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.

 

Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 35
14
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by spy66
 


4+4 IS 8.
It's just another way of looking at it.


No its not. Far from it to.

1,1,1,1=4 is one dimension.
1,1,1,1=4 is the other dimension.

which makes up two separate dimensions. Then you put the two dimensions into a equation that looks like this:

4+4=

4+4 Which = 8

8 now becomes one whole dimension with 8 elements. like this 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 = 8
It used to look like this 1,1,1,1 + 1,1,1,1 =

Dimension 8 needs a new equation to become two separate dimensions again. But you will never get 8 to look like 4+4=8 again with out bypassing the natural laws of evolution.

You can’t divide 8 by 2 because then you get two totally new dimensions of 4, because you added two new negative dimensions of energy to the 8 to make it change. 8 divided by 2 = 4 and 8 + 2 =10 elements. You used to have just 8. And your new result will look like this 4=4 not 4+4. You have just used a negative force of 2 to randomly change 8 into two different dimension of +4. You dont know if the two dimensions of +4 are like the original dimensions of 4+4.

You can’t subtract. 8 - 4 = 4 that would make something totally different as well. Because you have added 4 negative dimensions of energy to the 8 to make it change. 8+4 = 12 elements. You used to have just 8. And your new result will look like this 4=4 not 4+4. And you wouldn't know if the two 4s are as they where in the beginning.

You have to break the law of nature to get 8 to look like 4+4=8 again. And you would have to use a microscope to divide the 8 elements into two exact dimensions as the original 4+4.

Science can divide the 8 by bypassing natural laws by bringing in a external energy like a knife and so on.

Once something has passed through the symbol "=" in a equation naturally, there is not way back. Unless humans by pass nature.




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Here is an other question. Is it true or false?

If you look at this mathematical equation you see:

1+1+1+1 = +4

You see 1+1+1+1 then you see = then you see +4 then you say Yeah that right.

Now look at this one.

1+1+1+1 = -5+9 ???

Then you say No that's not right.

Well what if i say that It is -5+9.

-5+9 are the two dimensions on the right side of the equation. -5+9 are the two dimensions in present time space. You cant argue that. But then you say Yeah!!! well that's wrong it should be +4. But then i say! You have got the equation all wrong. How can you argue with whats on the right side of the equation! Its present time and space? It is real!!

Do you really know what happen before something passes through the mathematical symbol "=" in a mathematical equation! You cant stop time, you cant be after it or before it. You always fallow it exactly on time.

You can only use the present -5+9 and say how did that happen.

So you recreate the old equation: 1+1+1+1=-5+9 ? To understand what happened. But how could you figure out what happened?

On the left side of the equation you have a X amount of symbols interacting a X amount of times constantly. You saw 4 elements 1+1+1+1 but you didn't see what else was there.

You cant see what really is before it has past through the symbol " = " in a equation.

So what do you do !

You use what you have in This time and space to reconstruct the equation that didn't make sense so it would add up.

But how would you know what -5 and +9 really looked like in the past ?

When you only saw 1+1+1+1= -5+9 ???



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
The following post assumes we can trust our observations. (which from a strictly naturalistic mindset, we really can't assume that)

We have observed evolution in the micro sense. small changes.
In really small/simple lifeforms, really small/simple changes can make a huge difference.
So yes, evolution is a FACT.

However, the more complex a lifeform becomes, the more random mutations are necessary to get real change. The further up the latter we get, the less likley it becomes for evolution to have worked in the way many claim.

We have not observed remotley near the complexity and magnitude of changes via evolution needed to account for all life forms we have today.
Hence the idea that all current and past life on earth can be accounted for by evolution is only a THEORY and not a FACT.

Now, if one limits themselves to only natural explainations, the Theory of Evolution seems to be the most plausible explaination available. I certianly can't think of another realistic plan.


God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

God can have used evolution as his means to the end. After all, He did create man out of the dust of the earth.

Evolution does not rule out God. After all, it only answer the "how", not the "why".

While neither totally rules out the other, each concept does remove the NECESSITY of the other. With God, we don't need the theory of Evolution to work (although it might have) . IF the Theory of evolution is true, we don't require there to be a God (although there might be).
[of course, if we rule out God, the evolutionist camp still needs to explain abiogenesis]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Ok. But this will tell you that Science and math can fool you.

When i look at the number -1. And ask!!! Can -1 become +1 just like that! Or does it have to change at least 2 times to go from -1 to +1. Or is the right answer 3 changes?

What is the right answer 1 or 2 ?

1. -1+2= +1

2. -1+3= +2



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I'm real sure what your number questions refer to. But one thing I have noticed is that...
Numbers don't take up space, and they don't have mass. But they are real.

I think thats a good analogy to God. numbers and math are the most accruate way to explain the universe... but they are also so "unnatural'...

*cue mysterious music*...



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by hulkbacker
 


We don't need to exclude God for Abiogenesis either. I can show you how the Bible co-relates with Primordial Soup Theory, thousands of years before anyone thought it up. There is nothing new under the sun.

