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: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


O that's cool man. Frankly this 'letthereaderunderstand' guy is making me want to gouge out my eyeballs atm.

He's got it in his mind that ontological proofs are somehow usable.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Yo sorry man yea I haven't even used U2U before - I just checked it for the first time,but I didn't see anything - I could be using it wrong though
OT is nutz though, I am pretty sure. He sent me one as well, in which he explains I angered him because I added him as a foe and then called him crazy - he thinks I acknowledge the "respected" bit...


I wasn't angry at all makinho21, I'm sorry you took it that way. I actually had fun writing to you in we bonics...It was meant as a joke honestly. I was thinking you would see it and think to yourself...."wow" this dude has lost it, which you probably did.

Life is fun fellas, remember to have some every now and then and always remember....only you can prevent a forest fire.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Welfhard, why don't you not understand what I am saying to you? Do you exist? Are you self? Is there any other salvation other then you? Are you self existent salvation? Is the name with which people associate your being Mike? Surely you reserve a designation, or no one could commune with you. Mike might not mean anything to you, but I'm sure your parents find it important, or siblings, or friends, or co-workers, to say otherwise I know is not truth.

Now we know why people get Beened by a baseball and how a cough stuffs the head.

Truth is self evident....it exists and is not made up or theorized on....and when seen it is saved...How can a name speak an action? Who honors anything that one just talks about? "Vanity and grasping at the wind..."

"Re-Spect, Walk....are you talking to me.....A lesson learned in life, known from the dawn of time.".....Pantera - Vulger Display of Power

You are the "ineffable name"....I gotcha.


And so to you, that is proof of God?



Tell me what is not evident about "self existent salvation"?

It's meaning beyond absolute gibberish.



Fragility of eyewitness memory

Yes, and that's exactly why detectives look for more reliable evidence like blood and fingerprints. But hey, what is that but faith?????
... Oh that's right.. Evidence!
That magically little e-word that makes some beliefs reasonable and other's completely childish.


Talk to me when you have some evidence for god.




"All I need is one Mike"......NAS

When you are looking for something that you lost, what are you doing? And then, if you find it, what has it become other then something lost that is found? Does the item change? Does your mind gain ease after finding it? Do you go to McDonalds with what you've found?

I've told you in plain English and I know no other language to tell you in, for this is common between us.

Self = You as applied to every man woman and child
Existent = Present as in NOW
Salvation = Recovery, as in what was lost is found

You are my evidence, makinho21 is my evidence, OT is my evidence...every man woman and child who walk the face of the earth is my evidence.
No Redshift needed, No Guesses at best, You yourself are my evidence. Now if you don't believe you exist, how shall I convince you otherwise, but if you say you are alive, my point is met.

All the world is your stage and you always had the Mike, Mike.

I know Mike is not who you are, because there are millions of mikes, but only one like you, many may be similar even, but NONE are you mike. You are the only begotten image, that one which you are creating presently. You are sent from your father as your father was sent from his father all the way back to when great great great grand dad Monkey Mike was fighting to evolve from a freak defect that by a chance multiplied by billions of chances causing your line of monkey, still growing right along side of the others, to take such major steps so that even the Bonobo couldn't follow, nor the chimpanze even though they were learning the same culture and behaviour, as we didn't just turn human over night. Thank Dog (Clifford was my favorite) that the other monkeys can't mimic the way we can or else the millions of years growing along side of us could of worked to their advantage.

Your line said abruptly, "enough of this monkey business", we must separate due to the fact that we have incurred to many freak defects over an amount of time we don't even have documented being million and millons of years, so that it even changes the number of our chromosomes. The monkey middle finger to us growing along side of our ape brothers though we don't yet know the middle finger means.

Since we and we alone have evolved by freak chance and by mutations that would NOT make us first choice in "natural selection" yet unnaturally we will overcome all odds and social learning apart from other monkey kind as to seperate far enough away to keep our monkey breathren as monkey. We will form secret monkey glyphs that gradually only our kind will know, even though our lower monkey brothers grow along next to us, we must make sure they do not advance in the slightest or else our whole monkey tale might not work out like we hoped.

