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.

 

Genesis’ Young Earth, Stars, Michael J. Fox and the DeLorean…“All Aboard!”

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

You quoted Johanas Kepler! Pointless, simply pointless.

But it still doesn't matter because it's still subverting the argument.
And besides out of the millions of scientists out there, that's a rather short list.


Also why haven't I heard back from you on the selfish morality thread? I would have thought you'd be up for the philosophical discussion.


Absolutely true!!!! IF........it was about....

EGO!!!!!

No, that's plainly irrelevant. Subverting the argument is subverting the argument regardless of how egotistical you may ore may not be.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well, I'm new here and am participating wherever I feel drawn.

Nice thread. I love creation mythology, even the Judeao-christian one. It is somewhat derivative but , oh well.

try here for many more creation myths

Could not help seeing the Taylor man tracks link either.
Here's a link with a different yet unemotional take man tracks

With regards to the age of the earth. It , I'm sorry to have to say this, appears that in response to a ever growing body of evidence the response is akin to putting ones fingers in ones ears and saying "La, la, la I can't hear you."

Faith is admirable when practiced. Dangerous when preached.
A little less of the latter would serve the world well, for surely if (A) God(s) is/are there to be found. Each person WILL find him/her/they/it in their own time and their own fashion.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....No, that's plainly irrelevant. Subverting the argument is subverting the argument regardless of how egotistical you may ore may not be.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Welfhard] .....



W, that is foolishness.....in no way does using support documentation, to oppose a theory, subversive...

"Research" maybe, but not subverting....

I am reminded of Dr. Kenneth Blanchard, who said, "none of us is as smart as ALL OF US!"

Ego, takes over when YOU PERSONALLY "HAVE" to be up on all things...its simply a death wish my friend...hard on the bones, after time...

I'll stick with Proverbs 1:7 which reads, “The fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge."


OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdCase512

Well, I'm new here and am participating wherever I feel drawn.

Nice thread. ..........


Faith is admirable when practiced. Dangerous when preached.
A little less of the latter would serve the world well, for surely if (A) God(s) is/are there to be found. Each person WILL find him/her/they/it in their own time and their own fashion.



Welcome to ATS! "Drawn" huh? interesting word you used...

Glad you liked the thread, certainly a diverse group of 'opinions'

btw, I liked your line about faith...


The last line is a lemming quote tho....a status quo quote, I don't know if you ever heard of Solomon? He said, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.” And Jeremiah, who said. ""The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

"Follow your heart!" only works in Disney's "High school Musical" I'm afraid.

"Following your own road" may be a nice Audi slogan, but very very dangerous....


Whew, that was a bit heavy for a newbie....



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


W, that is foolishness.....in no way does using support documentation, to oppose a theory, subversive...

1stlyl, stop calling me 'W'. 2ndly, it is not "support documentation" when it is irrelevant. Makinho21 made and argument countering one of yours, and to support that argument, he cited a short list of evidences supporting the Big Bang Theory. You may remember...


Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


As with all "science debunkers" you and your website are pointing fingers at things we don't have answers for - obviously - but that doesn't mean the big bang is wrong. It is a fact by the way:
www.talkorigins.org...


The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
A
* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.


the link you presented is actually quite funny. 3/4s of it explain and describe known scientific laws and theories - and then right at the bottom - that last 1/4 all of a sudden turn those laws and theories on their head, and instead decide that a moderate knowledge of physics and astronomy allows one to debunk all of physics and astronomy and state creation as a valid alternative. With claims like

"Creationist physicists and astronomers continue to research many questions about the universe, including the meaning of large redshifts. It may be that when we look at objects with large redshifts, we are looking back into the Creation Week, possibly to the fourth day. The fourth day is when Genesis 1 indicates God created the stars."

You know what that says? "Red-shifts tell us things are moving away from us. Large-red shifts signify something big - therefore we are (literally)seeing the 4th day of Creation." That makes no sense and is a logical fallacy - they have already assumed that Creation is real and justified.
The whole purpose of investigating something like the big bang is to search for evidence and test the observations made by such a theory - test the predicted results of such a theory existing - as we have done.
As before though, the point of science is to investigate the unknown and find answers which make sense and are useful - not just answers that make us feel happy. I don't know an answer for the "dilemma" that your link proposes - but let me point out that GRB was only recorded in April, 2009. If it is that new and it is a phenomena not widely documented previously, ofcourse they won't know what it is - it's completely brand new. If that was your argument I would pat you on the back, but you are in the same mindset as the author of that link. "Something science can't explain; therefore creation."


