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.

 

So, Science Explains The How, And Religion Explains The Why???

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

also sirrius wouldnt behave the way it does, if you have to change vast chunk of our solar system and galaxy to make your model work chances are your model doesnt work
it doesn’t work with the stars, I conceded to that point with polaris. Everything else works though. You’re right I’d have to change things drastically in terms of the stars, but at that point it ceases being an exercise and it turns into a model of vainness.


the distorted comment was before i got to the central hub for north model

gotya


which falls apart with the rising of the sun, or repeating the east/west plane trip on the north/south axis
rising sun is no problem if the sun is extremely small and closer to the earth. Plane trips east to west or visa versa are no problem. Flying North to south is no problem either. North to south, back to north is only a problem if you leave from the first destination point in the opposite direction. (which no one does)


a simple sunrise rising in the east collapses the model as east west become clockwise/anti-clockwise

Sun revolves above the earth clockwise, extremely close.


a flat earth like the map gets around the sunrise issue, the hub point model doesnt
hmm, can you elaborate?


not really, it could have been possible until you throw in the north/south geometry and plane trip to confirm.

True, if you take a plane across Antarctica, the model falls apart, every other plane trip works though. Hehe, again, who does that?!


equator in africa up to the north pole onwards to the south pole ..... then how do you get from there to africa again without doing the same as the satelites flip underneath and fly along back to the other end or travel around the circumferance until your at a point 180 degrees opposite where you hit the edge

you could never travel across the antartic youd hit the end of the planet or travel round in a circle forever
correct



they really do two axis's of cricumferance and the plane trip to check them alone detory both the flat earth map view and flat earth hub point north model

You’d only need the “cross Antarctica plane” (north/south circumference) trip, not both. But who flies planes across Antarctica? I don’t know anyone who has ever done such a thing.


the sun rise also does a fantastic job of this
sunrise works, pretty sure. 100% positive it works for everywhere except for antarcica.


example of spliting somthing down into multipoints to attack them rather then the whole thing
I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. I want to keep the dialogue going here, I wasn’t playing dumb.


micro change with individuals a species or breeding population, macro change between species or breeding populations

Sounds like different scenarios employing the same mechanism. But they are none the less different things.


if micro exists then so does macro, it the same process taking place in two species or breeding population at the same time, where a micro only focuses on whats happening in the one
not true that is a logical fallacy. That is like saying the existence of my invisible pet dragon is indisputable simply because I claim he drinks cool aid. Just because cool aid really does exist doesn’t mean my dragon does.


not goal shifting, just showing how your tactics are similar
problem is, you can’t prove macro evolution without ground and consequence.


doesnt matter how close the sun is for it to rise in the east and set in the west on a flat earth of anyshape with north bieng the central point its impossible for the sun to rise in the east everywhere
ok, imagine an extremely large foot ball field that’s flat. Imagine you are an ant in that field. Imagine that there is a man with a glowing orb carrying that orb across the field. At a certain point the light will “appear” from over the blades of grass, he’ll cross over you, or by you, and when he departs when he is far enough, you will no longer see the light. Same concept.


not without multipul small suns hovering directly over specific areas with some form of shielding to prevent more then one sun at any time bieng visable and even that still has massive problems
you don’t need multiple suns, what you would need is something that “drags” the light downward after a the sun reaches a specific distance from a position on the model relative to the linear speed of the earth.


its based on a disk, dont need the details as long as it based on a 2 dimensional shape it fails at sunrises
it really doesn’t


a cone kind of works, or a semi-sphere but a flat disk wont, not one with a hubpoint bieng north for some of them it rises in the south, some the east some the west and some the north
it works dude, take the logo for the UN take a ball to simulate the earth, and follow where the sun would go if it were a sphere, it works, the same way a flat map works for navigation except in reverse.


but wont make a flat earth feasable

Agreed, but it makes it MORE feasible.