We will write a book about the supreme monkey and call it a Text Book and tell the lower monkeys, who can't talk, that being out of millions and billions of changes we alone have taken on, that the supreme monkey of science has spoken...We have some tests that other monkeys did to prove our monkey is the Shizzznet and we have complete monkey faith, but even better, we have Ëvidence"...."What is that one of the monkeys shouted?".....scratching the monkey head a moment.....the first monkey sin turned a monkey into a man......"we can talk down to the other monkeys and make them feel like less for being a monkey"......and with that the whole monkey camp shouted Ëvidence"!!!!!

or the short version...

self existent salvation the meaning of the word Jesus.....an action, not an Icon.

Do you Jesus much?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
...OT is nutz though, I am pretty sure...


The guy with Jesus as a monkey on the cross say's "I'm nutz"


I'm in good company....I agree with George Washington Carver, Agricultural Chemist, Inventor of over 300 products

"Without my Savior, I am nothing."
"I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station,
through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in."
"God is going to reveal to us things he never revealed before if we put our hands in his. No books ever go into my laboratory, a thing I am to do and the way of doing it are revealed me."


btw, he died in the 1940's...that too old for ya?




OT



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by makinho21
 


Oldthinker just strikes me as naive and a little unfortunate....


I think the reality of it is...OT's been there...long before you, done that...found it empty...and looked up


Charles sums up the difference between you and I my friend...

"In my youth, science was more important to me than either man or God. I worshipped science. Its advance had surpassed man's wildest dreams. It took many years for me to discover that science, with all its brilliance, lights only a middle chapter of Creation.

I saw the aircraft I love destroying the civilization I expected it to save. Now I understand that spiritual truth is more essential to a nation than the mortar in its cities' walls. For when the actions of a people are undergirded by spiritual truths, there is safety. When spiritual truths are rejected, it is only a matter of time before civilization will collapse.

We must understand spiritual truths & apply them to our modern life. We must draw strength from the almost forgotten virtues of simplicity, humility, contemplation & prayer. It requires a dedication beyond science, beyond self, but the rewards are great & it is our only hope." --Charles Lindbergh

Link: galileo.spaceports.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sick and tired of people talking about freak accidents and chance when it comes to evolution. There is nothing random about evolution.

Also we did not descend from monkeys, we share an ancestor.


Your proof of a God - human sentience - is fallacious for the same reason that someone winning the lottery does not prove god. In lottery, someone has to win and no matter who it is, they will consider themselves lucky - but to pin that on a god is poor reasoning.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sick and tired of people talking about freak accidents and chance when it comes to evolution. There is nothing random about evolution.


(sarcasm) "silly mathematicians, evolution is for kids"


If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.


And...


The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen2, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.



more if interested... www.math.utep.edu...

ps: btw: etc: Granville Sewell completed his PhD at Purdue University. He has subsequently been employed by Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL (Houston), The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas El Paso; he spent Fall 1999 at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fulbright grant. He has written three books on numerical analysis



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


... chance when it comes to evolution....



hmm???

Maybe there a FORMULA for this....

??


According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs



link: www.faizani.com...

OT - Mathguy



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


And yet even with all that being plainly clear that it doesn't work with programming, mutations happen in every child born. 90% of mutations are neither good nor bad because 90% of human DNA is vestigial. More than half of the other 10% are deleterious, but the small remaining amount is beneficial.

I can compile a list of good mutations if you like? Do I need to?


Welfhard - biology guy.

Another point that I out make is that DNA is base-2 where as with that maths you talked about you had base-10.
T-A + G-C

When a mutation occurs it is when one base is encoded incorrectly and suddenly it is not paired ie a 'T' is with a 'G'. There is a "spell checker" that comes along and finds the discrepancy but it does not know whether 'T' or 'G' is the mutation, but it has to change one because the bases have to be paired. There is a 50/50 chance that the mutation will remain because the spellchecker will change the wrong one.

Weldhard - biology guy.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sick and tired of people talking about freak accidents and chance when it comes to evolution. There is nothing random about evolution.

