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: 29
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


You know what? How would you like it twisted what you said around and then called you a fool for believing what I made up? That is basically what you are doing...

Hey ATS members... "UVA3021" actually thinks "everything is made of hydrogen!"


He thinks gravity is hydrogen!
He thinks magnetism is hydrogen!
Wow the magnetic force holding my refrigerator magnets up.. that is hydrogen....
That force that holds me to Earth... that is hydrogen!


You are hilariously entertaining UVA3021, how can you believe such fanatical idiotic BS??


Originally posted by uva3021
Again, everything is Hydrogen.




Funny part is I didn't even have to twist your words like you do to me.... and it's still pathetic and idiotic... just fanatical drivel spewing out of clueless collection of dust.
edit on 25-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecyThat is wrong... Gravity is not hydrogen
Its my fault for responding to a troll. Nice one you gotme. Its late, should have known better


Gravity is NOT hydrogen..... and you still don't get it...
The troll here is YOU. I am the troll destroyer, and you just got destroyed.

Gravity is NOT hydrogen.. Gravity is curvatures in space-time according to your religion called science.

Hydrogen has mass and bends space time which is gravity... but gravity is not hydrogen....



How can anyone take you seriously after making such a stupid comment? How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even read?

I hope your ego takes a serious hit, and reality snaps in, and you realize you are full of feces.
edit on 25-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 
Please show me evidence that I called you a fool. At least that would be evidence of something.

I urge you to google. Gravity is the distribution of matter in space-time. Matter, to a first approximation is nothing but an aggregation of Hydrogen molecules. We can obviously reduce it further to elementary particles, but such is unnecessary.

I'm still waiting on something, anything, other than your absurd beliefs that the early stages of the universe did not follow the laws of physics that currently govern our world.

You having studied these "advanced" concepts extensively, I was hoping you can provide me with useful information, or at least show you understand the basics, basics I learned as a side note in an Evolution and Ecology course.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Please show me evidence that I called you a fool. At least that would be evidence of something.


I never said you called me a fool.... Holy crap... LEARN TO READ...

LLEEEAARRRRNNNN TOOOOOO REEEEAAADDD.

Even then, this is what you said:


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



Originally posted by uva3021
barren drivel


Do you even know the definition of drivel?

drivel: 1. foolish or senseless talk

You just called my beliefs (what I know to be true), and what I said, foolish... You basically called me foolish... a fool....

Go take some english classes.


Originally posted by uva3021
I urge you to google.


Google what? You haven't said anything I don't already know... Your arrogance is blinding you so badly that you assume I don't know everything you will ever say...


Originally posted by uva3021
Gravity is the distribution of matter in space-time.


Copy and paste from a textbook.. that is all you are good at.


Originally posted by uva3021
Matter, to a first approximation is nothing but an aggregation of Hydrogen molecules. We can obviously reduce it further to elementary particles, but such is unnecessary.


...and if you would have learned to read you would have found that I agreed with that several posts back......... but your arrogance, again, blinded you.


Originally posted by uva3021
I'm still waiting on something, anything, other than your absurd beliefs that the early stages of the universe did not follow the laws of physics that currently govern our world.


I never EVER said that the early stages of the universe did not follow laws of physics... That is not what I believe... so WHY are you accusing me of such BS???

You and the other member have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues... and I am not joking or trying to insult you... There is a serious communication issue going on here, and all the issues are on your end.

Please, if english is not your first language, I apologize... but please take some english classes FFS.


Originally posted by uva3021
You having studied these "advanced" concepts extensively, I was hoping you can provide me with useful information, or at least show you understand the basics, basics I learned as a side note in an Evolution and Ecology course.


Here is some evidence to what I was talking about... I don't see why I even am providing this to someone who acts like they know it all but doesn't know how to read:

Epic Finding: A Constant of Nature May Vary in Different Parts of the Universe

Now please, stop pretending to be what you are not.... sit.
edit on 25-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Where is your evidence for any of your statements? I've gone through your posts with uva, who is quite a knowledgeable individual on the subjects of science, and you've challenged the scientific consensus at every turn without a shred of evidence to support your claims.

Where is the evidence that the speed of light is variable? If so, how much does it vary?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Where is your evidence for any of your statements? I've gone through your posts with uva, who is quite a knowledgeable individual on the subjects of science, and you've challenged the scientific consensus at every turn without a shred of evidence to support your claims.


The only scientific theories I have challenged were the age of the universe, and the speed of light throughout the entire universe. This topic is not about either of those, so I have not gone into detail nor have I tried to show any sources or evidence or experimental data, that would be off topic.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Where is the evidence that the speed of light is variable? If so, how much does it vary?


Let me ask you this.... Where is your evidence that the speed of light is constant throughout the entire Universe?

Are you aware that the speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c?

Are you aware that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum?

Just answer those and I will get back to you if you wish.
edit on 25-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


To say the speed of light is constant is to say that its rates is constant when unaffected. We can accurately measure the changes in speed depending on material. This change in velocity is negligible unless acted upon by incredibly extreme gravitational anomalies like black holes.

And the universe is virtually a vacuum. It requires something like the amount of material present between galaxies to form a human hand.

So your ignorance is showing.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Myollinir
 


XYZ


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



Darkness is not something. It is the absence of something . All kinds of different light exists to make darkness
to dim or brighten it altogether. Light exists darkness does not. Darkness is merely a word to describe the absence light. Light exists because it was created.

How about cold ? Does cold exist ?

Immorality, Injustice ?

Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes?




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

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


so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science


Admit defeat to science when science is flawed ? To what end ? What would be the point ?
Yes science is flawed by the very premise of it being the study of observable phenomena.
Madness has had measurements done on his brain but who has seen it? Touched it ?

You speak of ignorance Madness ?
edit on 25-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Matter is not all hydrogen. There are 16 elementary constituents of what is known as "matter"( and a few theoretical particles). One hydrogen atom contains only four of those, up quarks, down quarks, gluons, and electrons. Therefore Hydrogen is made of matter but matter is not made of hydrogen.
edit on 25-5-2011 by TheDebunkMachine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Where is the evidence that the speed of light is variable? If so, how much does it vary?


It would make sense that some beams of light would be faster than other beams. Just try to find something that is equally fast all the time.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuppy
 


That's why science is so odd for people to grasp. It's counter-intuitive, you can't take science on a common sense point of view. You need evidence that the speed of light is variable.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It depends on what you term Creation!

Because the Holographic Universe Theory has never been defeated and in fact evidence only grows stronger, as well, is utlized by black ops.

And all Holograms are constructions, technology.

The fundamental or religious defined form of Creation may very much be questionable, yet, ETs/Higher Ups, the Creators/Designers, all seem to be the ones that create and design lifeforms on the lower levels, and higher ups Ets, not just the Ones operating the projectors/stars, of the holographic interactive school, seem to have a penchant for using remotes, pause the time program, input different signals so your memory is altered, because all there is is condensed energy waves, and our sense erect everthing, all sight, sound, touch, smell and even spacial, on a screen in the back of our minds.

The energy of the cosmos, is probably recycled into various schools, by intelligent design, much akin to dot matrix pigments erected into infinite 3d channels. And the system is Infinite which has its own hallmarks. No measurement possible, no Up/Down, Bigger/Smaller, Backward/Forward, and especially No Time, for if you place a dot anywhere on an infinite line, you will find the same problem, no center can be determined, and anywhere you place the dot, its the same endlessness in all directions.

In fact for higher ups, a craft can appear that is only 20 feet on the outside, but be completely reformatted different inside, and is more gateway than craft, as if, a station, a world, or even a whole channel is within.

This whole system can be likened to a quantum, computerized television set that we're placed within, without memories, forgetting self, to align ourselves as a thought, back to the Love and Goodness of the Minds outside the screen, ie. passing the tests. Infinite space-time based on orbit and density channels/realms.

Of course this is a metaphorical comparison, as our computers are anthill technology compared to the makers of the hologram, our Family and whats Beyond, our home.

Also, infinity doesnt do singularities. One person, place or thing, has a defined boundary, even if it would be considered infinite in size, its not infinte in structure, nature, or self concept even, as it defines itself, and therefore is finite. Infinite persons, places and things, infinite intellects, souls, universes, energies. Infinite fractals, ALL AT ONCE, in no time.

And size is impossible, therefore, the infintiy within a star is = to that within an atom, and both to that without. Horton Hears A Who! Turn an atom inside out universe? A potential universe nestled on the sands of beach? Who knows, so many possibilities really, such an exciting, never ending story of progression.