if the sun is closer then it is were a lot warmer and getting iradiated, that is unless you shrink the sun to a balance it out which mean it may as well have stayed where it was the decrease in mass leads to a decrease in intesity stopping it cooking earth but also lowering its ability to generate gravity
. Yes it’s smaller, a lot smaller in the model. Considering that mass is probably not the chief cause of gravitational pull it’s not a problem. I’m more inclined to believe that gravity is immensely reliant upon ions. Particularly the trillions of tons emitted by the sun per second that bounce offf of everything in our solar system and beyond; I might be exaggerating with that number, but I know it’s a lot.


so youve brought the sun closer and altered its ability to generate gravity and heat
one can never account for dues ex machina.



now how do you fix its paralax shift? changing the size wont make a differnance ...
changing the size won’t make a difference is right, mass is not completely related to gravity in my opinion.


not with the north/south and east/west geometry coupled with the confirmation plane trips



for it to have circumferances on both an x and y axis rules out the possability of a flat earth, it is 3 dimenional and continuos if you are able to travel all the way around on both axis's from a point on the equator

the sun screw it up, moving it closer or further away wont fix the problem, moving it closer or futher away then screws up its paralax shift so now you have to break algebra to make the sun closer but appear further away
appear further away? It’s not hard, human beings are naturally unable to gauge distance of airborne objects, particularly celestial bodies.


what ever flat earth model the standard flat map layout or a north hubpoint everytime you fix one thing to make it possible you break at least another 1

That’s what causes paradigm shifts; the entire revamping of the way of thinking.


without seeing the actual model its hard to com up with model specific faults butthe ones above are just generalied for ANY flat earth

There are faults within the model concerning the stars and trekking over Antarctica. Yes of course, there must be faults, because it is not the way it is. Or so we think



[edit on 2/3/2009 by JPhish]




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
it doesn’t work with the stars, I conceded to that point with polaris. Everything else works though. You’re right I’d have to change things drastically in terms of the stars, but at that point it ceases being an exercise and it turns into a model of vainness.
yeah if you have to alter the solar sytem and large chunks of the galaxy its getting silly


rising sun is no problem if the sun is extremely small and closer to the earth.

the only weay to do it and stop the light cascading over the whole disk i to have an extremley small sun set extremly low in the earths atmosphere orbitting the northern point along the equator

it has to be low enough to prevent light spilling acros the entire disk,

but this raises 2 problem, 1) it low enough for plane to fly into 2)theres no surnrise or sunset it just gets smaller in the sky until it disappears, then when its time to rise it just grows bigger in the sky

if the sun circles around the outside the outside once it move higher then the plane of the earth the light spils across its surface, depending where you are on the disk the sun will rise somewhere on earth in the north south east and west simultaniously with a central northern hub point

if you go for the more traditional world is a it appears on a map but it a circle not a square again you need a small localised sun but as long a it travels east to west along the equator it rises in the east and sets in the west but the entire world is in some period of day light(sunrise-set) at the same time unless you warp the earth to make it longer then it is wide


Plane trips east to west or visa versa are no problem. Flying North to south is no problem either. North to south, back to north is only a problem if you leave from the first destination point in the opposite direction. (which no one does)
you dont even need to do that, its just the easiest way to visualie the problem, there are various research stations dotted along the coast of the antartic to rim the continent to the dik you have to stretch it making the relative distance between them longer in relation to other land masses

if you have a base directly south of the tip of outh america and one directly south of the tip of africa a few thousand miles becomes a few tens of thouands of miles to travel from one to the other which ships do, also teams travel from one station to the other sharing equipment and just bieng sociable so now then trips become thousands of miles to travel around the circumferance


