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.

 

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   


When unable to refute argue semantics!


It was nothing ro do with semantics, your generalisation in relation to my asserted specialized ability was pointless!






There is plenty of evidence that the pyramids were used as tombs. Look it up. Just because someone says a fictional lie like, no mummies have ever been found in a pyramid doesn't make that fictional lie true. Truth is, mummies have been found in various pyramids. The three at Giza are not the only pyramid structures.


Im referring to the Gizeh Pyramids, its is presented as FACT that they were tombs without a SHRED of evidence.






I've looked into the Dogon myth before, it's fabricated.


Oh thanks for showing me the light!!







Can you cite sources? I have never heard this claim in my life.


I did cite a source, are you reading my posts!





Can you prove it?


Nope, though I never set out to, modern science does a pretty good job of inferring it though with the previously cited laws.






I think you will have to go into more depth there.


Whats not to understand?



I don't know of any textbook that has called the big bang a fact, everything I have read explicitly states it is a theory. Nor is it the only theory on where the universe had come from.

The big band is presented as a fact in my little brothers schoolbooks and on Many discovery channel programs, rarely if ever is there another side even presented!




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Oh my goodness are you serious. Everything you have posted was discussed earlier!!!

Of coarse the atomist didn't get the whole thing correct but geez I didn't mean it that way. Their basic concept was correct. Just like science today it continues to be revised and rethought out. Did you not read my previous posts on my belief being we have no evidence for anything about where the UNIVERSE came from or how it came to be. I merely put arguments to support these beliefs. I DIDN'T SAY ID WAS SCIENCE!!!

I SAID THE ULTIMATE THEORIES OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG AND WHERE OUR UNIVERSE CAME FROM ARE NOT IN THE REALM OF SCIENCE EITHER. SO I CLAIMED BOTH WERE NOT CONSIDERED SCIENCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T RULE OUT THERE BEING A GOD OR NOT!

The man on the moon argument was referring to a man walking on the moon as of this very second. The colonies on mars were only a metaphor. I didn't literally mean there were colonies on mars but you can't rule that assumption out unless you go to mars yourself to rule it out.

Oh my goodness where did I claim GOD DID IT??? You are jumping to unnecessary conclusions. It seems you have your mind so closed off. I take both into consideration as they are both valid in this case. I am only arguing with you because you can't see that GOD may be possible. I give it a 50/50 chance since there is no evidence to disprove god or approve god.

I also said the BBT is not complete but what I did say was that it is the most complete(Accurate) theory we have of right now. The others have no evidence to show for. Like the standard model of particle physics. It isn't complete but it is the most complete(Accurate) theory we have at this moment.

I think we are on a different page all together and there is just a lack of communication between us.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



It was nothing ro do with semantics, your generalisation in relation to my asserted specialized ability was pointless!


Sure looks like semantics argument to me.


Im referring to the Gizeh Pyramids, its is presented as FACT that they were tombs without a SHRED of evidence.


Really? So the tombs of the pyramid builders are all fabricated lies?


Oh thanks for showing me the light!!


Your welcome.


I did cite a source, are you reading my posts!


Yes, I saw the book title, but as I do not own the book, can you cite another source?


Nope, though I never set out to, modern science does a pretty good job of inferring it though with the previously cited laws.


I know of no law of physics that implies infinity nor infers it. From my understanding, infinity is more of a mathematical abstraction than an observed physical reality.


Whats not to understand?


Your view of intelligence.


The big band is presented as a fact in my little brothers schoolbooks and on Many discovery channel programs, rarely if ever is there another side even presented!


I'll have to check my daughter's school book, but I don't remember my textbook's discussing it as if it were absolute fact. I also see no reason for a program discussing the theory to have any need to discuss a different theory. Just because someone is talking about BBT doesn't inherently mean that they *must* bring up every other origins theory out there.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Key2life
 



Oh my goodness are you serious. Everything you have posted was discussed earlier!!!
Of coarse the atomist didn't get the whole thing correct but geez I didn't mean it that way. Their basic concept was correct. Just like science today it continues to be revised and rethought out. Did you not read my previous posts on my belief being we have no evidence for anything about where the UNIVERSE came from or how it came to be. I merely put arguments to support these beliefs.


