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.

 

Let's Even The Playing Field in This Hot Debate

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Ok everyone...Observation of "evidence" is NOT the same as observation of the process that led to the "evidence" being created. I think it's such dis-info to say...
"The same conclusins can be made by studying the aftermath of an event as actually witnessing said event."

That is such Trash!! You can't POSSIBLY know something scienctifically just by POSTULATING about the AFTERMATH of an event. By definition you are NOT preforming the scientific method.

Note the difference there. I said "scientifically"

The "science" of origins is not science it is FORENSICS.

It is the study of evidence and deducing or hypothesizing about what happened. It is NOT 100% and it certaintly can't be considered reliable.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Its this idea of one or the other narrowly defined that is the entire problem here. Quantum wierdness meets the Beyond and all the implications of what this truly means, is the true metaphysics of this Digital DVD player/laptop/Holographic School, or even if you understand the cells, and in infinity how the Big Bang is misunderstood, and can contemplate seed germination in the Beyond, that which is outside this construct. Where are Infinities nestled within Infinities, schools, really.

The religions are control mechanisms only, boxes shoved on us to stop us from going within and they even prevent people who have a chance to glimpse at quantum findings, theories, and especially what should be Questions, from even asking those questions, for they are truly being programmed. This is not to say that message of Love to be found in basic messages that if divorced from all the rest, the trappings, the authority, the Church and the concept of a Harsh Dictatorial Creator, would not pass the tests.

Jeshua ben Joseph, taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was within us, and that we were the Many Branches, he taught service to others and concerned with feeding the poor, and his followers lived in equality, equalizing their possessions, not completely renouncing materialism, but sharing all. He taught that what he did we could also do.

Now, imagine that continuing and not being hijacked by Rome to maintain power through the ages and insist upon taxes paid. The tithing should have changed the face of poverty in this world, just a small fraction of it really.

There is not one way, yet this only one way. Love and Equality passes the test. And waking up an becoming aware, and asking questions.

Truly, this Universe is a construct, but religions don't have the answers. Its quantum wierdness meets the Beyond, and theres always another Beyond, yet again another, for there is no limits, no caps, no boundaries in Infinity, it is limitless. There is no One, but there is the Many In One, Infinite Family of Light, the Infinite Branches, with the Force or Love between us One. One-1111111111111111111...........or One-1 written.

So the best thing to do in this debate, is pretty much ignore both sides, and chose the inner road.

I highly recommend sungazing. Holgrams are erected with lasers, and they should give an idea, of where at least of the phone home lines is.


Haramein on the Sun

White and Black hole technology in our Star? In all Stars? Is the center of the Galaxy a giant star that broadcasts in, with both the black hole/waste paper basket for old programs, (never data, or consciousness) and white hole, broadcast in?

Connect within, take all questions within your heart, and sungazing. Downloads can occur.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspective
Ok everyone...Observation of "evidence" is NOT the same as observation of the process that led to the "evidence" being created. I think it's such dis-info to say...
"The same conclusins can be made by studying the aftermath of an event as actually witnessing said event."

That is such Trash!! You can't POSSIBLY know something scienctifically just by POSTULATING about the AFTERMATH of an event. By definition you are NOT preforming the scientific method.

Note the difference there. I said "scientifically"

The "science" of origins is not science it is FORENSICS.

It is the study of evidence and deducing or hypothesizing about what happened. It is NOT 100% and it certaintly can't be considered reliable.


You mean forensic SCIENCE?

en.wikipedia.org...

Science is not just what you can directly observe. Evaluating evidence of events that occured in the past IS part of science.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



You JUST proved my point. Origin "science" is not to be defined as following the scientific method as defined by definition "a."
It is no different then Creationism or Intelligent Design
It is all quess work as to how something happened. Nothing more.
You have no leg up. You are basing your beliefs on faith. I am glad that I could bring you to this point of revelation.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Look, if something can NEVER be verified by DIRECT observation and experimentation then EVERY possible explaination holds the SAME weight.

According to the rules of logic, if anything is possible and can not be ruled out, then by logic all explainations hold the same explanitory power. There is no "best" answer.