Sun revolves above the earth clockwise, extremely close. if it travels around not over then in the northern hemisphere the sun is in the south, and in the southern hemisphere the sun is still in the south

if it travels above the earth the northern point would be contantly lit as light bleeds across the disk, there would be a northern disk continually recieving daylight you would need some funky laws of physics to allow the light to only travel acros 1/2 the planet then stop, and sunrise/set doesnt happen unless you add curvature to the earth to form a dome as theres no way for the sun drop below the horizon the sun just moves away from your relative position and just grows smaller in the sky

like i say seeing how youve hung your sun would help find specifics

but if it travels around the outside the sun alway appears to be in a southernly position and very low in the sky(to counter light bleed across the disk) or higher in sky the light bleeds and appears to rise in all directions depending on where you are on earth at the time becasue of the light bleed

or have it above the disk theres no sunset/rise it just gets darker/lighter while the sun already in the sky grows/shrinks

cant see a way to get around these without adding curvature to dome or cone the earth


can you elaborate?
if the earth is laid out as in your standard world map with a small sun traveling along the equator east-west
the un always appears in the east and disappears in the west but without adding curvature to the disk like a pringle(stopping it bieng a flat earth) you wont get sunset/rise


True, if you take a plane across Antarctica, the model falls apart, every other plane trip works though. Hehe, again, who does that?!
takes a plane? no one as far as im aware ...

except this guy who fly across antartica
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Ellsworth" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
maps.google.com...[/ur l]

heres a map of current antartic research bases, ditance from one end to the other roughly 20,000 km

for the distance to not be distorted you have to 1/2 the circumferance of the earth from roughly 40,000 down to 20,000

giving you only 1/2 the initial area to place continent, o do you squeeze em all on and make it poible to walk from siberia to canada, and from south america onto the antartic and tep off from there to australia or south africa? or shirnk all the continents down to making every country half the size?



Sun revolves above the earth clockwise, extremely close.
if it travels around not over then in the northern hemisphere the sun is in the south, and in the southern hemisphere the sun is still in the south

if it travels above the earth the northern point would be contantly lit as light bleeds across the disk, there would be a northern disk continually recieving daylight you would need some funky laws of physics to allow the light to only travel acros 1/2 the planet then stop, and sunrise/set doesnt happen unless you add curvature to the earth to form a dome as theres no way for the sun drop below the horizon the sun just moves away from your relative position and just grows smaller in the sky

like i say seeing how youve hung your sun would help find specifics

but if it travels around the outside the sun alway appears to be in a southernly position and very low in the sky(to counter light bleed across the disk) or higher in sky the light bleeds and appears to rise in all directions depending on where you are on earth at the time becasue of the light bleed

or have it above the disk theres no sunset/rise it just gets darker/lighter while the sun already in the sky grows/shrinks

cant see a way to get around these without adding curvature to dome or cone the earth


can you elaborate?
if the earth is laid out as in your standard world map with a small sun traveling along the equator east-west
the un always appears in the east and disappears in the west but without adding curvature to the disk like a pringle(stopping it bieng a flat earth) you wont get sunset/rise


True, if you take a plane across Antarctica, the model falls apart, every other plane trip works though. Hehe, again, who does that?!
takes a plane? no one as far as im aware ...

except this guy who fly across antartica
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Ellsworth

and these guys walked it
en.wikipedia.org...



You’d only need the “cross Antarctica plane” (north/south circumference) trip, not both. But who flies planes across Antarctica? I don’t know anyone who has ever done such a thing.
im accounting for both models of flat earth without seeing your perticular one im trying to cover all base

north/south and east/west buggers up all variations of flatism


sunrise works, pretty sure. 100% positive it works for everywhere except for antarcica.
see above


I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. I want to keep the dialogue going here, I wasn’t playing dumb.
before you were takaling one observation at a which is possable to do(as long as ypu pick which ones to object to) and what creationists attempt with evolution, which is why i used that as an example

but as each observation support the others when the observations are combined the singular arguments to some of them fail to cover ALL of them and fall apart when combined


Sounds like different scenarios employing the same mechanism. But they are none the less different things.
not really

with take the fharoe(p?) mouse as an example, a single strain of mouse was introduced, the strain diverged into several distinct species and subspecies with different habitats, breeding cycles/behaviour, genecounts in some strains(fussed chromosones)

micro evolution is looking at only one strain and the changes within that lineage, macro i looking at the differances between those diverging populations

strain A is going through thier microevolutionary change, strain B is going through thier microevolutionary change

macro evolution is just looking at the differances in those 2 strains direction of microevolutionary change