You make some good points, and you're right, Evolution and God are compatible.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker


The following post assumes we can trust our observations. (which from a strictly naturalistic mindset, we really can't assume that)

We have observed evolution in the micro sense. small changes.
In really small/simple lifeforms, really small/simple changes can make a huge difference.
So yes, evolution is a FACT.

However, the more complex a lifeform becomes, the more random mutations are necessary to get real change. The further up the latter we get, the less likley it becomes for evolution to have worked in the way many claim.

We have not observed remotley near the complexity and magnitude of changes via evolution needed to account for all life forms we have today.
Hence the idea that all current and past life on earth can be accounted for by evolution is only a THEORY and not a FACT.

Now, if one limits themselves to only natural explainations, the Theory of Evolution seems to be the most plausible explaination available. I certianly can't think of another realistic plan.


God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

God can have used evolution as his means to the end. After all, He did create man out of the dust of the earth.

Evolution does not rule out God. After all, it only answer the "how", not the "why".

While neither totally rules out the other, each concept does remove the NECESSITY of the other. With God, we don't need the theory of Evolution to work (although it might have) . IF the Theory of evolution is true, we don't require there to be a God (although there might be).
[of course, if we rule out God, the evolutionist camp still needs to explain abiogenesis]



You observ nature:

You bring into you lab a dimension +4 that mother nature made.

But you didn't observe how it was made you just found it like that and brought it to you lab.

Now!
Mother nature created +4 by doing this:

-5+9=+4

Can you tell me that you can figure out in you lab how mother nature created +4 just by using science or math!

Prove it!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Are you talking about the "Spirit hovering over the waters"?

I'm not saying that if a plausible natural explaination for abiogenesis where to be put forth that would leave no room for God. It still would not adress the "why" even if it did explain the "how". I'm only saying that if the Theory of evolution could be proven as fact, the naturalists would still be left to explain how abiogenesis worked in order to remove the necessity of God (but still not the possibility).



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

You observ nature:

You bring into you lab a dimension +4 that mother nature made.

But you didn't observe how it was made you just found it like that and brought it to you lab.

Now!
Mother nature created +4 by doing this:

-5+9=+4

Can you tell me that you can figure out in you lab how mother nature created +4 just by using science or math!

Prove it!


I can't prove how +4 was made. I can only come up with a number of possible explainations. Like Job, I wasn't there when God designed the heavens.

Personally, I think that each number is "just there" because God put them there, just like the various forces and laws of the universe are "just there" because God put them there. I don't think there is a process in how each number formed, because then you would have to wonder how the 1st number got there.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Are you talking about the "Spirit hovering over the waters"?

I'm not saying that if a plausible natural explaination for abiogenesis where to be put forth that would leave no room for God. It still would not adress the "why" even if it did explain the "how". I'm only saying that if the Theory of evolution could be proven as fact, the naturalists would still be left to explain how abiogenesis worked in order to remove the necessity of God (but still not the possibility).



Oh, I understand what you mean now. Sorry my mistake.

Nope I wasn't talking about the "Spirit hovering over the waters". I'm talking about the Bible verifying that most life came from oceans or waters.

Ge:1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Ge:1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

He created heavens first. (Heavens AND!)Then Earth. That's quite logic.

Now how could God create a heaven?

Well first of all he would have to put it some where. He would need some space to put heaven in.

Unless the heavens was always there. But since he created it! it wasn't.

What if space was a perfect balanced soup of energy with chunks (planets) floating around in it. It was neutral no more interaction. Like a dead battery.

Then God created heaven A perfect dimension of Vacuum.

Perfect Vacuum is: Zero pressure, Zero matter, Zero temperature and Zero Gravity. The temperature in space is approximately 2.725 Kelvin.That means the universe is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero.That’s almost -270 degrees Celsius
That would explain the forces of a perfect Vacuum quite nicely. And not to mention the black holes we can observe in space.

That would for sure make things happen with out doubt. And Earth would appear out of the mist in a short while later.

Could you imagine that we might be existing in a extremely big black hole.
Moving quite nicely for now! As a bubble in this great fluid of energy.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I see what you're saying, but how does this make the equations from different dimensions?

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 is 4

Or

1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4

Same thing, no?

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by spy66
 


I see what you're saying, but how does this make the equations from different dimensions?

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 is 4

Or

1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4

Same thing, no?

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Good question. Here is whats different.



1,1,1,1 = separate dimensions in space time. They haven't merged yet they are just rounded up. There is no cause added yet. So this equation is not like this one 1+1+1+1 = 4 a creation.

This is not a creation: 1,1,1,1= 4 but 4 different dimensions in the same space time. Its like you have 4 different solid shapes in front of you.

But

This is a creation.
dimension(1) + dimension(2) + dimension(3) + dimension(4) = 4 a totally new dimension. A totaly new shape.


