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.

 

"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


You require me to have "faith" because your world falls apart if it's not needed. That's your problem, not mine. Any evidence I produce will be filtered through your faith and 99% of it will be rejected because it is fatal to "faith". Again, your problem.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Are you blind?

I specifically made it clear to you, and you massively dodged and maneuvered around your own expression of faith, your ego unfathomable, at least I admit to my faith.

I will sit here, and make it apparent to everyone who views this thread, you will not answer my question because you CANT. Remember when I told you I'll wait around until I see something I can pick apart? Well I can, and I will, members know me for it, I'm great at it, I've had leading debates on this forum, where as you new comer, have a whole lot to learn on some of the members capabilities here.

Until you answer why the the entirety of everything is, why there is even able for there to be a singular particle, why there is SOMETHING(UNIVERSE) here, and not NOTHING(ZERO).

You can't explain that.

Answer the question.

Why does anything/everything/universe/atom/dog/water/light/radiation/chemicals/etc exist? How does it exist? When did it's existence come to be? How was it created?

Until you explain that, I will reiterate myself, you are basing your big bang on faith, not as much faith as I base my belief in, but you persist to display faith in the big bang because it is not COMPLETE, it does not explain HOW AND WHY IT WAS ABLE TO HAPPEN HOW the MATTER ever EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Why do you think everything has to have an explanation we can understand? Because you're afraid of what it would imply? Why are you hiding behind faith instead of facing the universe as it is? And more importantly, why are you requiring other people to think like you do? Why must we conform to your personal view of the whole?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
[edit on 9-4-2009 by ShowMeEvil]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   




Well, you made my signature with that one


Hope I don't scare you off the boards, but you'll have to provide more substanent data that proposing a question to a question, let alone;

"Why do you think everything has to have an explanation we can understand?"

Because if we don't, it's not science, and it's not proven true.



As a scientist, you should know it's faith if you don't understand it.

You could of done a Google search, and used this an argument, but I'd still have dismantled it.


I do not believe the universe has a reason for existing, I believe it just exists. This follows on from my previous remarks that I do not believe that we have a reason for existing. There could even be an infinite number of universes existing, some of which may have developed life, others which may not have. We should not assume that 'ours' is the only universe, we should not attach so much importance to ourselves, it is rather like the earlier belief that the universe revolved around the Earth. There is however still an 'in built' belief that we are somehow 'special', and I feel that this largely stems from a belief in God and that He put us here for a reason. Isn't it amazing the number of scientific theories where God creeps into the argument! It used to be that for everything that could not be explained it was accredited to God, or The Gods, from crop failure, disease, abnormal weather conditions, and a host of other events. As knowledge has progressed, and answers found, The need to blame, or thank God, has steadily declined as we look to science for the answers. See Are all religions false?

www.thekeyboard.org.uk...

It just does exist.

You could have just said that.

But like you and I both know, to many faults with that comment. Kind of like....me saying an afterlife just does exist.



Good luck, you'll need it. There's some heavy sharks in the seas my friend. Hopefully you'll bring something to my compendium we can agree on in the future.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Revolution-2012]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Deflection is failing for you. You haven't given a reason for the universe to have a cause. You have dodged that because that's where religion fails. You'll have to live with that.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You haven't given a reason for the universe to have a cause.





Oh my GOD(THE IRONY OF OH MY GOD)

Hah. Just grindin your gears mate.

Can you give reason for the universe to exist?

It just does, there's probably 1000s of other universes. Maybe it doesn't exist at all, maybe we're all in fat mans head who overdosed on PCP.

Reality is what you perceive, and with your foundation you build, you will find a fault until someone or something of higher knowledge is able to explain how and why. Me and you both cannot do that.

So, You're deflecting, apparently my deflection, which I never deflected, I said I believed in life after death, with out any fact, I just believe, as much as you believe humans don't need a rational explanation for things we can't answer, which is a paradox.

I can't explain why I believe what I believe, it's a thing called enlightenment, might just be my mind playing tricks on me but it's a whole hell of alot better thinking of how and why the universe exists.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


"
Can you give reason for the universe to exist? "

No, and neither can you. Why all the fear? You afraid there's nothing on the other side of death? Afraid of the dark?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I just don't believe there is any, and I think children will be much more productive, creatively, academically, and *spiritually* if they're told they can believe whatever they want to believe, like my family told me.

Also, weak description on death.

It's not black, it's not white, it's not any color. It's nothing, exactly what no one can fathom.

0.

I surely hope I haven't done more atheist thinking then you, that'd surely disappoint me =(



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


I agree with you that children should be allowed to think what they want. That's why I object to teaching ID in science class. You'll note that I've never said it shouldn't be taught at all. Just that it should be taught along with all the other mythologies. It's not science, just creationism in a cheap suit.