so a speciation event happens and now you have 2 different routes of microevolution, macro evolution isnt a seperate process that makes change its a comparrision of changes starting with the specieation event and examaning the micro processes's

so its not really a process more a comparrison of a process, and a label to distinguish a level of attained change for our benefit of undertanding


not true that is a logical fallacy. That is like saying the existence of my invisible pet dragon is indisputable simply because I claim he drinks cool aid. Just because cool aid really does exist doesn’t mean my dragon does.
denouncing macro its more akin to saying number exist but addition doesnt and cant

addition i an exploration of the relationship of numbers

in the same way macro is an exploration of the relationship of microevolution after divergance

micro happens, and happens differently between isolated breeding groups. those differeances are what macro is about, a label to stick on it when those diverging micro processes lead to significant differance between the 2 micro proceses

becasue micro doesnt happen exactly the same in seperate breeding groups or in differing enviroments it leads to divergance, it produces somthing we can stick the macro label on

as long as micro doesnt follow a universal linnear pattern for all groups of the same species the macro exists, which is why i say if micro exits o does macro , macro cannot exist without micro, and micro doesnt work in a way that prevents macro

the micro process would have to fundametally change for micro=macro to be incorrect


problem is, you can’t prove macro evolution without ground and consequence.
macro' proven by proving speciation event happen(happens so often weve had to name the 4 types weve observed to differenciate) and proving micro changes arnt universal and linnear but contain random elements and are none universal between populations

you dont really need to show evidence for it, as i say it not a process as such it a comparrison of proven processes, show micro and peciation happens and micro is the exploration of changes between the diverging micro processes in the 2 subspecies/species

prove land exists and things use it to travel, prove birds can travel with out pushing on land and macro would become comparing the differance of land and air travel (wow thats a crappy analogy)

[edit on 3/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
quote]ok, imagine an extremely large foot ball field that’s flat. Imagine you are an ant in that field. Imagine that there is a man with a glowing orb carrying that orb across the field. At a certain point the light will “appear” from over the blades of grass, he’ll cross over you, or by you, and when he departs when he is far enough, you will no longer see the light. Same concept.

but youd need to fundamentaly alter the landscape

try it again but your an ant on an almost flat dirt football field youd see it comming a mile away not really appearing over but appearing to grow bigger, even more so when your on an elevated vantage point

the sun wouldnt rise it would grow larger in the sky, pass then grow smaller and without the angle of refraction from a dropping sun no sunset


you don’t need multiple suns, what you would need is something that “drags” the light downward after a the sun reaches a specific distance from a position on the model relative to the linear speed of the earth.
so how did you get around this? what drags the light down and prevents it bleeding across the disk?


it works dude, take the logo for the UN take a ball to simulate the earth, and follow where the sun would go if it were a sphere, it works, the same way a flat map works for navigation except in reverse.
but the sun looses the ability to disappear below the horizon and create sunsets unless the flat earth becaomes as i say a dome or a cone


Agreed, but it makes it MORE feasible.
but still to many inconcistencies to what observed to make it credable



so youve brought the sun closer and altered its ability to generate gravity and heat
one can never account for dues ex machina.
was a subtle probing question to see if i was thinking along the same lines


changing the size won’t make a difference is right, mass is not completely related to gravity in my opinion.
but still wont alter the discrepancy in parallax shift used to calculate the distance of the sun from the earth, so the maths would show just how close the sun is

and using measurments from 2 ground points would casue the same, 2 locations 100 miles north/south of the equator measure the angle of the sun overhead, you know the angles and the disatnce between point A and point B which mean you can work out the distance to point C (the sun)


appear further away? It’s not hard, human beings are naturally unable to gauge distance of airborne objects, particularly celestial bodies.
still not going to fix the basic angles problem, the smaller the angle to the object the closer it is

fool the eye, fail the maths


That’s what causes paradigm shifts; the entire revamping of the way of thinking.
but it not revamping it completley altering everything to make it try and fit somthing that has way to many observations against it


