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.

 

Wow, This Got my attention.....

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


If you only draw opinions from evolutionist then that is one sided also. Look at both sides. Just because someone is a creationist doesn't make them stupid in science and vice versa. If you only look at one piece of the puzzle then you will never see the complete picture.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AnnieNakki
 


Now as far as arguing about which is right here is my idea.

One day Atheists and Spirituality

will not only compromise, but will also agree completely with each other.

The truth will be known one day. That is what everyone searches for. With

perseverance and determination you can accomplish anything. Now I

believe, speaking modernly, that spirituality is a lot older than science. So i

believe it is safe to say that spirituality has been practiced longer and

thought about more with what, for the ones that studied it, some believe are

amazing results. Both have in common the search for truth. Both have in

common people using them wrong for their own selfish need. Do not let a

few selfish individuals ruin the whole lot. The two will meet on one path.

The path of Truth.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
For the paranoid of us, would you mind quoting or posting a summary of it.


Looks around suspiciously for virus'...


I agree. The OP basically ran through the room farting, no one knew what happened. I won't click on the linky because the OP is stinky!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Well, if we go by what you consider the 'path of truth', then it appears your only leaving spirituality as the true path. You have to understand, spirituality was developed before scientific reasoning, before logical and deductive reasoning was widely used. Something spiritual could be a seemingly inexplicable coincidence being pawned off as something supernatural all the way to the god of rain or fertility answering your prayer.

Just because something can't be readily explained doesn't inherently make it spiritual or magical. What we do know of the universe so far doesn't really allow for all that fantasy junk the ancients used to believe in. There is literally no evidence for anything supernatural or spiritual, so why continue to follow a primitive belief structure? Simply because yourself can't determine a quick easy answer to something? That just sounds like being lazy and arrogant.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Just because something can't be readily explained doesn't inherently make it spiritual or magical. What we do know of the universe so far doesn't really allow for all that fantasy junk the ancients used to believe in. There is literally no evidence for anything supernatural or spiritual, so why continue to follow a primitive belief structure? Simply because yourself can't determine a quick easy answer to something? That just sounds like being lazy and arrogant.


Spot on! This is the god of the gaps explanation I was talking about earlier....

The OP wants the 'truth' of spirituality to walk hand in hand with the truth of science...unfortunately, there is no provable truth to spirituality....it's something you feel...a spiritual person will see a picture of the virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich when to my eyes it looks like Ernest Borgnine playing the bagpipes.....




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I think you miss understand. I am not saying that spirituality is the only path to truth. Science is also. Sooner or later the truth always comes out. Science has not caught up yet...that is all. But to deny any evidence that contradicts evolution is not searching for the truth as i would assume you would agree, or vice versa. Quantum physics are talking about different dimensions and FTL travel with science theory at their backing. Am I saying that they are wrong? No. I am saying that people have been talking about other realms for thousands of years, and for the most part archeologists attribute it to their religious practices. Either way you look at it, it is amazing. If it was accessed through their religion then ....well their religion was right. If it was not accessed by their religious practices....well they were more advanced than scientist have dreamed. The more Quantum mechanics learns the more it seems to explain spirituality to some extent. So with no misgivings I implore to your reasoning.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 



There are only 2 things that are infinite, one is the universe the other
is the human stupidity.

2nd line plucky; 2nd line

Imagination, creativity, THINKING OUT OFF THE BOX are all necessary for science to progress. To all those lunatics out there who believe in conventional theories and methods, you go ahead and continue to live in that lala land of yours while the rest of us make progress



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


You seem to have a slight misunderstanding of the difference between what science calls a dimension and what spirituality calls a higher plane of existence. The two are not the same. Similar to how some people have a total lack of knowing what energy is as they constantly try and equate it to something separate from matter, which just isn't the case. In either case, higher plane or supernatural energies, neither has been shown to be true through science, the only thing shown to be true is the ineptitude of people's ability to actually learn something for a change.