To which you respond...


Originally posted by OldThinker
the below list ARE SCIENTISTS...and do call them otherwise is juvenile...

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies


I'm not trying to win a temporal argumnet, I'm trying to get you to think out of the box...

Here's a few LEGENDS of SCIENCE quotes....pls marinate on what they say...and let's be more balanced ok...including the avatar...


not only is it not addressing points made, it's appealing to authority - when you talk creationist guff, you don't see me screading off lists of atheist scientists as if to say "Look proponents of my views are among the worlds smartest" do you? No, you don't because I'm not trying to subvert the argument.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by EdCase512

Well, I'm new here and am participating wherever I feel drawn.

Nice thread. ..........


Faith is admirable when practiced. Dangerous when preached.
A little less of the latter would serve the world well, for surely if (A) God(s) is/are there to be found. Each person WILL find him/her/they/it in their own time and their own fashion.



The last line is a lemming quote tho....a status quo quote, I don't know if you ever heard of Solomon? He said, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.” And Jeremiah, who said. ""The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

"Follow your heart!" only works in Disney's "High school Musical" I'm afraid.

"Following your own road" may be a nice Audi slogan, but very very dangerous....


Whew, that was a bit heavy for a newbie....


Heavy ? not hardly. Little old to have watched the Disney movie.
Wife does drive an Audi.
As for finding your own way. I have three children, (youngest is 19). Never forced them to "believe" anything ..and yet my middle one is now a Bapist. I and my wife do not put any faith in a god or gods, neither currently do my two other children.
We did and do encourage them to explore all options in "belief" however.
So yes he found his own peace or path.
Danger comes from tunnel vision, or the mistaken belief that only your way is the right one.
See..just like you I can "preach". Can you see the folly of it now ?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by EdCase512
 


nah Ed, congrats on those kids and family...

Glad you joined ATS!

Baptist huh?


Good for him, fo sure...

Wish you all the best...

OT really kinda frowns around preacher's here's more my style...9 minute vid... www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


W, that is foolishness.....in no way does using support documentation, to oppose a theory, subversive...

1stlyl, stop calling me 'W'. 2ndly, it is not "support documentation" when it is irrelevant. Makinho21 made and argument countering one of yours, and to support that argument, he cited a short list of evidences supporting the Big Bang Theory. You may remember...


Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


*snip*



Originally posted by OldThinker
the below list ARE SCIENTISTS...and do call them otherwise is juvenile...

*snip*

I'm not trying to win a temporal argumnet, I'm trying to get you to think out of the box...

Here's a few LEGENDS of SCIENCE quotes....pls marinate on what they say...and let's be more balanced ok...including the avatar...


not only is it not addressing points made, it's appealing to authority - when you talk creationist guff, you don't see me screading off lists of atheist scientists as if to say "Look proponents of my views are among the worlds smartest" do you? No, you don't because I'm not trying to subvert the argument.




You are correct, but have a faulty premise....

You are assuming I don't believe in the Big Bang...and therefore are subverting....by focusing on the "debunkers" comment...

Maybe the BB was the catalyst He used?? I dunno, you don't either, so why argue??


I choose not to be anal about particular points, that in the grand scheme of things are at best "neutral"...

OT

ps: you can continue to refer to the OldThinker as "OT"



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Maybe the BB was the catalyst He used?? I dunno, you don't either, so why argue?


We have every reason to believe the Big Bang occurred, we've understood this from the 1940s, so you probably ought not misrepresent it as a just a stab in the dark. We weren't there but that doesn't stop us from understanding the nature of the event - ask any detective who wasn't at the scene of the crime that he's investigating.

But the BBT aside, my main point here was telling you to stop clinging onto the testimonies about the religiosity of scientists before the 1900's as significant, in a time when everyone believed in such a being - it's pointless.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
But the BBT aside, my main point here was telling you to stop clinging onto the testimonies about the religiosity of scientists before the 1900's as significant, in a time when everyone believed in such a being - it's pointless.