Posting about the closeness of a similar theory of today's atomic theory doesn't inherently help the case for ID. There is no evidence at all for ID and if thing's were designed there should be evidence. We have no evidence that any of the theories of gravity are accurate depictions for how it works, but we do know that gravity is real because there is evidence for it.


I DIDN'T SAY ID WAS SCIENCE!!!
I SAID THE ULTIMATE THEORIES OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG AND WHERE OUR UNIVERSE CAME FROM ARE NOT IN THE REALM OF SCIENCE EITHER. SO I CLAIMED BOTH WERE NOT CONSIDERED SCIENCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T RULE OUT THERE BEING A GOD OR NOT!


I'll respond to this when you can calm down and reword it without having your panties all in a bunch.


The man on the moon argument was referring to a man walking on the moon as of this very second. The colonies on mars were only a metaphor. I didn't literally mean there were colonies on mars but you can't rule that assumption out unless you go to mars yourself to rule it out.


So, if I don't personally rule out ID for myself then it is very likely to be real and indisputable? Where do you propose I start?


Oh my goodness where did I claim GOD DID IT??? You are jumping to unnecessary conclusions. It seems you have your mind so closed off. I take both into consideration as they are both valid in this case. I am only arguing with you because you can't see that GOD may be possible. I give it a 50/50 chance since there is no evidence to disprove god or approve god.



Now when I use the term ID I am referring to some Entity which created the universe for what ever purpose.


Sounds like a God like entity to me. Unless you wish to further explain that statement.


I also said the BBT is not complete but what I did say was that it is the most complete(Accurate) theory we have of right now. The others have no evidence to show for. Like the standard model of particle physics. It isn't complete but it is the most complete(Accurate) theory we have at this moment.


I understand that, but what I was saying was that i disagree that it is the most accurate and complete model right now. BBT is not the only model of the universe in existence nor does it describe very much of what is observed.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
From what I understand you are referring to a Designer that would think and design much like you yourself would. Okay what evidence would you like? Let me guess, you would like to see the ID surround the earth and say, "here I am". I am not sure what evidence we can see to discern or distinguish it from the kind you are asking for. Take for instance what if the one hand the ID created the Universe. Then on the other hand there is no ID. What difference can you distinguish between the two??? That is why it is not called science. OKAY!!!
It seems you are so Materialistic that you believe in the notion of if I can't Scrutinize it, it doesn't exist. If there are Multiple Universes in which we can never Scrutinize. Does that dictate that it doesn't exist??? Something can exist even if it resists Scrutinization. So you can't rule it out with certainty but that doesn't mean it can be true or untrue. Open you mind up a bit and look at THE WHOLE PICTURE and not just what you can see or not see. If you keep thinking like that then you will always accept your notion of what is truth instead of questioning what isn't.

Okay let me rephrase what I wrote earlier about God creating the Universe. Yes I did Say GOD! But I didn't say (I) believed god did it with absolute certainty, I said there is a 50/50 chance either way since it resists being Scrutinized. Those were just opinions.

Yes I agree with you about there being different models for the BBT. But let me ask you which ones in your opinion do you consider alternatives to the BBT. And can these different alternatives resist Scrutinization? I am interested in what you have to say. Can you write more on your thoughts then a few sentences...



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Key2life
 



From what I understand you are referring to a Designer that would think and design much like you yourself would. Okay what evidence would you like? Let me guess, you would like to see the ID surround the earth and say, "here I am". I am not sure what evidence we can see to discern or distinguish it from the kind you are asking for. Take for instance what if the one hand the ID created the Universe. Then on the other hand there is no ID. What difference can you distinguish between the two??? That is why it is not called science. OKAY!!!


I understand it is not science. What I don't understand is why people would believe or accept the possibility of ID without evidence for it period. Are we talking about design as in *just* the universe or biological design as well?


It seems you are so Materialistic that you believe in the notion of if I can't Scrutinize it, it doesn't exist.


Considering we live in a material universe, I see no problem with this view.


If there are Multiple Universes in which we can never Scrutinize. Does that dictate that it doesn't exist???


I don't subscribe to the many worlds interpretation of QM.


Something can exist even if it resists Scrutinization.


Name something.


Open you mind up a bit and look at THE WHOLE PICTURE and not just what you can see or not see. If you keep thinking like that then you will always accept your notion of what is truth instead of questioning what isn't.


