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.

 

Science, Meet Your Maker!

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


First I don't consider character issues to be an ad hominem attack when discussing a spiritual matter. Mel attacked D'Souza by calling him a jerk. At the very minimum at least I provided credible third party sources for the nature of my allegations. Mel's was purely frustration and personal opinion.

Also you can't very well prove exactly what Darwin's ideas were about having a heart of stone. After all if the world is just "blind pitiless indifference", what cause would there to be for hope?




posted on May, 23 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


I'd have to take you serious to apply that label.


And this next answer suggests we not take you serious as well lol


It is only rooted in religious faith in the way that you could consider almost anything pre-enlightenment to be rooted in the same way.


HA HA HA what way was that again mel?? lol



I wouldn't deny that the religious status of an individual can drive their their motivation to understand nature. In fact, it can often be quite a problem in some. But in others, those able to take a more Baconian stance of nature as a way to intepret religious texts rather than reverse, they can certainly do science as good as anyone out there.


encouraging words ha ha



You might have in your own mind. Science doesn't deny supernatural stuff, it just says 'how do we test it?'. When you have a method to test the supernatural in a way comparable to science, then you can haz 'methodoloigical supernaturalism' as well.


Thats why we all eagerly await any REAL solid evidence of Darwininianianianan macro-errorlution. As we know the ONLY thing that can save that lead zepplin is an act of God.

split the brain, split the consciousness.



Science won't stop you from thinking you have a disembodied mind if that floats ya boat. You could even test it I suppose, and some are trying with these OBE studies. Appear to be more phail though. The mysterians are good at phail.


Darwinists should know


Chemicals are just chemicals and there is no reason to believe they can determine truth.




We leave specious claims of absolute truth to religions.


We know, we have been policing them for you guys for a long time and really gets old.



In science education we will teach the best science we can


So yu guys aren't really sand bagging?

Who is WE mel? what is that WE stuff all you guys keep suggesting as if YOU teach Science. I see this kind of thing all the time from Atheists saying words to the effect, "We in Science", how that is said while not looking every bit as ridiculous to us as whammy or myself saying it might be to you, could only be that it is assumed we take you serious,,

well,, we don't

- Con







[edit on 23-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Study M-theory if you want to know what started it all. It was not God, unless he orchestrated it, but I am an atheist.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


The world IS cold and pitiless, I am afraid. Sorry. It is a tough truth to swallow. Religion was invented partly as a cause for hope. Have you ever heard it said that "Religion is a lie we made up to make us feel better"?

"Tiger's got to hunt.
Bird's got to fly.
Man's got to wonder, 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger's got to rest.
Bird's got to land.
Man's go to tell himself he understand."
-Books of Bokonon, Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut

I think this little ditty contains profound truth.

Also, I have not read this whole thread, but I would like to mention a few things about Darwin & Intelligent Design because I think they have been mentioned, if not then this is somewhat less relevant, I am sorry.

Intelligent Design "Theorists"/Anti-Darwinists
1. Have you read "On the Origin of Species"?
2. I often hear the argument, "'Evolution' is just a theory." "Just a theory"? The scientific definition of a theory is a postulated concept backed up by an enormous body of evidence. A theory is an idea that is all but confirmed. Did you know that GRAVITY is "just a theory"?
3. "Intelligent Design" is in no way scientific and does not belong in science curriculum. Science is backed up by EVIDENCE. Nothing in science is taken on faith. "Intelligent Design" is base entirely on blind faith. Keep it to Sunday school. Stay out of real education.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korhyan
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Study M-theory if you want to know what started it all. It was not God, unless he orchestrated it, but I am an atheist.


Ever heard the phrase grasping at straws? Multiple universe theories are a atheist joke. A desperate attempt to explain away the anthropic principal of cosmology that so strongly supports the belief in God that prominent atheists have actually converted due to the evidence.



What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any. As Weinberg admits, "These are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support." Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas "a fantasy.... It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other.... There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed." I appreciate this candor, and I am reminded of that old Ptolemaic remedy for problematic data: "just add epicycles." Now we are in the realm of "just add universes."
D'Souza

Yes M theory is the atheist scientist last gasp in the face of overwhelming evidence for God. The prioncipal of Occams Razor that when offered many possible explanations the one that requires the least assumptions is the best.