Also we did not descend from monkeys, we share an ancestor.


Your proof of a God - human sentience - is fallacious for the same reason that someone winning the lottery does not prove god. In lottery, someone has to win and no matter who it is, they will consider themselves lucky - but to pin that on a god is poor reasoning.


Scratch freak occurrence...Ok, so now their is an order to creation? Am I understanding you? Are we both evolving the same page here without any eye gouging of ourselves?

Fortunately for me, the proof of, not A god, but the only living one EVER is in the name and that's because it is a verb. That verb is in you, so I don't need to work to prove one thing. If you deny the life in you, you deny God...simple. You don't want to hate what you create, it will come back to bite you, actually to eat you up alive.

Now, Consider yourself "Lucky", though the life is no gamble, nor a risk to be squandered, it is your lot. Bon Appetite

Back to the monkeys. Please, how did the homo sapian remove himself from the social structure of the wild while his common ancestor did not? Was not the time frame tremendous? How did our little monkey friends get left behind and even the Bonobo? Surely mans evolution was over millions of years, yet it is as if man, just got up went to the moon one day. I'm having a problem with that little e word "Evidence".

You are the Mike.

Plus,
Thank you for being a Gentleman
This is the nicest debate I've ever had with someone...Thank you for that...i mean it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Found this too for your research friend...O likes the way he thinks and of course the quotes...




Regarding the origin of life Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:

"One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

In this incredible statement by Wald we see that his adherence to the materialist's paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald's belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Despite these incredible odds, and the seemingly insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to university. In fact, NASA scientists reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes. George Wald eloquently points out the reason for this fanatical adherence to spontaneous generation:

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"

According to Wald, it's not a matter of the evidence; it's a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like, and cannot accept the alternative: that a transcendent Creator created all life on earth. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible," in order to cling to their belief that the universe is a closed system. A system that has no room for such a Creator.

There are so many examples, mathematically, why evolution is all but impossible, that in-order to share them all would require hundreds, in not thousands, of pages. And by now, I’m sure most readers didn’t make it this far…


more: www.myusm.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
[

I can compile a list of good mutations if you like? Do I need to?



I got 4 for ya...

Leonardo,

Donatello,

Michelangelo

Raphael

"Man, that's funny, don't care who you are!"



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your stupid, fallacious responses are angering me. Do you want to talk serious or do you want to be coy and further patronise me?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Scratch freak occurrence...Ok, so now their is an order to creation? Am I understanding you? Are we both evolving the same page here without any eye gouging of ourselves?

In a universe ruled by cause and effect, everything is predetermined.


Fortunately for me, the proof of, not A god, but the only living one EVER is in the name and that's because it is a verb. That verb is in you, so I don't need to work to prove one thing. If you deny the life in you, you deny God...simple. You don't want to hate what you create, it will come back to bite you, actually to eat you up alive.

Verb is a human construct, therefore acknowledging life in me is not the same as acknowledging God.

Can you please stop is with the ontological proof - it's all fallacious and I'm getting sick of it.


Back to the monkeys. Please, how did the homo sapian remove himself from the social structure of the wild while his common ancestor did not?

There came a point where in the long grass in Africa, our ancestors started running between trees on 2 legs so they could see over the grass and any potential predators. This freed up our hands to do other things and as life always does, vestigial artifacts get new functions. Hands became tool wielders and thus we became more and more successfully. Suddenly intelligence was at a premium - a sure fire way to pass on genes. Combine that with the fish rich diet at that time, brains began to expand and the social structure became more sophisticated. Language is a by-product of intelligence + society. Language further spurred intelligence.

It seems that when an organism hits upon manipulative intelligence, civilisation is inevitable because everything reinforces and encourages that intelligence.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sick and tired of people talking about freak accidents and chance when it comes to evolution. There is nothing random about evolution.

Also we did not descend from monkeys, we share an ancestor.