Whole pictured as compared to what?


Okay let me rephrase what I wrote earlier about God creating the Universe. Yes I did Say GOD! But I didn't say (I) believed god did it with absolute certainty, I said there is a 50/50 chance either way since it resists being Scrutinized. Those were just opinions.


God can be scrutinized, it's quiet easy to disprove every man made concept of God that is considered or assumed to be true.


Yes I agree with you about there being different models for the BBT. But let me ask you which ones in your opinion do you consider alternatives to the BBT. And can these different alternatives resist Scrutinization? I am interested in what you have to say. Can you write more on your thoughts then a few sentences...


There is more than one model that in my opinion describes thing's. EU and MOG are decent in my opinion, but I am not sure if the EU explicitly describes where the universe came from. I don't really pay attention to so called theories that claim to know where our universe came from. I have conceded to myself that this is just one thing that we will most likely never be able to answer, ever.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Well Evolution in biology can be akin to Evolution in the Universe.

That is why we are all have our beliefs.

Yes we do live in a Materialist Universe. But why should there not be something in which we can't discover by method of physical Scrutinization? Take for instance what is you view on Mathematics and do you believe it exists independent of anything Materialist? Should 4+4 logically still be 8 even if the Universe never existed? Why should there not exist something that can't be Scrutinized? These are just abstract questions. Not everything can be proven by science. Abstract subjects such as infinities in Mathematics have no real place in the Universe but can be said to exist independent of anything Materialistic. That depends on your views of Mathematics though.

Just because you don't subscribe to the Many World Interpretation doesn't mean anything and is just an opinion. You seem to disregard this question by saying you don't believe in this Interpretation. So does that make this Interpretation wrong. There are two theories on the Multiverse. The one I mentioned was different then yours. I mentioned the one in which we are just one Universe in a sea of Universes. Your referring to the theory of the Universe giving birth to different Universes by means of probabilities in QM.

The way you scrutinized ID was a joke. You assume every man made approach is the only alternative to scrutinizing ID. Why is that? It seems this is more of an attack on religion then it is god. Your assertion on the man-made approach to debunking god only looks at it from a human perspective of ID.

Yeah finally you finally agreed that certain things may be unprovable in its whole.
So now we are left with the possibility of there being a ID that created the Universe. Or with the possibility that no ID exists and we are all created by some unknown means. So it is what we choose to prefer. Your last statement should end this discussion since you leave open the possibility of..................



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Oh one last thing can you tell me what EU and MOG stand for... Thanks...



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Really? So the tombs of the pyramid builders are all fabricated lies?


Im referring to the Gizeh Pyramids, its is presented as FACT that they were tombs without a SHRED of evidence.








Yes, I saw the book title, but as I do not own the book, can you cite another source?


Nope, unforunately.






I know of no law of physics that implies infinity nor infers it. From my understanding, infinity is more of a mathematical abstraction than an observed physical reality.


The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant over time (are said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed

''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction

And of course theres the fact that theres no reason to think otherwise!




The big band is presented as a fact in my little brothers schoolbooks and on Many discovery channel programs, rarely if ever is there another side even presented!




I'll have to check my daughter's school book, but I don't remember my textbook's discussing it as if it were absolute fact. I also see no reason for a program discussing the theory to have any need to discuss a different theory. Just because someone is talking about BBT doesn't inherently mean that they *must* bring up every other origins theory out there.


I never said every other theory, at least just mention its not a fact, and in all likelihood, completely wrong!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Key2life
 



Well Evolution in biology can be akin to Evolution in the Universe.


No, biological evolution is based on a different set of principles. I can think of no way in which to make thing's such as DNA translatable to solar systems dynamics.


Yes we do live in a Materialist Universe.


And yet you found it fitting to attack me for it as if there was something more than the material world.


But why should there not be something in which we can't discover by method of physical Scrutinization?


I don't understand what your asking here. If I make a claim that I have a talking rabbit, would you be able to prove it? Without physical scrutinization, how would you set out to discover this talking rabbit?


Take for instance what is you view on Mathematics and do you believe it exists independent of anything Materialist? Should 4+4 logically still be 8 even if the Universe never existed?