The whole reason you find it so amazing is because your misunderstanding what the science is actually saying and using that misunderstanding in an attempt to validate the spiritual side. Trust me, it really isn't that amazing nor is there any proof or logical reason to continue the beliefs of a primitive people.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by Koka
 


If you only draw opinions from evolutionist then that is one sided also. Look at both sides. Just because someone is a creationist doesn't make them stupid in science and vice versa. If you only look at one piece of the puzzle then you will never see the complete picture.


I agree, but thats not what I have done, I was brought up a non-practising Christian, decided it was a crock as it seemed to divide people rather than bring them together, moved on to spirituality decided it had very little grasp on reality and now deal with logic and common sense, I would consider that, at least to some degree, Evolution.

And i'm not calling anyone stupid, I just dismiss the creationist argument as, to me, it is illogical.

I believe your advice on looking at both sides, or maybe more, is fine and dandy, I have nephews and nieces who have been brought up to believe there is a god, I have never discouraged them from doing so, but there will come a day when I will be asked my beliefs and I will be truthful, they can decide for themselves what to believe, I can only decide for myself.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Koka]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 





And i'm not calling anyone stupid, I just dismiss the creationist argument as, to me, it is illogical

Nothing is illogical about the link I provided, not to you, not to anyone. It is pure logic, and that's all that it is. It is the definition of logic.
The only thing you have done concerning, is protest it. Even you
can not deny the truth of it. It is the Final Nail in the Coffin.
If not debunk away.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Conclusion
 


OP I believe this is the "nail in the coffin" you seek.
above top secret.........


Great article randyvs.
Yep, that seals the fate of evolution....but I expect the diehards to continue beating the dead horse......which will just add to their calamity and humiliation when they wake up.

I'm not normally the type that likes to say "I told you so" and thereby rub salt in the wound so to speak.....but...for the evolutionists....you can bet I'm going to make an exception.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Lol. So you are saying that a higher plane of existence is not another dimension? wow.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


To me the evolution theory is constantly evolving its ideas and hence has no substantiated answers. They believe what they say is true till something better comes along. So if they find something else then their earlier idea must be wrong. That is what i call the....Hey I found it..no wait....answer. Hence the following.

webecoist.com...


Sometimes what has seemingly appeared to be true since we can remember is no longer the case, as new scientific discoveries often reveal, thus requiring history books to be rewritten and/or changing the way we previously thought about certain things. Take the case of evolution, with these recent findings on the development of dinosaurs, birds, bats and man perfect examples of how new scientific evidence and research can dramatically alter and even shatter perception and reality.

Mammal Family Tree Topped by Tree Dweller, Of Course

Suminia Getmanovi II
(Images via: University of Toronto)

This past July, researchers identified the world’s first known tree-dwelling vertebrate, a discovery that was 260 million years in the making and ultimately revealed that mammals actually predated the dinosaurs (as opposed to the other way around). Named Suminia getmanovi, this tree dweller lived 30 million years before the first dinosaurs and is actually a distant relative to mammals, including humans. Researchers were able to link this vertebrate’s ancestry to mammals through a feature unique to the Suminia getmanovi and mammals: an opening beyond the eye-socket named a “synapsid.” Apparently, Suminia getmanovi was highly skilled at climbing up trees and clinging onto trunks and branches due to its long fingers and curved claws, which proved advantageous in relation to avoiding larger predators of its time. Also featuring an opposable thumb, this tree dweller was analyzed in a pre-dinosaur mudstone slab that contained more than 15 skeletons of the vertebrate.
Human Evolution Revolution: Tree Dwellers, Not Knuckle Draggers

Human Evolution Revolution
(Images via: Lazear Science, Kit Comm, 3 Chimps, Alien World)

No need to dust off your Anthropology notes from freshman year of college because human evolution is not as we know it, as least according to North American scientists who claim that humans actually evolved from tree-dwelling chimps and bonobos rather than knuckle-dragging gorillas, as so many textbook illustrations have led us to believe. And how was this discovery made? Well, a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined the adult and juvenile wrist bones of gorillas, chimps and bonobos, finding that gorillas have wrists that extend straight down and are more similar to how elephants walk, while the chimps and bonobos have wrists that allow for bending and more flexibility (like humans). In other words, the researchers concluded that it’s not likely that human bipedalism (referring to movement on the two rear limbs) evolved from knuckle-draggers but rather developed from an ancestor that spent a lot of time in the trees and eventually began to walk upright.
A Real Life, Walking Bat Man?