All theories of multiple universes violate Occam's razor. These atheists invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain a single case when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation right at hand. That our universe is designed for life because someone designed it that way. You don't need to make up the idea of a hundred billion universes that you know nothing about in order to account for the only universe you can possibly examine.


[edit on 5/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Well, I see no need to continue this discussion here, as it is already quite active on another forum titled "Why are Atheists...Atheists?"



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Oxford Mathematician Dr John Lennox humiliates Dawkins in a debate.

Intellectual Honesty - Atheism Exposed






WARNING
The brilliant mind of John Lennox layeths the smacketh down on the delusion and detriment to science known as atheism. If you are an atheist, this video will either cause your closed-mind to explode or cause you to seriously question your faith in the pointless religion of atheism.

COLD HARD FACT
Dr. Lennox is smarter than both you and Richard "Psychologically Scarred" Dawkins, therefor his opinion holds more value than either of your's. Remember this before you attempt to "debunk" this video with your transparent fallacies.


Science is Fun - Educate yourself



[edit on 5/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


This is getting retarded. You're using one guy's opinion (not even your own) to try to debunk atheism? Some of you christian guys sure as heck are insecure about your beliefs - maybe it's you who should think deeply about how they feel - if you feel the need to defend your faith here, maybe you're losing it.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Oh like you don't blindly parrot your borg master Dickie Dawkins Dave? I've never seen you type an original word.

The well known davebot420 form post :: "Obviously you have a misunderstanding of evolution... [insert random davebot420 BS here] "

It's called "ed you cay shun" there superdave. You can learn stuff from others. They cane teeeeeeee aaach you thangz supra-dave. Whys do use crita ma cize edu cay shun?

Prefer the blind ignorance of atheism do you?

Dr John Lennox defeated zoo cage attendant Dawkins fair and square in the scored debate. Dawkins agreed to the terms - so stop whining. Nobody likes a poor loser. Atheism debunks itself. And it's hardly one guys opinion.



[edit on 5/27/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


This is getting retarded. You're using one guy's opinion (not even your own) to try to debunk atheism? Some of you christian guys sure as heck are insecure about your beliefs - maybe it's you who should think deeply about how they feel - if you feel the need to defend your faith here, maybe you're losing it.


Whether it is one man or a thousand, it isn't the opinions he gives Dave but the FACTS and the Fact is,,


Dick got OwnT

BAD

- Con



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Yeah, I clicked on that link, watched the video, all the while waiting feverishly for my mind to explode. After it was done, I wondered if the link you posted was misplaced and searched for the "real" video... came upon typical ID and Christian logic, and nothing more... and was wholly disappointed. For some bizarre reason I had expected to actually be presented with a new, somewhat effective argument.

Also, that part of the video description "Lennox is smarter than you..." is a perfect example of elitist Christian BS and gap worshipping.

Okay, for time number three... your argument is weak. Very weak.


PS
Dave... for once I disagree with you... this isn't getting retarded. It became retarded and has remained that way ever since "The Origin of Species" was published. It's retardedness was further puncuated when "The God Delusion" was published, for as of right now the two have thouroughly refuted every bit of IDist logic (and most Christian logic) yet presented.


[edit on 30-5-2008 by SlyCM]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SlyCM
 


I am agnostic and I just read the thread, You got spanked in the debate Skydude. You refuted zilch - just called a few people with retarded. Pretty weak effort



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If by "skydude" you mean me, of course I didn't refute anything... there was nothing to be refuted that hasn't been a hundred times before.

However I do fail to recall in what post someone was called "retarded".



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

The Anthropic Principle



The Anthropic Principle refers to the observed scientific fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life to exist. The so-called arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one very strange and ironic (to naturalists) thing in common: these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, another fine example of the champion, never refuted argument for Gods existence Paleys's watch.

A few pieces of supporting evidence:


  1. Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." Life as we know it would be impossible.
  2. The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).Again no life.
  3. A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars. No stars not heat - no energy ~ no life.
  4. If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is i.e. roughly twice the mass of an electron - then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say bye-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.
  5. The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. If you study chemistry as I did in college you will learn that water is lighter in its solid than liquid form i.e. Ice floats. If it didn't, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. Again ~ no life.
  6. All life is carbon based. The synthesis of carbon involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the nuclear strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12 Which allows the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long. Hence no percise ratio - no carbon ~ no life


Google Video Link


"A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world." John Wheeler

"everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it" Hugh Ross

"... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life." Patrick Glynn

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM

However I do fail to recall in what post someone was called "retarded".