Mathematics is an abstracted ability to count objects. We can further abstract by creating symbols that stand in for higher amounts of objects that we naturally can't hold in our mind and work with. We can abstract even more by abstractly thinking in different forms addition, subtraction, etc. Mathematics by itself is not a physical fundamental of the universe and everything would still work the same way it does even if we never developed mathematical abilities as a species. If the universe never existed, there would have never been any intelligence to abstractly think enough to add four plus four.


Why should there not exist something that can't be Scrutinized? These are just abstract questions. Not everything can be proven by science. Abstract subjects such as infinities in Mathematics have no real place in the Universe but can be said to exist independent of anything Materialistic. That depends on your views of Mathematics though.


This statement makes no sense to me. Are you attempting to state that the abstract is just as real as the physical universe?


Just because you don't subscribe to the Many World Interpretation doesn't mean anything and is just an opinion. You seem to disregard this question by saying you don't believe in this Interpretation. So does that make this Interpretation wrong. There are two theories on the Multiverse. The one I mentioned was different then yours. I mentioned the one in which we are just one Universe in a sea of Universes. Your referring to the theory of the Universe giving birth to different Universes by means of probabilities in QM.


If you think logically, i.e. with a brain, about the many worlds interpretation of QM you'll quickly find it's wrong and just pure speculation. I mean seriously now, we're going to say our universe exists because an infinite amount of universes exist but we can never prove that they exist? Yea OK.


The way you scrutinized ID was a joke. You assume every man made approach is the only alternative to scrutinizing ID. Why is that? It seems this is more of an attack on religion then it is god. Your assertion on the man-made approach to debunking god only looks at it from a human perspective of ID.


Considering that the concept of God is purely invented by man and had it not been concocted we would not have it today, I don't understand what your getting at. If we never developed a theory of God, never ever even considered something like that, would you still consider God? Since we did invent God and since ID has been proven to be another way of saying creationism by Gods hand, we can now debunk ID. If we take the aliens from Taus Ceti or advanced civilization approach, we can then also debunk any attempt to show design.


Yeah finally you finally agreed that certain things may be unprovable in its whole.
So now we are left with the possibility of there being a ID that created the Universe. Or with the possibility that no ID exists and we are all created by some unknown means. So it is what we choose to prefer. Your last statement should end this discussion since you leave open the possibility of.


I think your reading into the given statement just a tad bit to much. As it stands, there is no possibility of ID because ID isn't observed. We consider the possibility of the BBT because some of what it predicts has been observed. Hopefully your intelligent enough to discern the huge difference there.


Oh one last thing can you tell me what EU and MOG stand for


Electric Universe and Modified Gravity. Mind you, I'm not advocating that these two theories are definitively and absolutely correct, but that I prefer them over the BBT as they so far explain current observations without inventing unseen new forces that have been admittedly never been observed or will be observed.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Nope, unforunately.


So you admit that the only source of information for the given statement is from that one book implying that you haven't even bothered to check the sources validity?


The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant over time (are said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed


Have you ever seen an actual closed system? Do you understand closed systems don't actually exist?


''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction

And of course theres the fact that theres no reason to think otherwise!


I agree with that part at least. Yet that statement doesn't imply infinity.


I never said every other theory, at least just mention its not a fact, and in all likelihood, completely wrong!


Hell, in that case every documentary of anything should start with "This is just our opinion".



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   


So you admit that the only source of information for the given statement is from that one book implying that you haven't even bothered to check the sources validity?


Id validate it If I could rememebr it properly and If I had the book anymore, lets leave this on the fence for now.


Have you ever seen an actual closed system? Do you understand closed systems don't actually exist?

So you think energy can be created or detsroyed?








I agree with that part at least. Yet that statement doesn't imply infinity.


It does to me.







Hell, in that case every documentary of anything should start with "This is just our opinion".


If thats the case than of course!



[edit on 9-11-2009 by Outlawstar]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Id validate it If I could rememebr it properly and If I had the book anymore, lets leave this on the fence for now.


Then let's consider this for future arguments, don't bring up any work in which you haven't bother to validate for yourself. If you can't cite more than one source for any information you have read, then consider it possibly wrong.


So you think energy can be created or detsroyed?


I make no claims to where matter came from. Merely asking if you can point out a single closed system, in which I will assume that you are unable to considering the nature of your response to my inquiry.


It does to me.


Can you show how it implies infinity for yourself.