There are faults within the model concerning the stars and trekking over Antarctica. Yes of course, there must be faults, because it is not the way it is. Or so we think


yes theres always going to be faults but it the amount of faults and conflicting data compared to whats observed and tested that allow u to know if somthing is entirely wrong or partially/mostly correct

which is why flat earth fails, young earth fails, Lamarkism and neo-lamarkism fails, geocentric solar systems fail, disease caused by demons fail, life appearing in a jar of peanut butter fail, and unfortunatley the existance of crocaducks fail (dam id love a pet one of those)

a round earth can account for all the observation with no conflicting points, we know now it not a perfect sphere and it bulges out towards the sun, thanks to the suns gravity becasue all evidence points to the un bieng the largest generator of gravity in our solar system

it simply ha nothing to conflict with it, the same as evolution (yeah i know keep going back to this but a you know its my main stomping ground on ats so its easy for me to show parallels) its account for all the obervations with nothing conflicting.(the internal models of various aspects have ome conflicts which points they are or appear to be all partially correct so its a case of stripping away the bit that dont work and then unifying the working bits)


[edit on 3/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Science and relgion don't explain anything...


You know I would agree with the attitude some here have expressed of "don't worry enjoy life" if what we're experiencing as consciousness was indeed life, but it's not.

Of course I do agree there is nothing to worry about, but the reality is we are a form of artificial life, not real life at all.

In truth we are nothing more than dead material with animation, our state of existence IMO should be more accurately described linguistically as a stage of death not life or not real life but rather artificial.

That is what all conscious life is, it's temporary animation and awareness, in a nut shell artificial life.

It is interesting because you'd figure that people who believed in evolution would understood that fact, being so smart and all?

But both religion and science make the mistake of assuming that simply because we are aware and think therefore we must be alive.

It's the old adage I think therefore I am, the greatest and must successful lie ever released into human psychobiology..

----------------

Today's installment from WIG'N ( What Is God Network )

WIG'N #NO 18 Title: Touching God
/ae54w3

-----------------------





[edit on 3-2-2009 by newday]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by newday
 

well as all us evolutionists and science as a whole are apparently so ignorant maybe you can explain why theres no such thing as a working deffinition of what life is?

its considered organic chemistry in organic cells travelling around in a bigger bag made of organic cells (made from the organic chemistry) doing whats needed to keep the organic chemistry in action, essentially a mobile chemitry set in action

life is just the label for when the organic chemistry is active, szostak labs could be running around declaring how they made life in the labs but without a working deffinition of what exactly it is to match it against they didnt

conciousness its self is seen as a result of said organic chemistry

life is a label to differenciate from differing states

but can you explain how and why you know your deffinition is accurate? why yours is truth and any other false?


In truth we are nothing more than dead material with animation
for material to be dead it must once have been alive

do you mean we are just animated matter that once was inanimate? which as were built of the ame element of matter as rocks, stars, goldfish and twinkiees isnt what your saying very similar to what science say but your calling wrong?



[edit on 3/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfunyeah if you have to alter the solar sytem and large chunks of the galaxy its getting silly

Yes, but you can imagine how one can make a system more and more feasible as one alters the parameters.

the only weay to do it and stop the light cascading over the whole disk i to have an extremley small sun set extremly low in the earths atmosphere orbitting the northern point along the equator

Exactly, I said before, the light would have to be “dragged” downward somehow. I have my own physics propositions which might lend a hand to the notion, but I normally stop there for obvious reasons. A slight curvature to the “disk” might make the model more sensible but I don’t believe it would be necessary.

it has to be low enough to prevent light spilling acros the entire disk,

How low is low enough, I’m thinking as long as its’ low enough, and far enough, it wouldn’t actually have to set/rise. It would be an optical illusion. Similar to when you hold out your hand and grasp something in the far distance; you can “apparently grab monumental objects like houses and mountains with your hand . . . so long as the sun is far enough away, natural obstacles such as trees, mountains, and even small things like waves on the ocean would block out the sun once it reached a good distance from the observer.

but this raises 2 problem, 1) it low enough for plane to fly into

Haha that would be funny, never thought of that one. If you think that’s funny, imagine a solar eclipse.

