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: 23
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


9) Jesus' last words...3 different versions all in one book. Super accurate, suuuuuuure!
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."



The Matthew passage you quoted contained a view/camera angle on a group of people after he yelled “Eli, eli, etc”…they then had a conversation between themselves, had time to go and get a spunge of vinegar, climb up the cross and give it to Jesus….they even mention Jesus spoke after that, he “cried again with a loud voice”. But again Matthew’s perspective was on the people’s conversation. The focus then turns to the crowd’s question about whether Elijah would come to save him.

The Luke passage also mentions “crying with a loud voice…and differentiates between the cry and when he spoke after that…this occurred when Matthew was following the above mentioned spunge story.

And lastly, the John captures some words he said after he received the vinegar.

We have three vantage points, that’s all...Note: it is probable that John and Matthew were there, but Dr. Luke is relaying the story from interviews.

I haven’t even looked into the Greek tenses, which no doubt would close the issue. I found a very helpful website the shows all the account synoptically…it’s pretty neat, all you have to do is place your cursor over the passage table and it appears, someone went to a lot of work there….very convenient, for me.
Here: www.gospelparallels.com...

Another point to make is the writings are not all inclusive, of everything that happened….they are from a series of perspectives. It is not necessary for each of the four to write the exact same thing, kinda like if you and I think exactly the same, there’s no need for one of us. And remember none of them said “THIS IS THE LAST THING HE SAID!”

Pecking around the internet, I found this possible sequence: www.lookinguntojesus.net...

- 1 - Jesus cries out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Some who are nearby bring a spunge with vinegar in it to him (Matthew 27:48; John 19:29).

- 2 - Jesus cries with a loud voice (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). It is quite possible the "...loud voice..." cry Matthew and Luke mention is the "It is finished!" recorded by John.

- 3 - After the cry in a loud voice (ref. # 2), all three writers record that Jesus yielded up his spirit (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). Luke records some final words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", perhaps words spoken under his breath at the moment of his death.

So, do Luke 23:46 and John 19:30 contradict? I do not believe so. John recorded what he heard the Lord say on the cross. The words, "It is finished" appear to have been cried out loud and clear (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46). The words recorded by Luke were very possibly inaudible or unheard by John. They appear to have accompanied the very moment of his death.

So Mr.XYZ, OT’s going with no contradiction again. Btw, there are a few others I’ve answered a few pages back…you still out there friend?

Thx for rejuvenating my bible study, it’s been too long.




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
www.astronomycafe.net...

Clockwise rotation of Venus and Uranus could be the result of a collision.




The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.





posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
What is wrong about the rotation of galaxies? I think their axes of rotation should be more or less random. Are they not?


What is wrong is this:

Space is a vacuum, Big Bang teaches us that all the matter in the universe today was basically condensed into "nothing", which spun at extreme speeds then exploded thrusting all matter outwards. The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum declares that if anything is spinning, anything that "flies" or is cast off of it will also fly away spinning in the same rotation.

Example, lets say 4 people are sitting on a merry-go-round, and it spins fast and faster in a clockwise fashion, when we could no longer hold onto the merry-go-round and we "flew off" it we would also be spinning in a clockwise fashion as we flew in the air away from the spinning merry-go-round.

The visually verifiable characteristics of celestial bodies galaxies, retrograde motion planets, and retrograde orbits of planets satellites and axis rotations clearly show that the idea of a Big Bang is impossible based on elementary Physics. We won't even go into the fact that it (The Big Bang theory) also violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Not to mention OT, if all three accounts were the EXACT same word for word what is the first thing the skeptics would claim?


"COLLUSION!!!"



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Not to mention OT, if all three accounts were the EXACT same word for word what is the first thing the skeptics would claim?


"COLLUSION!!!"




Good point....

Have you seen MrXYZ?

I'm plugging away with these answers...it's been great to answer them, really enlightening.

I'll sit back and watch you and Maslo go


also check U2U when you get a chance.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz

Originally posted by OldThinker

Fair point....

Let's just stay in our solar system, ok? Why don't we see more earth friend? Do the math....it called "assignable" cause...



Originally posted by OldThinker

If 94% of all data is common cause, and only 6% special cause, shouldn’t there be “EARTHS” every where? I mean Earth’s with intelligent life on it? At least in 94 out of 100 areas?



We are unable to do that using those statistics though.

if you say 94% out of 100% (our universe) should contain an earth, and you take 0.000000001% (our solar system) of that 100% you are therefore stating that you would expect to see 94% of our solar system populated where in actual fact the probability of that 0.000000001% being populated would actually be a lot lot less ( I would work it out but I am at work at the moment)

your statistics are fundamentally flawed..




Thx for your opinion...

Have you considered the Central Limit Theorem implications here?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.


Why should it leave a mark? The planets litosphere would be completely molten by this impact, and hydrostatic equilibrium would make it spherical with no surface marks left.






Space is a vacuum, Big Bang teaches us that all the matter in the universe today was basically condensed into "nothing", which spun at extreme speeds then exploded thrusting all matter outwards. The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum declares that if anything is spinning, anything that "flies" or is cast off of it will also fly away spinning in the same rotation.


Matter was not spinning in the begining of big bang expansion, where did you read that? After the inflation, mater was randomly distributed in space, and began to coalesce due to gravity, with its angular momentum distributed randomly.

Law of conservation of angular momentum predicts that total angular momentum of the universe is zero, NOT that all its galaxies should spin in the same direction!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Space is a vacuum, Big Bang teaches us that all the matter in the universe today was basically condensed into "nothing", which spun at extreme speeds then exploded thrusting all matter outwards.


What does "space is a vacuum" have to do with "Big Bang teaches us"? Never mind that the Big Bang can't possibly teach us anything, because it's not a teacher, or even a person. Additionally, the matter was not "condensed" or anything. Further, you say that that the "condensed" matter spun at extreme speeds -- care to provide papers where you picked this? Seriously -- I'm waiting.


Example, lets say 4 people are sitting on a merry-go-round, and it spins fast and faster in a clockwise fashion, when we could no longer hold onto the merry-go-round and we "flew off" it we would also be spinning in a clockwise fashion as we flew in the air away from the spinning merry-go-round.


Please stage that experiment and see what happens. