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.

 

Religious Extremists Taking Over ATS?

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Ashley D,


The second law of thermodynamics does not verify, prove, or compliment the theory of evolution.


You cannot be serious here?? This must be in error. It is just that this concept is so often used to make some kind of point. So many use it for butressing up a debate point about science. I am at a loss to explain this.
Are you sure of this point I quote you as making??

Speaker of truth,


AshleyD, physics pertains to the makeup and laws of material bodies. Evolution is a biological theory.. Biology and physics do not go hand in hand.


You too, are you sure of this?? As stated in my previous post..I am not scientifically savy. I find your statement to be strange .....in like manner to Ashley D's. THese two areas are in the sciences?? Yes?? Seems to me that they should be in agreement.

I do know that Physics involves alot of math. Probably one reason I opted out of it. Math was never my forte...though I have been forced by the very daily mechanics of life to make friends with it.

On the other hand..Biology is a subject I only tolerated in order to get through school. LOL LOL..actaully school is a subject I only tolerated to get through it.

But I have noted that this evolution/thermodynamics buisness seems to be a dogma among some in this kind of thread. I am at somewhat of a loss to explain or understand the faith involved here as it seems to be based on a priesthood of science.

Thanks for your input. Perhapsed more can offer explainations I can understand or use for food in expanding my understanding of science as a religion or faith.

My apologies if I am somewhat slow witted in this arena ..as I stated ..school and particularly science was not my strong suit.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

You cannot be serious here?? This must be in error. It is just that this concept is so often used to make some kind of point. So many use it for butressing up a debate point about science. I am at a loss to explain this. Are you sure of this point I quote you as making??


Ok, now you have me confused because I'm not sure what you are asking. I'll try to explain it in layman's terms.

The second law of thermodynamics states: All things left to their own accord decay and things grow progressively worse with time.

The theory of evolution states: All things left to their own accord evolve into a superior organism and things grow progressively better with time.

As they say, something has got to give. One of them has to be in error. One can be proven through the scientific method. One cannot be proven through the scientific method. One can be tested in a lab. One cannot be tested in a lab. One can be witnessed. One cannot be witnessed.

Am I remotely understanding your question correctly?


The earth is either a flat square or it is a three dimensional sphere. Not both. Today we know it is a sphere. Either the earth or sun is at the center of our solar system. Not both. Today we know the sun is at the center of our solar system. Things are either getting better or getting worse. Common sense tells us they are getting worse.

Of course this isn't even taking into consideration the fossil record, scientific contradictions, and genetic and logical holes in the theory of evolution. This is just one thing that casts doubt on the theory of evolution. But like I said before, it really isn't an issue for me and it's surely my fault for originally bringing it up on this thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms.

The second law of thermodynamics states: All things left to their own accord decay and things grow progressively worse with time.


No, that is a very sloppy misstatement of the second law. A much more accurate statement is "In an isolated system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system." Nothing about things getting worse. Entropy means, roughly, randomness. "In an isolated system" are extremely important words.

If there were no energy input (that is, if we were an isolated system), the earth would be cold and lifeless, but we get a huge amount of energy from the sun and have been getting it since before the beginning of life. The plants absorb it and turn it into organic compounds. Animals eat the plants and convert the energy in those compounds into other compounds.


The theory of evolution states: All things left to their own accord evolve into a superior organism and things grow progressively better with time.

You're way off here, too. Not, "left to their own accord." Rather, because of outside influences (cosmic rays, radiation, chemical exposure, etc.) some of the organisms have their genetics changed (mutations). Probably 90 percent of them are damaging so that member dies. 9.999 percent of them are meaningless, neither good nor bad. 0.001 percent happens to change the organism so it can compete for food, etc. a bit more effectively. That member passes on its changed genetics. Tiny bit by tiny bit over trillions of moments and among trillions of individuals species change. The more effective ones survive. All of this is based on the fact that all of them are getting energy from the sun, directly or indirectly - they are not "isolated systems."


As they say, something has got to give. One of them has to be in error. One can be proven through the scientific method. One cannot be proven through the scientific method. One can be tested in a lab. One cannot be tested in a lab. One can be witnessed. One cannot be witnessed.
No, both of your statements were wrong. Both of the properly stated scientific theories can be shown to function, both of them can be witnessed. Because evolution is a slow process, until recently we could only observe it firsthand in things like fruit flies, but now with genetic analysis, we can observe it in all species. Your data is about a hundred and fifty years out of date.