Look, you are simply fooling yourself to think that a "no supernatural" explaination somehow puts you on higher ground. You may pretend that is the case, but you are simply dishonest and you know neither the rules of logic nor how to apply them.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 



That is such Trash!! You can't POSSIBLY know something scienctifically just by POSTULATING about the AFTERMATH of an event. By definition you are NOT preforming the scientific method.

That's silly talk. You are saying that collecting evidence is not scientific? Weird to say the least.

I did not refer to origins. I made specific statements about the evolution of life on earth.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


We are not talking about whatever you deceptively mean by origin science. We are talking about the evolution of life on earth. At one time no fish. Now there are fish. Life changed. That's evolution.

At one time no mammals. Now there are mammals. There is not arguing over kinds when the changes are so dramatic.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 



Look, if something can NEVER be verified by DIRECT observation and experimentation then EVERY possible explaination holds the SAME weight.

Here is another astoundingly fallacious claim.


Look, you are simply fooling yourself to think that a "no supernatural" explaination somehow puts you on higher ground. You may pretend that is the case, but you are simply dishonest and you know neither the rules of logic nor how to apply them.

This is a straw man argument. It is not necessary to invoke any supernatural events to explain the diversity of life on Earth.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by trueperspective
 



Look, if something can NEVER be verified by DIRECT observation and experimentation then EVERY possible explaination holds the SAME weight.

Here is another astoundingly fallacious claim.


Look, you are simply fooling yourself to think that a "no supernatural" explaination somehow puts you on higher ground. You may pretend that is the case, but you are simply dishonest and you know neither the rules of logic nor how to apply them.

This is a straw man argument. It is not necessary to invoke any supernatural events to explain the diversity of life on Earth.


Exactly, but I'm not argueing that point exactly. I am argueing that no one can claim they know for sure. Which means logically a Creationist view is just as valid as a "no-supernatural" view. If that is the case, Origin is not the real issue. That argument can never be won or lost. The better set of questions is what explains ALL aspects of life BETTER. What makes more sense with what we see in the world TODAY? What explains emotions BETTER? What explains love BETTER? What explains evil BETTER? what explains the special ability of rational thought we humans have BETTER?

Do you see the point?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspective
Look, if something can NEVER be verified by DIRECT observation and experimentation then EVERY possible explaination holds the SAME weight.

According to the rules of logic, if anything is possible and can not be ruled out, then by logic all explainations hold the same explanitory power. There is no "best" answer.



This is false. Science does not need direct observation to judge explanations. Evidence from the past can be used to judge explanations, too. There is PLENTY of such evidence suggesting evolution is responsible for variety of life.

On the other hand, there is no evidence of creationism (god of the gaps is not evidence).



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by trueperspective
Look, if something can NEVER be verified by DIRECT observation and experimentation then EVERY possible explaination holds the SAME weight.

According to the rules of logic, if anything is possible and can not be ruled out, then by logic all explainations hold the same explanitory power. There is no "best" answer.



This is false. Science does not need direct observation to judge explanations. Evidence from the past can be used to judge explanations, too. There is PLENTY of such evidence suggesting evolution is responsible for variety of life.

On the other hand, there is no evidence of creationism (god of the gaps is not evidence).


That is one of the most commonly used dishonest statements I have ever heard. You REALLLLY think that millions of people believe something with NOOOO evidence?!?!?!

You REALLLLY think that everyone that believes in a "nature only" origin and evolution are somehow on a higher echelon of intelligence?!?!

You are either willfully or unwhitingly being completely niave.

Please tell me again that you actually think "there is NO evidence for the Creator God" Also, please define what counts as evidence...just so we are on the same page.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


A Creationist view is only valid if the view reflects the world about us. I have never seen any Creationist view that matches the world around us. That doesn't mean it is not there, but I have never seen anything valid. Do you feel that you know about a Creationist view that matches the world we observe today?

Evolution is about the diversity of life that we observe. It's not a discussion of good and evil.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by trueperspective
 


A Creationist view is only valid if the view reflects the world about us. I have never seen any Creationist view that matches the world around us. That doesn't mean it is not there, but I have never seen anything valid. Do you feel that you know about a Creationist view that matches the world we observe today?