Where, please, did I describe death?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ShowMeEvil
 




There is more then one way to look at everything. This point of whew will challenge your explanation.

If you look at the universe as a Infinite space of nothingness. And ask.

If the the universe is a infinite space of nothingness which is something. Where would you get everything from! To put in the infinite space ?

Where would God get it from if space is a infinite space of nothingness?

And if God took it all away where would he put everything!

If Space is a infinite of nothingness there cant be any dimensions out side it.

How would God or the source get time into this infinite space of nothingness?

What bothers me is that scientist say that the universe is expanding. And at the same time the scientists say that everything that exists is what makes up space. But if everything that exists makes up space how can it expand?

If something expands it has to expand within something. That's how i think you got your philosophy.

But what if space is not expanding but changing. Because then everything could be the infinite space it self. Because you cant have a infinite space of nothingness first then matter later on. They have to come at the same time.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Sounds like you need some sleep as do I, being a NT now time is hard to jump with college and whatnot...

"No, and neither can you. Why all the fear? You afraid there's nothing on the other side of death? Afraid of the dark? "

I don't think it should be taught in science.... I came here to pick apart your belief in your scientific standpoints, and find the one flaw I knew existed before I wrote my second post.

It's honestly up to the parents what they want their kids to hear. I think it should be cast in scenario where if a parent wants to give their children the ability to learn something, they discuss it with them, and allow them to learn it.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


"What parents want their kids to hear"? Thanks, that makes my point perfectly. You want to filter science through a religious sieve and toss out the parts that don't fit. That's what this conspiracy is all about.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Errrrr I wasn't clear enough.

I think the scientific method should be taught, period, it's mandatory, I know I was taught it in 5th 6th 7th 8th...etc

I'm providing if a parent opts to choose for a class that discusses spirituality, preferably not restriction to Christianity or any other deity based religion, then they opt in for it.

Big Bang is mandatory, it's fact.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


We agree then, on science being taught in science class, and religion being taught elsewhere?

Now, the hard part. Do you or don't you agree that ID is based on religion?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


We agree then, on science being taught in science class, and religion being taught elsewhere?

Now, the hard part. Do you or don't you agree that ID is based on religion?


Why do we have to separate science and religion. If you undestand bouth you can understand a lot more.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Religion has no more place in the science classroom than science has in church. People who insist on ID in science class are usually adamant about not having Darwinism taught in their church. Strange, isn't it?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   


You don't want "fair" you want your propaganda injected into science classes. It belongs in Mythology classes with other religions, not in science classes. I do appreciate your providing examples of why ID should be considered a conspiracy, BTW. You're a textbook case of the fundamentalist viewpoint that we're all too stupid to see what ID really is.

Wow, ok Im done with this thread. I see now who I am dealing with. Someone quick to judge, quick to point fingers, and quick to assume that your view is the only correct view.


I became an atheist at age seven, when I was asked not return to Sunday School because the preacher couldn't answer my questions about the Bible. I realized it was just a con job to get money for doing nothing, so I never went back.

HAhahahahaha. You made this decision at 7? So every preacher that has ever existed, does ti for money? Every scientist is an Atheist? Your current state of beliefs and intelligence is based on something you decided at 7?

Dude, at 7 we are all a bunch of idiots running around with no idea. You came to a small conclusion based on 1 sunday school and let that speak for the whole.

ok, now I see who Im dealing with.


The point here, for me anyway, is that God isn't necessary to the Universe. No Great Sky Fairy necessary, just time and opportunity. Both were available in ample quantities.

So at first we had nothing, and out of nothing came something, big band, physical matter, and we are here now due to time. All out of nothing. ou make as much sense as a 7 year old.


Clinging to campfire tales from the Neolithic is a little strange when you're conversing with me via computer, isn't it?

WHat you are not aware of, is that 2,000 years from now, the computer your using, your views of modern day science, and everything you believe now will be spoken of as Neolithic Tales. You are repating it all and dont even realize it.


"Ignorant" means not in possession of essential information. I'm ignorant of Spanish, can't speak much of it at all.

What Gawdzilla is saying is that he himself is Igorant of God, of God's existence, of ID. Perfectly fine to admit your fault

We are dealing with a little kid here. Everything is either science or religion. There is no inbetween, he likes to stereotype, he thinks only his view is right. There's just no point in having a fair and open discussion about this matter when he has psychologically shown his characteristics.

In a discussion panel at a University, he would be kicked out in the first 5 minutes.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
You are really helping me. I must insist you state clearly that I am not compensating you for your statements.

The Institute for Creation Research is the front for the ID movement, and even they say "ID" is not yet ready to be taught in schools. I would add that it is never going to be "ready" until and if we have a theocracy making the decisions.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
[edit on 9-4-2009 by ShowMeEvil]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join