OK, thx for your clarification...

Although my thread is about creation...

And a responder questions the credibility of those , who he sees as "science debunkers" it is my responsibility to inform him that some scienctist (of old) believed and honored the scriptures...and many do today...

Go back and check the list, and you'll see the theories, back in the day, are accepted as truth today...

So why dismiss?? maybe it is about "vantage point"...ie age, perspective, influences, I dunno? its cool


OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
......In "The Gospel of Thomas" it is Written....



MT, I have a problem with the "gospel" of Thomas...maybe I'm an ole traditionalist, what you say?

OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I think the guy behind his image looks like Rodrigo/Deniro don't you?


What a great strong character! Did some stupid things, regretted it, learned from it...and moved on to help folks...I just wish I had all the thick hair


Balding OT out!

[edit on 24-7-2009 by OldThinker]


"She tied you to her kitchen chair, she broke your thrown and she cut your hair, and from your lips she drew the hallelujah....Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah"....Lenard Cohen

Even the thin ones are counted....


Man those ropes really ich!

Glad to know the THIN are counted, too...

The heaven tally 'TREND chart' is droping yr by yr on OT...remember I'm the DATA DUDE....


OT


"Data Dude"

data Look up data at Dictionary.com
1646, pl. of datum, from L. datum "(thing) given," neuter pp. of dare "to give" (see date (1)). Meaning "transmittable and storable computer information" first recorded 1946. Data processing is from 1954. Database formed 1962, from data + base.

dode, dode
From an unused root meaning properly to boil, that is, (figuratively) to love; by implication a love token, lover, friend; specifically an uncle: - (well-) beloved, father’s brother, love, uncle.

Peace



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
......In "The Gospel of Thomas" it is Written....



MT, I have a problem with the "gospel" of Thomas...maybe I'm an ole traditionalist, what you say?

OT


2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.

Pro 1:2 To know wisdom and instruction; to discern the words of understanding;
Pro 1:3 to receive instruction in prudence, justice, and judgment, and uprightness;
Pro 1:4 to give sense to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young man.
Pro 1:5 The wise hears and increases learning, and the understanding ones gets wise counsel,
Pro 1:6 to understand a proverb and an enigma; the words of the wise, and their acute sayings.

Written before a bible existed....



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


And a responder questions the credibility of those , who he sees as "science debunkers" it is my responsibility to inform him that some scientist (of old) believed and honored the scriptures...and many do today...


What people used to believe is unimportant. People used to believe that the Earth was flat, we knew better 2300 years ago. Aristotle made some keen observations, then did some clever math and calculated the size of the earth with remarkable accuracy - only out by a few percentiles. So conclusive was this discovery that no one in academia believed in a flat Earth since that time.

The Heliocentric model was also envisioned in antiquity, big ideas were spawning in the Library of Alexandria but then it burnt down in the First Century. It was another 1800 years before Copernicus suggested it again and he was labelled a heretic for not "honouring" the scriptures which clearly suggest that the earth was the centre of the universe where even the Sun was said to have been created after the Earth. Johannes Kepler (whom you quoted) would later take this idea (after putting aside what the scriptures suggested) and managed to successfully explain the working heliocentric model even when it was the last thing he wanted to find (he had a more harmonious system in mind with perfectly circular orbits but in reality they are elliptical and messy). And now his findings are accepted as gospel.

Then there was Charles Darwin who developed probably the most stunning and revolutionary idea in the history of Science, that of Natural selection and Speciation. 150 years ago this year, 'On the Origin of Species' was published - at the time he, too, was a man of faith although he did became an atheist in the end. The slow rate of change was established and witnessed in things like the wolf turning into all the breeds of dogs and now some of which cannot cross reproduce allowing us to witness the slow process of speciation where a population develops extremes which cannot inter-breed. Although it wasn't until much later that we discovered the mechanism by which this process occurs - DNA.

Finally, in the 1930's another man of Faith, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître first conceptualised of a "primordial atom" - a singularity which would turn into all that is. Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding because the further away a galaxy was, the faster it receded and Lemaître's thesis was confirmed. Work done since has fine tuned the details to giving us a figure of 13.7 billion years since the primordial atom.