Things are either getting better or getting worse. Common sense tells us they are getting worse.
Huh? If you're referring to the Second Law, as I showed above, you are way off-base.


Of course this isn't even taking into consideration the fossil record, scientific contradictions, and genetic and logical holes in the theory of evolution. This is just one thing that casts doubt on the theory of evolution.


I believe what you see as contradictions and holes are worries they had in the 1920s. They have been thoroughly researched and resolved quite clearly over the last 80 years.

Occam



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Mohammed, Larryhammed and Curlyhammed-the Divine Trinity of Islam.
Why are they so insecure that they can't laugh.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


"The theory of evolution states: All things left to their own accord evolve into a superior organism and things grow progressively better with time."


things do not grow progressively better with time, they adapt to their environment over time, those who do not adapt die and do not pass on any genetic information, species are not on some sort of path to manlike stature they are on the path of just trying to survive, that is life and that is the pinnacle of evolution, every living thing on the planet now is as equally as evolved as the next, their design works ( for now ). you can bet right now if a disaster happens and mankind is killed something somewhere will of survived it might be less intelligent but in terms of evolution it was spot on. there is no such thing as a superior organism, if it lives it works. The absolute beauty of evolution as a theory is its simplicity



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The Second Law of Thermodynamics


Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining.

As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics

All about science

For future reference

Semper



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1 7 7 6
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

As I see it, if Christianity in the US was less "in your face" people might not be so hostile towards it.

1 7 7 6


This is . . . to me . . . an absurd notion.

1. The USA was FOUNDED FOR the purpose of freedom to live, worship, practice, enjoy, share the Christian life and perspective without governmental restraint or restriction. History manglers have it wrong to state otherwise.

2. Evidently the "Politically Correct" pressures so successfully promulgated and implemented by the globalists the last 50 years has effectively put Christians on the defensive wholesale in a variety of ways on a variety of issues.

3. One case in point is the taking to court in Canada of Christian pastors who preach from Scripture that homosexuality is bad. There are persistent movements and efforts in the USA to implement similar laws and proscriptions. This is beyond outrageous, to Bible believing Christians.

4. Christian bashing has become standard fare in all the media and certainly in movies at an increasing rate and increasing severity the last 50 years.

5. Christian groups and expressions are banned routinely in many public institutions--particularly schools WHILE THE OPPOSITE--SUCH AS WITCHCRAFT, ISLAM etc. are formally encouraged, propagated . . . students required to act out Islamic activities and celebrations while far milder personal and milder Christian ones are punished. This in a nation founded for the benefit of Christianity PRIMARILY.

6. The NWO folks, as Scripture warned about 2000 years ago, are determined--have already written the script--are determined to do all they can to 100% eradicate authentic Christianity and Christians from the face of the planet. Actually, they plan to do that with all religion except for worship of the world ruler. But they must destroy authentic Christianity first as it is their most fierce opposition.

7. Many times in threads hereon, merely noting that one is a Christian or matter of factly, casually saying something fitting and normal out of their worl view will bring down tons of unwarranted hostility and punitiveness in virtually any thread on ATS in any forum--even the religious ones. THE SAME IS NOT THE CASE FOR ANY OTHER RELIGION.

8. Most authentic Christians are not near as IN YOUR FACE as the opposing world view is--assaulting them from movies, news, politics, newspapers, magazines, schools virtually daily in a long list of ways and intensities.

9. The issue, imho, is not that the behavior on the part of MOST authentic Christians is overtly and aggressively, routinely IN YOUR FACE--the issue is that some jerky folks (parents included) claiming to be Christian or even truly Christian to the best of their ability--have behaved in a very UNChristian way and the reader concerned has become embittered, hostile in a black halo sort of response to any hint of Christianity. That's a stacked deck to begin with.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by BO XIAN

If you change the word Christian to another mainstream faith...
Point is, it happens to all sides.

Anyway, I thought the OP was referring to Christian extremists. Not your regular Christians.


Thank you for your reasoned response.