If thats the case than of course!


In a perfect world, perhaps that would be great and wonderful. We don't live in a perfect world and so we're going to have to deal with people who talk about their own theories without calling into light other peoples theories.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Then let's consider this for future arguments, don't bring up any work in which you haven't bother to validate for yourself. If you can't cite more than one source for any information you have read, then consider it possibly wrong.

This has two sides.. The first side is of course, credibility, but you are forgetting the other side.. That is, progress.. Basically if you want people to keep repeating the same thing over and over, since one must always follow a certain source, then there will never be progress and there will never be a different view, and thus one is closing out the possibility of a better view/theory.

Intelligent design might not be complete and might lack evidence, but it has basically been thrown in the trash already, while abiogenesis is still "up" and there's no evidence for it either. It only works in theory, but in practice, nothing. Same as a whole lot of other theories, and ID gets ridiculed, while other theories don't. Like people building the pyramids in egypt in 20 years, which would mean placing a stone every two seconds, but they still allow that "fact" to be taught to our children. Science has become too arrogant today and the way it's going now, we are not going to make any real progress. Especially since there'slittle communication between sciences, if any. Science only allows what it wants to allow. Other stuff are thrown out the window for no real reason.. The reasons for that are not a coincidence, but that would be off topic.

In any case, I'm not saying ID is true, or that it isn't. My whole point is, that in current day, people repeating the same stuff over and over makes it true in our beliefs, while it might not be true in the real world at all. Though there is always a blur between the two.. Nassim Haramein has explained this very well, among other people.. Our view is too materialistic, and that will have to change eventually. If it was up to me, better sooner than later, but oh well..



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Then let's consider this for future arguments, don't bring up any work in which you haven't bother to validate for yourself. If you can't cite more than one source for any information you have read, then consider it possibly wrong.


Ill consider it equally possibly wrong and possibly right.






I make no claims to where matter came from. Merely asking if you can point out a single closed system, in which I will assume that you are unable to considering the nature of your response to my inquiry.


Ill let you assume that then, in the mean time, why dont you answer my question?






Can you show how it implies infinity for yourself.


Again?





In a perfect world, perhaps that would be great and wonderful. We don't live in a perfect world and so we're going to have to deal with people who talk about their own theories without calling into light other peoples theories.


Oh so well just resign to being taught crap as truth in our educatoin systems, oh great solution!!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by sirnex
 


Then let's consider this for future arguments, don't bring up any work in which you haven't bother to validate for yourself. If you can't cite more than one source for any information you have read, then consider it possibly wrong.

This has two sides.. The first side is of course, credibility, but you are forgetting the other side.. That is, progress.. Basically if you want people to keep repeating the same thing over and over, since one must always follow a certain source, then there will never be progress and there will never be a different view, and thus one is closing out the possibility of a better view/theory.

Intelligent design might not be complete and might lack evidence, but it has basically been thrown in the trash already, while abiogenesis is still "up" and there's no evidence for it either. It only works in theory, but in practice, nothing. Same as a whole lot of other theories, and ID gets ridiculed, while other theories don't. Like people building the pyramids in egypt in 20 years, which would mean placing a stone every two seconds, but they still allow that "fact" to be taught to our children. Science has become too arrogant today and the way it's going now, we are not going to make any real progress. Especially since there'slittle communication between sciences, if any. Science only allows what it wants to allow. Other stuff are thrown out the window for no real reason.. The reasons for that are not a coincidence, but that would be off topic.

In any case, I'm not saying ID is true, or that it isn't. My whole point is, that in current day, people repeating the same stuff over and over makes it true in our beliefs, while it might not be true in the real world at all. Though there is always a blur between the two.. Nassim Haramein has explained this very well, among other people.. Our view is too materialistic, and that will have to change eventually. If it was up to me, better sooner than later, but oh well..



Good points, interesting Pespective.
Obligatory second line^__^



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



This has two sides.. The first side is of course, credibility, but you are forgetting the other side.. That is, progress.. Basically if you want people to keep repeating the same thing over and over, since one must always follow a certain source, then there will never be progress and there will never be a different view, and thus one is closing out the possibility of a better view/theory.


When we're talking about scientific progress, we're not talk about inventing unobserved idea's and "rolling with it".