2)theres no surnrise or sunset it just gets smaller in the sky until it disappears, then when its time to rise it just grows bigger in the sky
which isn’t really as bad as the last 2 things we mentioned. “attentions passengers, if turn your attention to the starboard windows, we will now be maneuvering around the sun.”

if the sun circles around the outside the outside once it move higher then the plane of the earth the light spils across its surface, depending where you are on the disk the sun will rise somewhere on earth in the north south east and west simultaniously with a central northern hub point
sounds right

at the same time unless you warp the earth to make it longer then it is wide
well yeah it would be slightly elliptical, but I not much.

giving you only 1/2 the initial area to place continent, o do you squeeze em all on and make it poible to walk from siberia to canada, and from south america onto the antartic and tep off from there to australia or south africa? or shirnk all the continents down to making every country half the size?

oh I always assumed you realized that the actual diameter of the flat earth would have to be nearly twice that of the actual earth.

some funky laws of physics to allow the light to only travel acros 1/2 the planet then stop, and sunrise/set doesnt happen unless you add curvature to the earth to form a dome as theres no way for the sun drop below the horizon the sun just moves away from your relative position and just grows smaller in the sky
like i say seeing how youve hung your sun would help find specifics

I’ve always had the sun pictured a little higher than the exosphere. If you’ve seen “The TrueMan Show”, it’s what inspired me to come up with this exercise. Funky physics, I like that, and they would indeed need to be “funky”.


but if it travels around the outside the sun alway appears to be in a southernly position and very low in the sky(to counter light bleed across the disk) or higher in sky the light bleeds and appears to rise in all directions depending on where you are on earth at the time becasue of the light bleed
yeah that fixes the “bleeding” problem, but then you’d have to deviate too far from the actual model and how it is perceived.

or have it above the disk theres no sunset/rise it just gets darker/lighter while the sun already in the sky grows/shrinks
yes, that’s pretty much what needs to happen.

cant see a way to get around these without adding curvature to dome or cone the earth. if the earth is laid out as in your standard world map with a small sun traveling along the equator east-west
the un always appears in the east and disappears in the west but without adding curvature to the disk like a pringle(stopping it bieng a flat earth) you wont get sunset/rise

yes, making the flat earth slightly domed might help, but then it wouldn’t be “flat” anymore.

the micro process would have to fundametally change for micro=macro to be incorrect

Hmm well since I wasn’t sure what to make of your analogy, to sum up the micro/macro stuff, in a mathematical analogy.

A = a specie
B and D = mutations
# = any real number

A - B = C
A - D = E
C – E = micro evolutionary divergence = X

X^# = X

X = 1 v 0 v macro evolutionary change v micro evolutionary divergence

X = X

Maybe my equation doesn’t work if it’s linear though . . . not sure.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

try it again but your an ant on an almost flat dirt football field youd see it comming a mile away not really appearing over but appearing to grow bigger, even more so when your on an elevated vantage point

Yes I realize that, but the earth isn’t devoid of natural obstacles, there are many.

so how did you get around this? what drags the light down and prevents it bleeding across the disk?

Well, if the earth is moving “upwards” linearly through space, for arguments sake, at faster than light speed. The sunlight would not be able to traverse horizontally fast enough before it was “pulled” downward.

but the sun looses the ability to disappear below the horizon and create sunsets unless the flat earth becaomes as i say a dome or a cone

So then the questions is, "can the ant see the sun behind the ant hill?"

was a subtle probing question to see if i was thinking along the same lines

I think we’re on the same page.

but still wont alter the discrepancy in parallax shift used to calculate the distance of the sun from the earth, so the maths would show just how close the sun is
that’s assuming that the current data is correct and that the sun isn’t closer than we suspect.

and using measurments from 2 ground points would casue the same, 2 locations 100 miles north/south of the equator measure the angle of the sun overhead, you know the angles and the disatnce between point A and point B which mean you can work out the distance to point C (the sun)
triangulation, what a bitch.

still not going to fix the basic angles problem, the smaller the angle to the object the closer it is
fool the eye, fail the maths

