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.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Torgo
 


Sweet!!!!

A new crop of self-made skeptics, who use sarcam and diversion techniques to get their mind of the most important question.....




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you telling me that Hinduism is not the one true religion? Just look at your original post man, it's all there. I don't see why people aren't getting this. Look, the 6 percent is symbollic of the number of limbs that the Hindu god's are sometimes portrayed as having! They we're leaving us hints to this eventual revelation!

Edit to add: Take a look at this and tell me it doesn't all add up! Pay special attention to 4, 6, and 9!



[edit on 15-8-2010 by Torgo]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
This thread reminds me of that iGod chat. Just wondering why the OP feels
he is answering questions, when it is clear that people are continuously
complaining he is not.


"Let him who has ears, hear!"

or see: www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
This thread reminds me of that iGod chat. Just wondering why the OP feels
he is answering questions, when it is clear that people are continuously
complaining he is not.


"Let him who has ears, hear!"

or see: www.youtube.com...

Thou shall not commit laundry. Thou shall covet thy neighbors food. Thou shall
not commit hygiene. Thou shall commit thyself to an institution. Thou shall not
take the bands name in vein. Thou shall not create ties with the scathed one.
Thou shall always go for greatness. Thou shall not commit adulthood. Thou shall
not have no idea. Thou shall not partake of decaf. Thou shall not let anything
deter you for your quest for all.

Th All-O-Gistics



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You posted a link with a picture of a snake hiding in sand, that doesn't mean they EAT DIRT!! Many animals hide in sand without it being the consequence of a punishing deity


Also, I wanna make it clear that I have nothing against you personally. I believe you are misguided, and that your argumentation is seriously flawed, but you don't come over as an evil person...and if believing makes you happy, then by all means. You have the right to be happy just like everyone else...

I have to say Torgo might be on to something with his Hinduism stuff...although personally, I'd go with Buddhism because it's the religion that gets along best with science. Mostly because it doesn't make up invisible people in the sky that no one can prove really exist


[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


MrXYZ, that's a good start!


We have much more work ahead of us...

I'm committing to answer all of your contradictions...

My argumentation skills are proven in time...been down this road more than once.

Brother, I am the opposite of evil...not because of who I am, but because of who's IAM...sleep on Romans 1:20 and the verdicts still on on 'T'?

"Good night, sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite"


OT



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Really? Buddhism? Don't make me laugh! Do you honestly believe that everything emanates from the primordial expanse of openness, clarity, and sensitivity? That this reality is illusion-like, never really coming into existence, but the illusion itself is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere, and not in time. Do you really believe that time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that primordial expanse?

What's next? Are you going to try to tell me that all of the world's religions shared basically the same story of creation? That it doesn't matter what religion you belong to, all spiritual paths essentially lead to the same end? Yeah, sure, whatever.
Peddle your new age crap somewhere else, buddy!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
In 1953 the famed 'Miller-Urey' experiment was conducted, and produced organic chemicals by abiotic means. I believe this is the experiment the skeptics are referring to. It is very repeatable and should be carried out more often in classrooms. Science has never asserted there is no God, only that evidence for God's existence has never been found. As we all know, however, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the other hand, religion is attempting to encroach, as it always has, into the realm of science by insisting on disclaimers affixed to biology textbooks and equal time in science classrooms for the teaching of evolution and creationism respectively. Religion is on the offense, and rationalists are making the mistake of trying to defend by arguing logically with concepts that have no basis in logic. OP, anything that you think proves the existence of God is false, your God would never allow such a thing because it undermines faith. I appreciate the evangelical desire to 'save lost souls' as well-intentioned, but we horses believe that water to be poisoned, if you'll forgive the truncated metaphor.