Intelligent design might not be complete and might lack evidence, but it has basically been thrown in the trash already


Because it doesn't follow the scientific method and has already been admitted to be created as a new term for creationism by God. If you wish to argue ID by way of aliens from Tau Ceti, then we can argue something that is actually tangible and testable.


while abiogenesis is still "up" and there's no evidence for it either. It only works in theory, but in practice, nothing.


While abiogenesis hasn't been observed and is predicted for by the theory of evolution, the mechanics behind abiogenesis are sound, those being physics and chemistry. Some of the predicted outcomes of the theory has been observed to occur and does occur, so we can't just rule it out as there is some evidence in favor of it. Whereas ID lacks any such evidence in favor of it, instead it pokes holes in different theories or at the moment unknown processes.


Same as a whole lot of other theories, and ID gets ridiculed, while other theories don't. Like people building the pyramids in egypt in 20 years, which would mean placing a stone every two seconds, but they still allow that "fact" to be taught to our children.


I disagree with your assertion that a stone would have to be placed ever 20 seconds. By my estimates, they would have had to place fourteen stone blocks per hour.

2500000
/
20 years
=
125000 blocks per year to be moved.
/
365 days out of the year to work
=
342 give or take, stone blocks per twenty four hour day
/
24 hours a day
=
14 stone blocks to move per hour.

Although my math could be wrong, not my strongest suite so if it is wrong can you please show me where I went wrong. I just don't see how they achieve this one block every two seconds claim.

Considering the sizable work force they had and that one man is capable of quickly and effortlessly moving well over nine tonnes alone, I think it's entirely possible for them to have achieved the goal.


Science has become too arrogant today and the way it's going now, we are not going to make any real progress. Especially since there'slittle communication between sciences, if any. Science only allows what it wants to allow. Other stuff are thrown out the window for no real reason.. The reasons for that are not a coincidence, but that would be off topic.


Do you have anything that has evidence for it that science has thrown out?


In any case, I'm not saying ID is true, or that it isn't. My whole point is, that in current day, people repeating the same stuff over and over makes it true in our beliefs, while it might not be true in the real world at all. Though there is always a blur between the two.. Nassim Haramein has explained this very well, among other people.. Our view is too materialistic, and that will have to change eventually. If it was up to me, better sooner than later, but oh well..


Why does the materialistic view have to change? Change to what? There is no evidence for anything else to work with here. You can't just make an unsubstantiated claim and leave it at that.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Ill consider it equally possibly wrong and possibly right.


More appropriately given your willingness to use it in argument, you appear to be relegating it to truth without evidence.


Ill let you assume that then, in the mean time, why dont you answer my question?


I have already answered. I make no claims to where matter has come from.


Again?


No, for the first time.


Oh so well just resign to being taught crap as truth in our educatoin systems, oh great solution!!


As I mentioned previously, from my own time in school I saw no textbook that claimed any theory was considered fact, but were theories that have evidences for them. Like I said, when I can get a hold of my daughters textbook I'll take a look and see if it's changed.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   


More appropriately given your willingness to use it in argument, you appear to be relegating it to truth without evidence.


Lucky Im not then ey







I have already answered. I make no claims to where matter has come from.


Can energy be created or destroyed in your opinion, yes or no?






No, for the first time.


Considering Ive done it already, another explanation would be 2, thats 1 plus 1 equals 2, I know you said maths wasint your forte but come on!





As I mentioned previously, from my own time in school I saw no textbook that claimed any theory was considered fact, but were theories that have evidences for them. Like I said, when I can get a hold of my daughters textbook I'll take a look and see if it's changed.


You havint looked very hard then!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Lucky Im not then ey


Then the statement in question was just a pointless statement made for no apparent reason on your part?


Can energy be created or destroyed in your opinion, yes or no?


My honest answer is, I don't know and that question applies to only closed systems and as I don't know of any closed systems I can't make any comment on where matter came from in our own universe.


Considering Ive done it already, another explanation would be 2, thats 1 plus 1 equals 2, I know you said maths wasint your forte but come on!


No, you haven't.


Actually you really cant prove otherwise, so yeah emm.
...
There was no first cause, ITS INFINITY!!!


This is what you have said on the matter. Those are not explanations, they are statements.


You havint looked very hard then!


What part of when I can get a hold of her textbook was hard to grasp?



new topics




 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join