Your proof of a God - human sentience - is fallacious for the same reason that someone winning the lottery does not prove god. In lottery, someone has to win and no matter who it is, they will consider themselves lucky - but to pin that on a god is poor reasoning.


descend
c.1300, from O.Fr. descendre, from L. descendere, from de- "down" + scandere "to climb," from PIE base *skand- "jump." Sense of "originate from" is c.1375. Descent is attested from c.1330; descendant "offspring" is from 1600.

If our common ancestor was a monkey, then how did we not originate from a monkey? Was there a more human monkey and a less human monkey, but then that wouldn't really be sharing a common ancestor...would it?

Guess what this scripture means?
"Who can ascend into heaven, but he who first...........?"

Game of association?
Todays topic is...(quietly spoken)
Time Span's (again...) Time Spans

Ah, Mike, with the daily double here is the question.

How do these time spans in the bible have true meaning without the bible in that they correlate the same event? What is the event based on the "time span's below"?

A. 40 weeks
B. 150 days
C. 9 months

(clue: It has to do with being born again)



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


If our common ancestor was a monkey, then how did we not originate from a monkey? Was there a more human monkey and a less human monkey, but then that wouldn't really be sharing a common ancestor...would it?


We did not descend from a monkey, Nor did monkeys.


You and your cousin are descend from your grandfather in the same way that different species of ape descended from a common single ancestor species.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Scratch freak occurrence...Ok, so now their is an order to creation? Am I understanding you? Are we both evolving the same page here without any eye gouging of ourselves?

In a universe ruled by cause and effect, everything is predetermined.


Fortunately for me, the proof of, not A god, but the only living one EVER is in the name and that's because it is a verb. That verb is in you, so I don't need to work to prove one thing. If you deny the life in you, you deny God...simple. You don't want to hate what you create, it will come back to bite you, actually to eat you up alive.

Verb is a human construct, therefore acknowledging life in me is not the same as acknowledging God.

Can you please stop is with the ontological proof - it's all fallacious and I'm getting sick of it.


Back to the monkeys. Please, how did the homo sapian remove himself from the social structure of the wild while his common ancestor did not?

There came a point where in the long grass in Africa, our ancestors started running between trees on 2 legs so they could see over the grass and any potential predators. This freed up our hands to do other things and as life always does, vestigial artifacts get new functions. Hands became tool wielders and thus we became more and more successfully. Suddenly intelligence was at a premium - a sure fire way to pass on genes. Combine that with the fish rich diet at that time, brains began to expand and the social structure became more sophisticated. Language is a by-product of intelligence + society. Language further spurred intelligence.

It seems that when an organism hits upon manipulative intelligence, civilisation is inevitable because everything reinforces and encourages that intelligence.


Ok the process I understand. What I asked you was how did social structure and culture of the wild become so far separated between Homo sapian and Ape who were evolving side by side as to make a man a man and a monkey a monkey? The degree of separation is not a small one, how did the monkey not evolve to anywhere close to the human having millions of years of side by side evolution?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your stupid, fallacious responses are angering me. Do you want to talk serious or do you want to be coy and further patronise me?


"biology guy"-that was a good one.
its all good!

Relax, there friend...

You're at least OT's equal, intellectally right? One can't patronise an equal, let alone a superior....so chill friend.

Now please go ahead and reply to the 4 or so posts to you that you are appearing to ignore....k?

It would be nice to see some/fair admission like this, " OT I don't agree with your premise, but the math uncertainty you presented makes me think." Something, I guess, gracious...would be balanced...because right now, you are leaning a tad "closed"



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


And, yes, please give me the skinny on the mutations...I'll try and keep up.

OT



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Ok the process I understand. What I asked you was how did social structure and culture of the wild become so far separated between Homo sapian and Ape who were evolving side by side as to make a man a man and a monkey a monkey? The degree of separation is not a small one, how did the monkey not evolve to anywhere close to the human having millions of years of side by side evolution?


It just did. Dogs are descended from wolves, so you may as well ask me why they went on their particular paths. They just did - circumstance.

Other apes migrated away from the plains and the long grass to an environment more suited. We did not, we stayed and adapted and started on our journey to what we are today.



new topics




 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join