Oh you do? Let me help you with your memory lapse sir.


Originally posted by SlyCM
Dave... for once I disagree with you... this isn't getting retarded. It became etarded and has remained that way ever since "The Origin of Species" was published. It's retardedness was further puncuated when "The God Delusion" was published, for as of right now the two have thouroughly refuted every bit of IDist logic (and most Christian logic) yet presented


Things don't "get retarded" you are implying the people who asserteded them are. Including great scientists and mathematicians. That is the only sensible logical inference from your rude callous response. Mental retardation is a developmental disability, for you and Dave to imply that people who believe in God are "retarded" is not only insulting but it is a trivialization and mockery of a serious triarchic disorder.

A leopard always shows it spots.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Ah, but of course one can take colloquial out of it's context.

Furthermore, neither Dave nor I was "calling" anyone retarded. The debate - this debate - is getting a little retarded; do you not agree?

You can play the Jew/Christian "I'm an innocent victim!" game if you so choose. Nobody - probably including you - buys it, though.

I'll deal with the Anthropic Principle in my "Is Evolution Improbable" thread.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SlyCM
 


No you called believers "retarded" in a backhanded way and got called on it. To make it worse - you just did it again. You assume you are "right" and I am wrong so the debate is "retarded". Again debates are not described with human qualities the implication by association is you are referring to me. You are passive aggressively referring to all believers in God and trivializing - for your own amusement - the handicapped.

You can't help yourself because you erroneously assume you are smarter than anyone that believes in God. But obviously you cannot be if you are making the freshman assertion that the earth bound theory of evolution can deal with a cosmological principle. That's absurd.


[edit on 6/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Again, and as above: I was, nor was Dave, referring to any single person on here as "retarded". And I assume that your typical "In your face" debate style and deliberate removal of a colloquial from it's context in a desperate effort to - again - discredit your opponents instead of debating the real issue is perfectly fine then?

And as above, you can play the "I'm an innocent victim!" game if you want but nobody buys it.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

The Anthropic Principle


A lot of text you didn't write.


I wonder if you also learned in college that plagiarizing someone else's work, changing the words around, and passing it off as your own without any sources or credit greatly discredits your opinion, and can lead you to being expelled or put on academic probation.
I believe that's also a no-no on this websites Terms & Conditions, as well.

Source of your article

Anyway, here's some refutation to your above claim:


It may be true that life in the Universe is exceedingly improbable, that the conditions necessary for the emergence of life as we know it are exceedingly improbable, and the selection of such favorable initial conditions and physical laws of the Universe is exceedingly improbable. So what! It may well be true that our Universe and our existence is a vastly improbable accident. It may be true that if the machinery of the Universe were to be run again, (and again and again) a Universe like ours (and with us in it) would never emerge. As long as our Universe is not impossible, we have no reason to ascribe transcendent purpose or deliberate design to its origins.



As an example, consider the toss of a billion coins. While a toss of a billion heads is very unlikely, it is not forbidden. If the very first toss results in a billion heads, there is no reason to suspect that the toss was carefully orchestrated by a master Creator. In fact, any given configuration of coins is as likely as any other and requires its own explanation and can thus be construed as proof for manipulation by a master Creator. Therefore, the selection of one particular final configuration (and thus the rejection of all other possible final configurations) is not a proof of any coherent statement about the process of selection itself.


Source



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by davion

I wonder if you also learned in college that plagiarizing someone else's work, changing the words around, and passing it off as your own without any sources or credit greatly discredits your opinion, and can lead you to being expelled or put on academic probation.
I believe that's also a no-no on this websites Terms & Conditions, as well.


You'll have to come up with another excuse to hit the alert key guy as I see it. Their is no plagiarizing in his post unless you think giving the link to the original source is just something he did to make it easy for bait and alert trolls like you to bust him with.


Nice try but you might want to stick to defeating your opponents argument with a better argument than always inventing some way to eliminate them using false allegations.

- Con



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join