However, what does remain is, our minds/souls are the players of the dvd computer, the chair is in your mind that you're sitting on even if you are surrounded by energy waves, and even that may be within, we don't know yet, till we step behind the viel out of the black and white or poor shoddy world within the screen to the Glorious wonderous Real World/Home, in the Beyond.

Oh and like infintie Fractals, there is always a Beyond, Beyond the Beyond. Our Dad and Mom/Prime Creator of our Intellect Group, would always find that they are the Child of antoher Creation, infinite screens to step out, and we have Grandfathers, and Grandmothers, Aunts, and Uncles, Great Aunts, and Great Uncles, and so on, and so on, and so on.

I'm sorry Science has not convinced me of any such thing as a material world or something from nothing slowly evolving.

In fact, my atheist uncle, who was a physcist became a Buddhist in the end, as he seemed to discover intelligence at work though not religious dogma, everywhere he looked.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





The energy of the cosmos, is probably recycled into various schools, by intelligent design...


What's your evidence that for intelligent design...because what you posted is nothing but speculation



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If God had a creator, he wouldn't be God. So admit your defeat that God came from himself, which means it is inherent, self-contained, immortal, and eternal.

(if you say well why can't matter have always existed- then 'matter' is your word for God, anything more than that is just semantics but you can't deny that the origin of all things must have self-produced).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


How is saying that matter has permanence the same as saying it's a deity? Material is not the same thing as an all powerful being.

Please, stop failing at basic logical reasoning. I do not admit that the creator exists. The idea of such a being is illogical and undemonstrated. As an answer it begs the question of how it was created or why the universe needs something more complex than itself to create it.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
(if you say well why can't matter have always existed- then 'matter' is your word for God, anything more than that is just semantics but you can't deny that the origin of all things must have self-produced).

Origin of space-time is not the same than origin of all things, at least not for me. I'm not so sure origin of all things even needs a beginning (why couldn't have it existed always as outside space-time origin doesn't mean anything anyways). So, the potential for the origin of space-time might have always existed.. do you have any evidence that contradicts this possibility? If it's this vs. god this wins as we apply occam's razor.
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia
 


How is saying that matter has permanence the same as saying it's a deity? Material is not the same thing as an all powerful being.

Please, stop failing at basic logical reasoning. I do not admit that the creator exists. The idea of such a being is illogical and undemonstrated. As an answer it begs the question of how it was created or why the universe needs something more complex than itself to create it.


I didn't say matter has permanence, I said some people make the argument that matter always existed if God always existed, so technically they are saying it is a deity, which is of course wrong since matter is simply the outward physical structure of reality and not the inherent structure of reality. One changes, the other does not. Matter is also multiple while God is singular.

And it further proves the point: only God can self-produce, matter can not come into existence out of nowhere.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
And it further proves the point: only God can self-produce, matter can not come into existence out of nowhere.

Matter and anti-matter pop into existence from vacuum all the time.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by filosophia
(if you say well why can't matter have always existed- then 'matter' is your word for God, anything more than that is just semantics but you can't deny that the origin of all things must have self-produced).

Origin of space-time is not the same than origin of all things, at least not for me. I'm not so sure origin of all things even needs a beginning, why couldn't have it existed always (outside space-time origin doesn't mean anything anyways). So, the potential for the origin of space-time might have always existed.. do you have any evidence that contradicts this possibility?
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


The origin of all things has no beginning because time was not yet created. The origin is eternal meaning it has no creator, but since it exists, it must have come from itself. The evidence is logic. There is no other possibility except for the origin of all things to be one transcendental reality that has always existed.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by filosophia
And it further proves the point: only God can self-produce, matter can not come into existence out of nowhere.

Matter and anti-matter pop into existence from vacuum all the time.


No, it "pops" into existence from a vacuum, according to your own statement that is saying this. If it comes from a vacuum, then vacuum is the "thing" it comes from, since things can not come from nothing. The only exception to this rule is God which comes from itself. However, I believe matter does not come from a vacuum but rather from the origin of all things. Nothing else can be magically created out of vacuums, nature does not operate based on a rabbit out of the hat process. If every being needs a male and a female parent, then the male and female must have come from some type of neutral-gender thing. If human species can only come from other human species, meaning the origin of life was not some type of multi-gender frog or organism, then it follows that the origin of all things must have been self-created by its own means. This creation produced both male and female as dominant dualities that are inherent throughout nature, as well as the multiplicity of species based on the principle of emanation in which things go from simplicity (God) to complexity (Matter/Species).
edit on 26-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join