Now how can i explain this in another way.

This is how.

How would you know what dimension 4 really looked like in the beginning before it passed through equality. The creation 4 is not automatically 1+1+1+1 anymore. It could be anything on this side of space time.

We have no way of knowing what dimension 4 looked like unless we have created the dimension 4 our self and have the blueprints to prove it.

If nature created +4 by doing this -5+9 = +4 without us observing it there is no way in hell scientists could figure out exactly how mother nature created +4. There are 10 elements that are missing on this side of space time.

We can just divide the dimension +4 up and say its 2+2 or 1+1+1+1 or something else.

You cant say +4 = X and hope to see -5+9.

Because +4 dont = -5+9 on this side of pace time.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
This how a equation must have looked like before we had creation.

cause = Matter

Or

Matter = cause

Matter and cause must have been separated by equality. Equality is the intelligence in a equation.

4 and 4 = cause = no creation.

then cause moves over to the Left and we have a creation immediately.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Belief in God is faith. Belief in Science is evidence. The two can't be compared,


I completely agree.

Faith comes from social constructs and indoctrination.
Science comes from logic and observation.

I agree it is ridiculous to compare the two.

Comparing evolution and creationism is like comparing a photograph and a drawing.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Belief in God is faith. Belief in Science is evidence. The two can't be compared,


I completely agree.

Faith comes from social constructs and indoctrination.
Science comes from logic and observation.

I agree it is ridiculous to compare the two.

Comparing evolution and creationism is like comparing a photograph and a drawing.



I agree with your definition of Science. However, your definition of faith is more of an opinion. I've never belonged to an organized religion, I was raised Atheist. I chose to pick the Bible up on my own and found I agreed with the Truths it contained, nothing to do with social construct. Faith is simply belief without evidence. It is a choice. Just like Atheism is a choice.

The rest I agree with you on. Creationism has more similarities to Abiogenesis than Evolution (at least in my beliefs on Creation). The two can't be compared according to Science either.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I agree with your definition of Science. However, your definition of faith is more of an opinion. I've never belonged to an organized religion, I was raised Atheist. I chose to pick the Bible up on my own and found I agreed with the Truths it contained, nothing to do with social construct. Faith is simply belief without evidence. It is a choice. Just like Atheism is a choice.
[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


If evolution exists, then God Created it. However, the only evolution that can be observed today is the result of the Holy Spirit enlightening the hearts and minds of humans, or, the Spirit of this world darkening them. The evolution of thought and spirit goes both ways, one is to light, the other is to darkness. Evolving towards the light transcends religion. Evolving towards the darkness involves religion.

If a person's spirit has not been raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit acting upon it, then that person cannot understand those things that can only be spiritually discerned.

The image of God is man. Turning the image of God into a mere beast is following a lie and denying the truth.

Discussing the issues in this thread with spiritually dead sleepers is futility.

Goodnight, sleep tight, and don't let the demons bite.

Speaking of demons, bad news yesterday for some old folk in a nursing home. A 45 year old sleeper was taken over by a demon and look what happened? Same can happen to any sleeeper any time. Have a nice nap!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I belive The Theory of Evolution but I don't think that means that it is a fact. Just like beliving in a religion doesn't make it fact.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I am quite comfortable with stating that gravity is a fact, but exactly how gravity works is still under investigation. Same with Weak and Strong atomic forces. Etc.

It is a fact, however, that the theory of evolution as it currently stands is better than anything else presented to date at explaining the changes we find in the fossil record.

Gee, my first non-controversial post.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hulkbacker
 


"numbers are real"

numbers, are real, and they do work, but they have to correspond to something else. for the "believers" (one of which i am, but not in the traditional sense, i believe in god, and evolution) God doesnt have to correspond to anything, not factually at least. This is where faith comes in, people have faith that god made the universe, so thus he corresponds to everyone, but there is no possible way to prove that.

I was thinking about the OP, seems like he was wrong on one thing.. If you subscribe to the religious side, you could argue the Theory of evolution is not fact.. meaning that you dont believe in it. But if you do believe in it, you cannot argue the Theory of evolution is fact, because that would in turn disprove the fact, and push into into the theory realm. So basically

The theory of evolution is/isnt fact, immediately makes it a theory, and thus NOT a fact.

And when will people realize that you can have both god and evolution (and even the big bang), what i currently believe to be true is..

2 Universes rubbed together, and the resulting "static" or "bubble cross" sparked the big bang, exploding sending out matter, energy, and god. I view god not as a being that grabs trees, and plants them here, and there, with the monkeys. I view god as an energy that everything is tapped from, and everything shall return. The center pulses, matter shoots out, it pulses again, energy, and god spread about on the matter. Some matter absorbs this energy more than others, creating single cell organisms, and leaving things also "dead" in the sense of the word, meaning inanimate, rocks, metals, things like that. And eventually, with natural selection, and some randomness (doh doh birds, and thinks like that), everything eventually got to how it is now.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join