Evolution is about the diversity of life that we observe. It's not a discussion of good and evil.


Do you mean things like the precieved age of the universe, the fossil record, etc. Like stuff like that??

What specific aspects do you mean "doesnt match the world we observe"



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 



That is one of the most commonly used dishonest statements I have ever heard. You REALLLLY think that millions of people believe something with NOOOO evidence?!?!?!


Pretty tough talk there. Ouch!
So what are you talking about there? Which part of the argument are you being so explosive about?

Let me give you some examples of things millions of people believe in with no evidence:
1. Columbus thought the world was flat
2. It's safer to be thrown clear of an accident
3. Typhoid Mary killed thousands of people
4. AIDS is transmitted through prophylactics
5. Tapping on a soda can prevents it from venting explosively
6. The Great Wall of China can be seen from space
7. Put a penny on the railroad tracks and it can derail the train
8. Water goes down toilets CCW in the northern hemisphere and CW in the southern hemisphere
9. A woman over 40 has a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than getting married
10. Fortune cookies come from China

This list purposely does not cover such esoteric ideas as astrology, crystals, psychics, remote viewing, dowsing, ghosts, channeling, telepathy, cryptids, free energy, chemtrails, numerology, ear candling, magic, numerology, etc.

Lots of people believing in something does not make it true or false for that matter. It is meaningless.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I actually think that is a good point. The majority does not decide truth. However, if something is believed without evidence I think that it is quickly proven false. At least through experimentation it is shown not to be true. Not so with origin. There is no way to falsify it. It can't be tested!

So yes, something is NOT true just because the majority says.

Truth must be...
1) Logical
2) Internally consistant, according to its own premises

So, for the creationist view... It is logical that an intelligent being made intelligent life... and within the premises of creation they are internally consistent.

Now, I will say that evolution also meets this criteria. So which is true???



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Short list:
1. No evidence for a global flood
2. The fossil record
3. Age of the Earth and universe
4. No evidence for Exodus



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


As if any of that would matter.

The religious require ignorance to sustain their beliefs. They will gladly ignore evidence and shove their heads in the sand. All because they would rather die than live in a world without their personal dial-a-deity.

Everyone who isnt leashed by the desire to not offend an imaginary god and gain entrance to an imaginary heaven can clearly see how rediculous all of this is. They are held hostage by their ignorant desires.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I can tell that you are very synical towards something you most assuredly don't understand. Painting with broad strokes everyone that is religious.

So if you will, please tell us your desires? If ours are so misguided, what do you desire?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


i surely must not understand.... otherwise what alternative conclusion could you mind reach?

i would gladly let those who desire a magical deity and the belief in a soul or heaven carry on being blissfull in their ignorance. Unfortunatley your all getting pulled into understanding by the advancement of technology.

placeibo is no longer an option for the masses..... which means i have no choice. faith can and does heal people through placeibo, but that only works if you can keep up the illusion untill they reach the grave.... thats not possible now, so i have to silence the source of pain somehow.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspective

That is one of the most commonly used dishonest statements I have ever heard. You REALLLLY think that millions of people believe something with NOOOO evidence?!?!?!

You REALLLLY think that everyone that believes in a "nature only" origin and evolution are somehow on a higher echelon of intelligence?!?!

You are either willfully or unwhitingly being completely niave.

Please tell me again that you actually think "there is NO evidence for the Creator God" Also, please define what counts as evidence...just so we are on the same page.


Yes, I really think millions of people believe in creationism, with no evidence to back it up. Those millions of people could very well be completely wrong. Evolution is backed up by evidence, creationism is not, thats why it is a belief, and not a scientific theory.

What would count as an evidence for creationism? Just to give you a few examples:
- fossilised god
- direct observation of creation in nature or in a lab
- indirect observation of creation - something that could not under any circumstances come to existence through natural processes (beware, proving a negative is very hard)

I am not trying to say that (old-earth) creationism is proven wrong, I am trying to say that creationism is a crazy hypothesis with no evidence backing it up, at best.
On the other hand, evolution is a solid scientific theory with plenty of evidence backing it up.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join