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.

 

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by alienib

The "flag waving and card carrying" terminology is a tip off to the propaganda to follow. No one describes themselves like that.
 


Exactly how one is an atheist "about half the time" is also a mystery to me, but that this scientist has failed "for 50 years" to discover how the first life came into being is not evidence of some other, unproven theory. Like Creationism.

What gibberish.




posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


I hate to burst your self riteous bubble, reverend, but science is the study of material things, their origin, purpose, etc. That is why the divine foot is not allowed. Science is the measure of quantifiable "things". That is why the divine foot is not allowed. Faith is, I, repeat, wishful thinking or hoping for the best. You'll have to pardon those of us with the closed minds, who choose to base are conclusions on results that are tested and proven, rather than clasping our hands together and begging an invisible entity in the sky for anything. Perhaps you should spend some time working on your reading comprehension, before you call some one a liar.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Don't know where you got that. I do read and understand what I read, if that's what you are getting at. I've read your bible, old and new, I've read the satanic bible, I've read the origin of the species. I have also read batman, superman, and doctor seuss. They all have "human " truths in them for those that can read and comprehend. Unfortunately only one of those books can be considered scientifically valid, and thus on par with the discussion of this thread. Does it make me an expert?
No, never said I was. I'm merely stating the obvious, that anyone with a so called open mind would recognize. Sorry if that gets your rosary in a knot,(or blanky, teddy bear.... whatever icon you use to comfort yourself),
but I aint gonna apologise because I can read.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Howie, Howie, Howie......This is a thread for discussion of the statements of a misguided, and some would say outright dishonest "scientist", not Sunday school.......go thump your bible on the Creation vs. Evolution threads.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Raistlyyn
 


Well.. first off.. I won't be moved because I know in whom I believe and he will keep what I've committed to him on that day... meaning.. before they get to my door.. they're gonna know the power of the one of who I serve.

and better hope they have an answer because they won't like me if they can't answer..

because everything under heaven will bow their knee to the name of Jesus.


welcome to Earth!! LOL



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
reply to post by Howie47
 


I hate to burst your self riteous bubble, reverend, but science is the study of material things, their origin, purpose, etc. That is why the divine foot is not allowed. Science is the measure of quantifiable "things". That is why the divine foot is not allowed. Faith is, I, repeat, wishful thinking or hoping for the best. You'll have to pardon those of us with the closed minds, who choose to base are conclusions on results that are tested and proven, rather than clasping our hands together and begging an invisible entity in the sky for anything. Perhaps you should spend some time working on your reading comprehension, before you call some one a liar.


Science is what we think we know at any one time about the universe around us (which may or may not be accurate since new discoveries are constantly made that challenge the status quo). I don't see any reason to apologize for insisting on actual peer-reviewed scientific proof. That's what science is about. So far we haven't seen any valid evidence whatsoever to point at this somehow being proof of the "creator".

Making assumptions like that is dangerous (scientifically). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-ChriS



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


At the risk of sounding facetious, Amen Brother.
This is the problem of discussing this kind of stuff. If you are pro scientific method you are close minded because you won't consider a god/creator/whatever, simply because there is no evidence of any such thing, plain and unemotional point of fact. I don't care if someone believes in God. I think it's ridiculous, but go right ahead.
On the otherhand if you try to bring the scientific method into religion, that's when the screaming starts. And it does matter to a believer that you don't believe, to them you need to be "saved".
If you want to learn science you learn in school. Fine.
If you want to learn theology go to church. Also fine.
Does anyone try to force the church to teach evolution in it's sermon. No, of course not, that's assinine.
The reverse goes for school, that's why creationism is not taught there.
But that isn't good enough is it? Gotta have that cake and eat to....
When's the last time a scientist came to your door, and asked "Have you heard about Darwin?"
I don't see scientists standing on the street corner telling people about the big bang either.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Thanks for the post. It really added to the discussion.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The bottom line of all this. Is that the Evolutionist, materialist, strangle hold, on science and it's practitioners; Has reached a point of high conspiracy. Conspiracy to squash any and all challenges to the creatorless paragrim.
It doesn't matter to them if science can find proof of a creator or not.
It will not be allowed. Because science has been made the bastion, of their religious, Christless, dogma.
They have hijacked real science. Which follows the evidence, where ever it leads. Replaced it with, "find only materialistic answers to every question. NO matter how outrageous and unscientific the answer".
Just dress the answer up, in scientific lingo, and forget scientific rules!
Take (your) creator less religion and get out of science and the class room! If you want to live in delusion and darkness, fine. Just don't drag the rest of the world down with you; and don't expect us to stand by and let you.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Howie47]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


You are absolutely right!! Now I've seen the error of my ways, Praise the Lord!
Let's run out right now and and collect these godless bastards, bring them to the town square and and cleanse them in the pure fire of our righteousness, praise the Lord!
And we shall say unto them "only through our divine guidance, shall your lost souls be led to the light of the Lord and the truth shall be known unto you", praise the Lord!
Only the followers of the light of the Holy trinity know the true path, and all who shun His loving hand will fall by the wayside of the footprints in the sand,praise the Looord!!!

....
...
.....
....
....