1. It happens to some at least slight degree with most perspectives. If you are contending that Christianity gets it equally with other perspectives hereon, then that's an absolutely thoroughly wrong impression that is totally at odds with the persistent and even egregious facts.

2. "extremists" . . . not so fast . . . there are a LOT of posters hereon--at least a goodly percentage of the loudest, most frequent posters who consider virtually ANY expression of Christianity hereon to be "extreme" because they are extremely hostile the Christianity AT ALL. Any other value orientation can comment casually from their perspective in any way that is normal and fitting. AND THAT'S WONDERFUL per the average reader. IF A CHRISTIAN DOES IT--HE'S CONSIDERED EXTREME and preachy, offensive etc. rather IMMEDIATELY by a significant percentage of the readers, members--many of whom rush to beat each other at the chance to thrash to hapless Christian who dared to merely comment on reality from his world view, construction on reality like everyone else does.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


WHY so hypersensitive about religion?

pontificating conjecture follows . . .

1. religion has to do with ultimate issues . . . origin and destinationi.

2. religion has to do with daily behavior--particularly relationship behavior--particularly sex, kindness, caring, responsibility, consistency, maturity . . .

3. religion has to do with evil and coping with evil, overcoming evil

4. religion has to do with whether one considers one's self as nothing of any more consequence than a rock, pigeon, radish or a rock . . . or as a unique creation in God's image. Starkly different realities with far reaching consequences.

5. The above issues are core issues that strike at the heart of what it means to be human; what it means to be an individual and HOW fitting (or NOT) it is for said individual to relate to others and the world in their own habitual preferred ways.

6. One of the Huxley's once said (my paraphrase) that 'we killed God off so we could sc**w like bunnies.'

7. Rebellion, idolatries of every kind and evil are rampant in our world--including in every Christian group existing. But rebellion, idolatries and evil are wholesale fiercely antethetical to authentic Christianity. They are automatic fiercely, demonically hostile to authentic Christianity whether slightly or intensely wholesale.

8. the literal WAR between good and evil will not be over until it's over. Some of us think that will be in our era. In any case, the war has been going on for millenia and the Terms and Conditions of ATS cannot alter that fact. All the T&C of ATS can do is moderate the expressions of that war. But a WAR it is--and a war is not a Sunday Afternoon tea party.

9. I was thinking . . . would I want it otherwise? Would ANY THINKING person want it otherwise? The alternative would be that NOTHING MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE. GOOD AND EVIL ARE EQUAL. What a horrific absurdity. It would be just as "RIGHT" to shoot you or torture you to death for kicks as to feed you or give you a dozen roses? No thanks. That kind of horrific chaos, I do not want nor need.

10. Instead, we have a reality where good is evident but not 100 pervasive even in any given individual. Evil is quite evident, but USUALLY, not 100% pervasive in any given individual. The war is within each of us. That makes it intense when the issues are openly discussed. We all can relate to the evil and the good. And the more intensely we are committed to one or the other sides, the more intensely we will be inclined to engage in the communications and battles related thereto.

my 2 cents.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
IF A CHRISTIAN DOES IT--HE'S CONSIDERED EXTREME and preachy, offensive etc. rather IMMEDIATELY by a significant percentage of the readers, members--many of whom rush to beat each other at the chance to thrash to hapless Christian who dared to merely comment on reality from his world view, construction on reality like everyone else does.


Probably has something to do with the demographics of the boards --



Screenshot taken from this page.

The countries in that list represent the region where most posters are from. Those countries happen to be Christian majority countries. They also happen to be plenty of atheist from those countries as well -- two groups who are often at loggerheads, like you see in this thread. Hence the apparent disproportionate representation you see. Because it IS disproportionate, demographically speaking.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by BO XIAN

I find it especially a chronic problem with absent fathers who fail to emotionally bond, with healthy affection; active listening; spending significant periods of good time with their sons




Are you talking about the loving Christian father or the cold calculating atheist father?


Either value orientation can have plenty of both. My dissertation research, however, seemed to indicate that certain flavors of Christianity tended to have more warm, overtly tender hearted sorts of folks vs other groups . . . particularly including atheists. But I don't recall the statistical differences and couldn't find my dissertation last time I looked. I think it's awash in the chaos around here.



Hmm, have you seen the kids that come from an atheist family? Narcissistic Personality Disorder comes to mind with most of these kids.