Outside of what we can see and deduce about our universe, we know virtually nothing - but it's like in Aristotle's time, they understood the Earth was spherical (or close to it) but they knew nothing about distant stars and planets, nothing of deep space.... nothing of beyond this earth. This didn't stop them from believing in the spherical earth model however, they merely became more curious. They gave opportunity for scientists in the future to stand on their shoulders and see and deduce more about the universe than had been seen before. We too stand staring at our horizon, curious what is beyond it - the only difference is that our horizon stretch across the universe and time as opposed to the Earthly horizon.

But it takes courage! It takes a strong man to set aside convenient models for more complicated ones when he follows the observations and evidence. It takes a profoundly strong man to continue to do so even in the face of accused heresy. Johannes Kepler, a personal hero of mine, continued in the face of everything even when his discoveries were the last thing he wanted to find - his faith was to nature and the scientific method as he believed that if God did ordain all that is then that is where he would find Gods fingerprints.


The difference between you and me is that I have no scriptures to honour, I do not have to be brave or strong to do the investigating, I don't have to cling to preconceived simple and comfortable models - I have nothing to lose. I guess in the end my point in this long rant is that even men of god need to put the bible down in order to take a good unbiased look at reality. And not to point fingers here but I got you admit your bias, previously - this is why bias and truth do not mix.



[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




Welfhard,

nice post friend!

OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 



Thanks....

Much respect from OT

This is sure fun, huh?

We all can learn, from one another!

OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 




Yeah


Solomon and Saul lived before Nicea....

Should I listen to the doubter?

I'm open, I dunno?

What's your take? You are well VERSED....excuse the pun?


OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm just trying to explain my reasoning for trusting science - it delivers.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Thank you for your posts man, I have grown rather tired of reading OldTimers posts...or whatever his name is.

His views and ideas are what I would classify as completely insane. I won't ignore him though, because it's actually humorous to read some of the contrived dribble he spouts.
I doubt I will bother responding seriously to him anymore; however, seeing as he thinks ignoring fact and quoting fanciful speculative scripture refutes science, or backs up religious claims. From what I have seen, he continually uses circular reasoning, which is suggestive of a complete lack of understanding - concerning logic and rationality. He actually shames the names he quotes by trampling on their scientific accomplishments when he twists their contributions into some argument for creation. Sickening really...
As you have said, telling us these past scientists were men of faith is irrelevant; especially when one considers to NOT be religious back then meant being labeled a heretic and burned or tortured - all those nice things Christians used to do.
Also - these men weren't dumb. They knew to not mix science with religion, and kept their faith personal, something modern religious folk fail to do.
Religious quotes make no difference whatsoever.

OT you are insane, quite literally. Plus you need to learn how to properly form and write sentences (maybe work on spelling to) if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm almost glad you didn't answer my questions - I don't have to bother reading your posts anymore



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm just trying to explain my reasoning for trusting science - it delivers.



It does, stay open....

OT thinks (hopes, at least) its not either ... or.

Like:

I am still certain God and Heaven do not exist; at the same time, I'm no longer a dummy.

Maybe the joke's on those of us who know that natural selection explains the descent of man and essentially disproves God. Science continually expands our enlightenment, yet believers are more predominant than ever. The world thrives with atheists in the distinct, shrinking minority. If we are committed to unbiased assessment of the data like the scientists we idolize, we might be forced to conclude that belief grants a selective advantage.

Right alongside physical beauty, hunting and gathering prowess, and capitalist skills, maybe we are attracted to Faith — at a sensory level, described as the absence of fear. Fear paralyzes a portion of the brain otherwise free to plan and execute. All other mate-traits equal, my wife would have been wiser to select a man of faith, who operates nearer to full neural production. Hopefully my sweet Gumby tattoo and rare intuition of the right moment to flip the pancakes are some consolation.

Probably, her regret will only surface if our children turn out to be atheists who overcook the pancakes.

Sparing my children the awful fear of Nothingness would be a huge accomplishment. Early signs indicate belief is in their genes; taking no chances, I generally keep my trap shut on the topic. I'm the atheist who wants my kids to go to Heaven. Or at least believe they're going to.

Allan Harris (apedroharris@yahoo.com) of Castle Rock is a finance manager and novelist


more: www.denverpost.com...

Thoughts?

OT

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OldThinker]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join