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


At the risk of sounding facetious, Amen Brother.
This is the problem of discussing this kind of stuff. If you are pro scientific method you are close minded because you won't consider a god/creator/whatever, simply because there is no evidence of any such thing, plain and unemotional point of fact. I don't care if someone believes in God. I think it's ridiculous, but go right ahead.
On the otherhand if you try to bring the scientific method into religion, that's when the screaming starts. And it does matter to a believer that you don't believe, to them you need to be "saved".
If you want to learn science you learn in school. Fine.
If you want to learn theology go to church. Also fine.
Does anyone try to force the church to teach evolution in it's sermon. No, of course not, that's assinine.
The reverse goes for school, that's why creationism is not taught there.
But that isn't good enough is it? Gotta have that cake and eat to....
When's the last time a scientist came to your door, and asked "Have you heard about Darwin?"
I don't see scientists standing on the street corner telling people about the big bang either.


That's because a belief in god within the human mind is based upon faith and not facts. I like to learn science but I don't have to go to school. If you want to learn theology you don't have to go to church. Noone forces the church what to teach and that's why the church decides to cast out the real science in the first place. Creationism not taught in school because it is not based on any evidence whatsoever other than faith. Science is not taught in church because deep down faith trumps facts..

Noone's going to force you to consider science because scientists understand that faith-based fanaticism can twist your logic into something that is not based on anything but faith and sooner or later you leave logic and truth at the doorstep. Sorry but I refuse to be another ignorant follower of hypocritical, blind, fanatical faith.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Your replies in this thread have been less than logical and deprived of any real substance. First you claimed that Moses knew about all the elements in the universe, now you're saying that there is a science to be studied beyond the physical.

Is this your defense of a creator or are you going to start realizing that you can't prove it either way, especially not with scripture against minds that are free from religious precipice, more directly that of Christianity and its 'end of days mongering', "repent now!" conglomerates.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 



Science is not taught in church because deep down faith trumps facts..


Faith is ignorance, and ignorance of facts does obviously trump them when that faith is not placed in finding those missing facts but rather in believing that you already have them. Once introduced, facts do trump faith, unless that faith was already placed in something factual, but you know that would defeat the purpose of faith. Faith is to believe without evidence. Sometimes doing this can make one feel good, especially when all the answers are not known and thinking about the future implications of what one would have to go through to find them can be overwhelming... sometimes we are emotionally weak too, at these moments is when the religious flock to us and line up to cast conversion spells through incantatory literature usually memorized and regurgitated from braindirtying (btw, clearly not brainwashing. A good brain wash is what is actually needed, some of those minds are so murky).

[edit on 3-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by BlasteR
 



Science is not taught in church because deep down faith trumps facts..


Faith is ignorance, and ignorance of facts does obviously trump them when that faith is not placed in finding those missing facts but rather in believing that you already have them. Once introduced, facts do trump faith, unless that faith was already placed in something factual, but you know that would defeat the purpose of faith. Faith is to believe without evidence. Sometimes doing this can make one feel good, especially when all the answers are not known and thinking about the future implications of what one would have to go through to find them can be overwhelming... sometimes we are emotionally weak too, at these moments is when the religious flock to us and line up to cast conversion spells through incantatory literature usually memorized and regurgitated from braindirtying (btw, clearly not brainwashing. A good brain wash is what is actually needed, some of those minds are so murky).

[edit on 3-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


Thanks but I look at it more simply

People either

A- Believe in creationism (which is based on Faith-based concepts and cherrypicking the real science rather than truth).

B-Don't believe in creationism but Believe in objectivity, skepticism, truth, science, and the ability for science to find the truth while faith doesn't have to be a factor in the process.

C-Don't have any opinion or are undecided.

-ChriS



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Well, I suppose you could call that fairly simple and biased since you left out so many other options. You must fall under option A or C then, because if you are B you clearly wouldn't had only given 3 options.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
you believe in it, you don't, or you are undecided. There are other options?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Yes, there are a few more that I can think of off the top of the head. Here's one; con-fused. The fusing of two opposing ideas. Such as believing in both A and B. I've met many people who have faith and believe in science, this makes them obviously confused and your options of A and B given to us here are a perfect example of showing how and why through the use of word.

But to some... confusion is their comfort, oddly enough and ironic as it may seem.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Well, as much fun as it has been sparring with the religious yahoos about this subject, which by the way has little to do with this thread, I'm bowing out. I think we have concluded that:
A. This "scientist" isn't to be taken seriously and is more than likely a creationist/intelligent design plant.
4. His findings are worth about as much as the paper they are written on (if he even bothered to write it down).
D. I don't have much use for religion.
That being said, I thank everyone that posted for a very enjoyable conversation, wether I share your belief or not, and look forward to further encounters. I have started another thread that is "evolution" specific here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Wonder over and check it out if you like, but a word of caution, it is for scientific understanding, not a god vs. darwin debate.
As someone else on this forum put it, "Life is a series of parties, the trick is to know when to leave", or something like that.
Peace



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


I'm not arguning both ways, as i'm not saying that I agree with the scientist under discussion



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat
 


Thanks for the googling advice. Unfortunately that seems to be where most of the misconceptions arrive from, people entering search terms, finding a match and being able to back up their claims - if only science worked that way. Next time you see a doctor, if he/she types your symptoms into google and diagnoses you from the results it's time to panic.

Thanks also for taking the time to reply, some good points made. As regards the rotation of the earth, if it is slowing down now, presumably it was faster in the past - so if you if you speed up the rotation by the rate it is currently slowing down you should see that it was supposedly spinning quite quickly 740,000,000 years ago



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join