I think you have a good point about that. Probably a statistically valid point, even. Though I don't know of much research on that specific issue. I would add, though, that certain types of so called "Christians" . . . those very persuaded that they have a very pristine, rigid, top lofty, exclusive corner on truth . . . can be quite similar n terms of personality disorder.



Well that is kind of the point. When people are unchristian in their actions then it is not Christianity even if they say it is. . . . Just because they might go to church doesn’t make them a Christian, and every Christian church I have been in has not ever, not even remotely, dictated what so many atheist say goes on daily.


A VERY EXCELLENT POINTS, imho. Exceedingly true.

Thanks enormously for your thoughtfu and fitting comments.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Don't worry about it Bo! Doesn't it say we will be hated [read: made fun of, persecuted, disliked] for His name's sake? . . . .

Isn't everything He said would happen coming to pass? The European Union (Revived Roman Empire), the Muslim Coalition (we're just waiting for Turkey to join and thus will begin the war of Ezekiel 38), the rebuilding of Babylon (as started by Saddam and being completed by others), moral decline that coincided with the rebirth of Israel, Israel becoming a nation again in one day as prophesied to the exact year (which was indeed fulfilled on May 15 1948), . . . .

Then of course expositional references. Some call me a believer but I call myself a skeptic. Why? Because I cannot possibly believe this is all coincidental. . . . .

Keep on going with God, Bo. There is simply too much reason to believe what we do. We would be foolish to not believe so in spite of scientific and theological evidence. Don't worry about what others think or how they treat you. Just keeping on doing what you do. No one else's opinion or treatment of us is as important as knowing that we know the truth and that we are on the side of the One who sees all.

[edit on 12/28/2007 by AshleyD]


I thoroughly agree with everything you said. Shocking! Rarely do I do that!

Yes, am used to the abuse. And, it is a kind of honor that He has slated uncommon rewards for, as I understand His plans. This is just boot camp for leaders.

Certainly the massive prophetic fulfillment in our era is unprecedented and an impressive array of proof for anyone with a remotely open mind and significant perceptive understanding . . . or even a solid curiosity willing to face the facts as searched out.

I agree that DISbelief in Christianity and The Bible REQUIRES MORE FAITH than our belief does. Incredible that anyone could construe it otherwise . . . aside from willful blindness as well as being deceived by the great Deceiver.

Certainly HIS opinion is supremely important and people pleasing is absolutely not important.

Though most of us with poor attachment tend to always be looking for more of that "God with skin on" affirmation as the little boy might have put it. Healing and wholeness can be a lifelong process.

BTW, if you have not checked out A MORE EXCELLENT WAY by H Wright--it's a great source about illness and roots thereof . . . and how dealing with such can resul in dramatic even instant healings. Other healing is certainly a process for most of us.

In any case . . . MARANATHA. Thanks for your kind post.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

The countries in that list represent the region where most posters are from. Those countries happen to be Christian majority countries. They also happen to be plenty of atheist from those countries as well -- two groups who are often at loggerheads, like you see in this thread. Hence the apparent disproportionate representation you see. Because it IS disproportionate, demographically speaking.


I'm 99.9% certain that an objective--say fairly programmed computerized analysis of the posts by atheist/hostile agnostic members and mods vs Christian members and mods would show

an EXTREMELY LOPSIDED hostilityi and punitiveness AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS . . .

further . . . that the percentage of posts by Christians vs the atheists would be a very small minority of posts by comparison.

In other words, while the atheists/rabid agnostics (which is a rather very odd philosophical conundrum) in the "Christian" countries are a small minority--HERE ON ATS, THEY ARE NOT.

Not in any resepect. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Had I the money or time, I'd do the study myself. But I have a lot of confidence in my librarian/psychologist's/sociologist's assessment of such things.

I would prefer to be wrong, on this point, however. It's not a fun state of affairs and likely to get much worse in every realm of life as the globalists seek to exterminate all authentic Christianity and Christians.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
In other words, while the atheists/rabid agnostics (which is a rather very odd philosophical conundrum) in the "Christian" countries are a small minority--HERE ON ATS, THEY ARE NOT.