Good stuff man, I didn’t think of that, though, if the light bleeding is fixed, it would be rather hard to triangulate, no?

but it not revamping it completley altering everything to make it try and fit somthing that has way to many observations against it

I’ll say this, the bible made sense 1000’s of years ago, and people still say it makes sense today. Change a little here, mistranslate a little there, and anything becomes viable.

disease caused by demons fail

Don’t tell that to tom cruise.

it simply ha nothing to conflict with it, the same as evolution (yeah i know keep going back to this but a you know its my main stomping ground on ats so its easy for me to show parallels) its account for all the obervations with nothing conflicting.(the internal models of various aspects have ome conflicts which points they are or appear to be all partially correct so its a case of stripping away the bit that dont work and then unifying the working bits)
my biggest problem with the current evolutionary model is that it does not acknowledge the possibility that the creatures’ sentience consciously facilitates the mutations. It seems like utter chaos and it doesn’t sit well with me.

Originally posted by noobfun
do you mean we are just animated matter that once was inanimate? which as were built of the ame element of matter as rocks, stars, goldfish and twinkiees isnt what your saying very similar to what science say but your calling wrong?

i guess we really are nothing more than shadows and dust aye boon?


[edit on 2/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


sorry for the late reply ^_^

been thinking about a way to conclude what we have learnt with our dabbles in flat earthism, we could go on forever picking fault and trying to correct them

i think it brought two thing to light

1) you can get close with the start model but then any thing you fix in the model ends up breaking somthing else in a continuos cycle and can never be fully functioning (or even really that close to functioning) as a probable possable

2) Somthing profound struck me, this is exactly what the numerous creationist made up scenarious and numerous other alleged science based conpiracies and wild eyed theories (really a hypothesis) do (such as the magical growing earth one)

they plot a basic model that could be a possable one on face value and then draw in the people who dont know enough and cant be bothered to actually go and learn or look deeper as supporters.

Becasue anyone who look beyond the nice shiney finish notices blatantly wrong or absurd things like planes flying into suns, sunrise bieng nothing more dramatic then having a building blocking the sun then jut standing around waiting for it to poke its head over, and no idea how the hell ecipses work (ive spent 2 days thinking about it and beyond making the moon a kind of box that shuts around the sun im stumped)

maybe you should get a DVD together and market it, you could be up there with hovind and ham as long as you put a christian twist to it. just remeber to pay your taxes or when your on your knees for jesus it will be prenounced with a H and he will be your burly mexican boyfriend/cellmate



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
No problem

Valid conclusions for 1 and 2.

A DVD haha . . . thanks, but I have better things to do than exploit gullible people. It’s been a pleasure talking with you, Noob.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
So, Science Explains The How, And Religion Explains The Why???


Problem is that the two are mutually exclusive, unless you are a hypocrite and choose to ignore the disharmony between science and religion. Everyone lies, the religious lie to themselves most of all.

Looking at the raw science of -well everything, it seems more likely that there is no purpose, there is no 'why' because if there were, morality and "good and bad" would not simply be concepts that we impose on the amoral systems of nature. Nature cares not for it's subjects.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by Good Wolf]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Science and religion will never prove anything..

The only thing science can confirm to exist is an energy of everything.

Religion is just something used to capture peoples minds with, in order to prevent them from manifesting the power of God for themselves.

Science does the same thing really but there would be no science without religion to give birth to it.

Religion is the great whore and science is the son of the whore who will rape his mother leaving her pregnant with the child of perdition.

Science will ultimately give us the means to destroy ourselves and religion will give us the excuse to use the means of science.

---------

Today's installment from: WIG'N
"What Is God Network" WIG'N out on the things of God.

WIG'N 22: Pretending
Link: /d9b7cw

---------------



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I think it would be more accurate to say that Science explains the how, and Mathematics explains the why. Religion is merely the romanticizing of the process.

I believe that the universe itself is nihilistic, but humans are not. Because we recognize our lives as finite, we seek purpose to our lives. Therefore, we seek religion to bridge the gap between a meaningless universe and a meaningful product of that universe.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Lasheic]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join