Religiosity, as a phenomenon, is like a cast set to mend a broken bone that was never removed. If there is no humanist alternative to enforcing moral behavior other than lying to ourselves about having knowledge of an afterlife then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Okay, so more relevant to the OP, Voyager's instrumentation is too crude to supply anything but inconclusive results about extraterrestrial life in the Sol system, but there is a good deal of promise on the Jovian moon Europa and the Saturnian moon Titan. There also exists evidence of liquid flowing water having been on Mars. Time will tell, but I suspect in the coming decades we will discover that life is much more common than we currently reckon. We can generate statistical models regarding the probability of life until the cows come home, but until we have some empirical data to plug into the equations is still just philosophy.

On a more personal note, as an atheist I find it so frustrating to argue these issues that I cringe when I click the reply button. Just as adherents to proselytizing religions feel the need to spread the word, I think atheists feel a responsibility also to try to show that for all the good that comes from theism, there is a great amount of harm as well, and that we need to find a way to keep the good and do away with the bad if we want to move forward as a species.

Okay, submitting now before I get too far behind in the thread.

z



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelun
 


Z, thanks for the thoughtful post...I'll review later for a more thorough response.

OT



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Torgo
 


T, Are you being serious? If so, cool...please amplify the 9,4,6, connection ok?

OT



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zelun
OP, anything that you think proves the existence of God is false, your God would never allow such a thing because it undermines faith.
z


Z, Friend...we can "know"

1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelun
 


You're joking right? The Miller-Urey experiment has been shown to be extremely flawed for over a DECADE. In fact, it's very sinister that teaching institutions are still toting the experiment as a success. It was a resounding failure. The only folks who still think the Miller-Urey experiment has any worth whatsoever are the hardcore atheist super-minority, and die-hard Darwinian evolutionists.

The experiment is a joke today. I'll give you a hint, "embalming fluid".



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I can't help but immagine that on some lonely planet somewhere far off in the distant universe some other creature is saying the exact same thing.

So long as all we can see and comprehend is from a single point in the wide expanse of an ever expanding universe, everything except facts is conjecture.

Everyone is entitled to there opinion. I only wished we had enough information to be able to tell which opinion is closest to being based on hard facts.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Nope, no joke. Please explain to me, in scientific terms, why these 50+ year-old peer-reviewed results do not convince you that organic chemicals can be produced abiotically. Furthermore, explain why the composition of proteins produced from inherited genes from the Last Universal Ancestor(LUA), genes shared by very distantly-related species', are heavily populated with the amino acids produced by the Miller-Urey experiment, as suggested by this study.

If this experiment is such a disgrace, then why, in 2008, was it reported that the Miller-Urey experiments produced more different amino acids than reported in the original study by means of modifying the apparatus to produce a 'volcanic' environment, as reported in this article?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Zelun]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Z, Friend...we can "know"

1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.


That's all well and good for Paul, but could Paul reproduce his revelation in a double-blind study? What do you think he would say if I asked him to change his name back to Saul, be struck blind, then have a vision of the resurrected Jesus, but this time in a laboratory rather than on the road to Damascus?

Quoting scripture is not productive, I'm afraid, because you have to believe it in the first place for it to be relevant. This is where science is better for reasonable discussion: you don't have to believe it because someone told you to, you can verify it for yourself.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I'm puzzled at how you managed to extrapolate a proof of a Judeo-Christian god from this.What about all the other gods.You wouldn't be a christian would you?Christians should avoid undertaking any form of scientific endeavour.And rock music.Neither is really your bag



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blah yada
Christians should avoid undertaking any form of scientific endeavour.
You mean like: Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Or how about?Dr. Francis Collins, Special to CNN

Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zelun
That's all well and good for Paul, but could Paul reproduce his revelation in a double-blind study?


Z, Brain cells don't bring peace of mind, bro!

But I'll stop back by later as to why it's logical to believe...


OT



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Why do you people not realise you are continuously feeding a troll here?

Stop feeding the trolls like OT...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
Why do you people not realise you are continuously feeding a troll here?

Stop feeding the trolls like OT...


Any intelligent person who read your post would say, "what? do people talk like that on the internet?"

And then I'd have to explain the young sub-culture norms and then we'd have to look up 'trolls' and then I'd have to explain the connection...and they would shake their heads and say, "those damn kids"




top topics



 
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join