Because it's the internet... people on the internet are more hostile and more confrontational. Several reasons for this:

a. The security and anonymity of sitting behind a computer screen allows people to say stuff they normally wouldn't under normal social conditions. There is no fear of physical reprisals.

b. It's hard to tell the actual tone of the message when it's in writing. When there are several possible interpretations, people naturally assume the worse possible.

c. People who know very little about the subject matter who under normal real life situations would be a little bit more introverted can be the opposite of what they are on the internet.

d. There is no face behind the person you are interacting with on the internet -- just a screen name, and an avatar that may not be representative of the actual person. This de-personalization and de-humanization of your opponent tends to make people more aggressive.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
We get hostile treatment, we stand up to it, and WE are the hostile ones?

Good one.

A great many "good" Xians are very passive aggressive in their posts. Fortunately for me and others, we can actually read between the lines.

I love how atheists are called hostile, bullies, and aggressive when we are usually the most rational and calm posters in the faith forums.

Projection -- not just for movie theaters anymore.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


I think all your points are quite valid and true.

As a shrink ans sociologist . . . it is a very interesting question as to what the DIFFERENCES on such scores would be vis a vis the different value groups.

Then we'd have to get into EXTRINSIC vs INTRINSIC 'owning' of the value orientation.

There is a VAST difference between INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC CHRISTIAN, for example.

The EXTRINSIC Christians turn out to be the

SECOND MOST

--racist, brittle, hostile, punative, rigid, . . . etc.

The INDISCRIMMINANTLY ANTI-RELIGIOUS i.e. virtually all atheists et al TURN OUT TO BE

the MOST racist, hostile, punative, rigid, narrow etc. of all the value orientations ever studied . . . though perhaps the Jihadi's are now giving them some pressure on such scores. My data is 30 years old.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

I love how atheists are called hostile, bullies, and aggressive when we are usually the most rational and calm posters in the faith forums.


Your kidding ... right?

Just to remind people of the calm nature of atheists..


ruined by deluded christian whackos trying to use any excuse imaginable to try and ram their religious views down our throats?


Is the comment Christian Wacko calm or rational?


their stuff is mostly nothing more than ignorance and proselytizing.


Calm or Rational?


The fruitcakes have taken over


Calm or Rational?

All different authors, one thread, all proclaiming atheists...

Now I am sure things are tit for tat, and for me that is fine. I am comfortable in my beliefs and it is after all your soul and not mine. I am pretty much inline with another poster as for enjoying the debates being heated, but the truth is there in regards to calm, rational or even polite posting, for all to see for themselves...

Semper



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics

All about science


Great link! Saves me a lot of work in replying to the above comments and from derailing this topic any further.


reply to post by R-evolve and Occam
 


Yes, but remember I was trying to provide the simplest explanation I could for the previous poster who explicitly asked me to explain things in "layman's terms."

To R-evolve: Adaptation vs. improvement. Both are things the theory of evolution supposes. Saying "No! No! It wasn't improvement- it was adaptation!" is mere semantics. We already know things adapt and mutate as part of our coding. Adaptation is an example of things improving or also becoming more complex. If we are believed to have evolved from single-celled organisms (as the theory of evolution claims) and it is obvious we (and insects, animals, and even foliage) are more complex than the original organic matter, then it only shows we improved though the "adaptations" that evolution proposes. This clashes with physical laws.

To Occam: My focus is on the laws of entropy which is a part of the second law of thermodynamics. Yes, I am aware of the isolated system but as I replied to a previous member, the isolated system is not earth alone but to all matter in our system. The sun, planets, speed of light, and photosynthesis are part of and bound to the laws of entropy. It is not limited to earth.

But in reality, not even evolutionists know how we made the leap from inorganic to organic beings, where the original inorganic matter came from, or why the earth isn't more populated than it is if humans have been around for over 200,000 years. We'd have trillions of people, not billions, if the human species was as old as they claim.

Even with megadistasters we would think the fossil record would show countless of fossilized humans but it doesn't. This also doesn't take into account of the lack of a population in creatures that breed faster and produce more offspring than we do. Even fragile prey like rabbits, mice, and insects (which are supposedly older than we are according to the evolutionary timeline) would be everywhere.

And I swear I won't derail this topic any further. We can make a new thread for that matter.




[edit on 12/30/2007 by AshleyD]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join