the list goes on...




    Life was created. Speculate all you want about the rest.


    Yes, most likely by natural forces in the total absence of evidence suggesting the involvement of a deity





    No one can ever come close to making me think any thing different.


    Which is the very definition of IGNORANCE


    You might wanna read up on the mantra of this site





    To suggest that intelligence just rose up out of nowhere one day is loony. Sorry but it is. I'll take common sense over evidence all day long.


    Again with the "nowhere"


    I don't think you know what "common sense" implies





    The amount of time for life to get going via evoluci'on would be somewhere near infinite. Now you take a billion years.


    We don't know how life started in the first place...but you're talking about evolution, and we KNOW how long that took because we know when life first appeared on earth. (clue: first life appeared around 3.5bil years ago)

    Not sure why you're talking about infinity when it comes to evolution given that we know the real figure fairly accurately





    I claim another victory for Christ.


    Victory as in "Christ will get a consolation prize"? Because everything you typed above is complete and utter nonsense...and I'm not saying this to attack you, I'm merely stating facts





    Question for you . No not a trick question. Just a yes or no.

    Does darkness exist ?


    Of course I do...every time I go to bed and switch of all lights it's dark. So yeah, darkness exists



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by MrXYZ
    We cloned sheep from scratch, and nothing but laws stops us from doing the same with humans.

    You mean to tell me that you took parts that were not from sheep and made sheep? How were these embryonic sheep supported and nurtured till they were developed enough to stand on their own and feed themselves. Did they have an umbilical chord? Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. There's no such thing as "from scratch". I challenge anyone to make sheep without using a sheep and a sheep's uterus.




    Dolly was born 5 July 1996 to three mothers (one provided the egg, another the DNA and a third carried the cloned embryo to term)
    en.wikipedia.org...(sheep)


    So using 3 sheep to do what normally takes only 2 sheep to do is an advancement?
    edit on 24-5-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Toadmund
    All you got to do is look at a Chihuahau, did god create chihuahuas?
    NO!
    We created the chihuahua through forced evolution.

    There you have it, evolution is a FACT!

    Were we created by god? Doubt it.
    Were we created by the Universe? Yes

    So, if you want to call the Universe god, then I guess we were created by god after all.


    The bolded is why this argument will never end.



    posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dbates
     





    Do I need to continue? There are lots of thoughts about how things evolved and what split from what but no fossil records documenting the changes. It would seem that Evolution is more of a philosophy than a science although I'm sure there are some reading this who have thought that Evolution was a science.


    Getting a timeline wrong doesn't invalidate the theory for obvious reasons


    Also, how does a species thought to be extinct suddenly reappearing disprove evolution? You claiming there are no transitional fossils is beyond nuts given the ENORMOUS amount of transitional fossils (and DNA backup) we have.

    You might wanna read up on transitional fossils before posting more nonsense



    new topics




     
    9
    << 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

    log in

    join