Walking Bats
(Images via: Phys Org, Daylife, Terra Nature)

Continuing on this walking theme, did you know that only 2 of the 1100-known bat species — the short-tailed bat in New Zealand and the vampire bat – actually walk on their feet? If this little known fact is surprising, you haven’t seen anything yet, Bruce Wayne. Recent bat fossil findings reveal that the modern walking bat in New Zealand is actually the descendant of 20-million-year-old walking bats from Australia. Why should you care? Well, it turns out that both the short-tailed bat and the fossil bat – which apparently died off 15 million years ago as a result of climate changes in Australia – share a similar anatomical feature (a groove in its elbow) that functions as part of a specialized muscular system allowing it to move about the ground. What does this mean? Well, it disputes the original idea that short-tailed bats started walking as an adaptive measure to friendly, modern surroundings devoid of predators. As for those ancient walking bats, they were frequently surrounded by predators but were so quick on their feet that they hardly were in danger, except for dramatic climate shifts, of course.
T. Rex and Its Own Mini Me
T Rex Mini Me
(Image via: China Confidential)

Evolution keeps throwing us for a loop here as it turns out that the supreme dinosaur predator – Tyrannosaurus rex – is actually the descendant of a newly-discovered dinosaur that was 8 feet long (or 20 percent smaller in length to T. rex), but still dangerous. While packing a smaller frame, this new dinosaur – Raptorex kriegsteini – maintained the massive jaws, quick legs and tiny arms that still allows the T. rex to intimidate and provoke nightmares today, some 65 million years after its extinction. According to fossil records, the T-Rex predecessor actually lived 125 million years ago, and sustained itself on pig-sized dinosaurs and turtles. Interestingly, this discovery was made when the owner of the fossil – illegally excavated from China — asked to have it examined for scientific value. Sometimes stumbling upon something new is a matter of circumstance and luck.
The Missing Link? Not Sasquatch, But A Bird-Like Dinosaur

Anchiornis Huxleyi
(Images via: Skews Me)

Oh, how the pieces are coming together. Earlier this week, Chinese researchers unearthed a bird-like dinosaur with four wings. Dating back to some 160 million years ago, this discovery — named Anchiornis huxleyi — could very well be the missing link in explaining the still-mysterious evolution from dinosaurs to birds. Only 20 inches in length and comparable to the size of a chicken, this bird-like dinosaur had feathers that covered its arms, tail and feet; features that Chinese researchers suggest indicate the existence of a four-winged dinosaur prior to the transition to birds. Previously, the idea that a dinosaur was an ancestor to birds was disputed, but not no more after this enlightening discovery.

Of course, this story comes a couple of months after another study observed how changing a single gene can cause similar bird populations to split into distinct species. Past and present, it’s safe to say that birds whistle to their own tune when it comes to evolution.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex
 


Lol. So you are saying that a higher plane of existence is not another dimension? wow.


You'd have to be a total tool not to understand the two are different and defined differently. Look up what a dimension is please and what a higher plane of existence is. It's what I like to call... wait for it... *learning*



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Can you please tell me the evidence of evolution? I would love to know the,

without a doubt, undeniable, be all end all, irrefutable, no nonsense, can't

debate, bud light sponsored, in your face, check this out, now what, take that,

oh my God, proof that you or anyone else has.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well as far as learning, by not trying to learn or experience spirituality is not learning now is it. And as far as being a tool, well yes I am, and I can fix anything.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Ok. Sorry I have to explain what I mean when I use a word. I refer to dimensions so as to constitute coordinates to a higher plane of existence. Such as could be explained with:
en.wikipedia.org...
In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it. A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). Cubes, cylinders and spheres are three-dimensional.

The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in. The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity and higher-dimensional string theories.

But also i refer to Dimensions as to what constitutes:

www.ask.com...

The following represents a suggested overview of the primary universes or self-manifest modes of the Supreme that constitute the "vertical" or prakritic planes axis of the Cosmos. This is however only one dimension, and these gradations or hypostases should also be considered in terms of the "concentric" levels of being. To collapse the spectrum of being to a single ontocline or paraneter is misleading.

In defining these levels or gradations I have borrowed from Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Tantra, Sufism, Kabbalah, the Theons, and especially from Sri Aurobindoan concepts. If I rely upon the latter a lot, it is only because in his Life Divine and Letters on Yoga he presents such a clear and comprehensive overview of the spectrum of realities. Even so it is important to remeber that Sri Aurobindo was concerned to lay out a practical path and technique to divinization, and for this reason the states of consciousness in his yoga of ascent refer to states actualised in the physical body and physical mind, and the metaphysical planes and hypostases (which are actual states or dimensions of existence in themselves, as distinct universes) were often more described less thoroughly. Certainly he does not shy away from referring to these, and in fact is one of the very few Indian teachers who does (perhaps due to his incorporating Theosophical and Theonist ideas), but he does not distinguish between these states when actualised in the physical consciousness, and the states as they exist as autonomous supra-physical hypostases. However there is a distinction, if only in terms of "octaves" or "resonances", and Sri Aurobindo's descriptions (as phenomenological exemplars or "type specimens" of consciousness so to speak) is primarily concerning the phsyical embodiment, integration, and union, of these higher states.

To use both effortlessly and intermingle the two as one is what I call learning.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Conclusion]

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Nothing is illogical about the link I provided, not to you, not to anyone. It is pure logic, and that's all that it is. It is the definition of logic.
The only thing you have done concerning, is protest it. Even you
can not deny the truth of it. It is the Final Nail in the Coffin.
If not debunk away.

It is illogical as it points to an unproven conclusion, no different to the argument continually put forward against the theory of evolution, which is an on going study.

I'm not going to pretend to understand Information Theory certainly no where near to the degree that science breaks it down to the molecular level but I do understand that it is an on going study and what may appear, to many, to be miraculous and beyond the capabilities of natural design, is a long way off concluding that it is proof of intelligent design.

To me, in these areas and many more, we are still at the early stages of scientific study and cannot draw any such conclusions, these studies will be going on long after you and I shuffle off this mortal coil, and theories will continue to be revised and updated, if concluding at this point satisfies your curiousity then so be it, certainly nothing I say will convince you.



Originally posted by Conclusion
To me the evolution theory is constantly evolving its ideas and hence has no substantiated answers. They believe what they say is true till something better comes along. So if they find something else then their earlier idea must be wrong. That is what i call the....Hey I found it..no wait....answer....

If, as I have said to randyvs, you conclude without further study you are no less guilty of the statement you make against evolution, above.



Originally posted by Conclusion
Can you please tell me the evidence of evolution? I would love to know the,
without a doubt, undeniable, be all end all, irrefutable, no nonsense, can't
debate, bud light sponsored, in your face, check this out, now what, take that,
oh my God, proof that you or anyone else has.

I have seen nothing that substantiates your argument in this manner.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Koka]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


And I have seen no answer for the question either.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


The current science of dimensional physics doesn't equate with the concept of higher planes of existence. Obviously you didn't understand the wiki article at all.

Please read this article on Planes of Existence

The two *are* entirely different concepts. The fact that you read the dimension article and still failed to grasp what it was saying, when even within the article that it states what I am saying near the end is just... laziness on your behalf.

[EDIT TO ADD]


To me the evolution theory is constantly evolving its ideas and hence has no substantiated answers. They believe what they say is true till something better comes along. So if they find something else then their earlier idea must be wrong. That is what i call the....Hey I found it..no wait....answer....


Welcome to the world of science. New discoveries will always change old thoughts. That's just what science is and I am truly sorry for you if you think science *must* state something and uphold it the same fervor of religious thought. Unfortunately, that is *not* how the scientific method works nor how a theory works. Seems like you have a lot of learning still to accomplish before you can be taken seriously in your thoughts.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by sirnex]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join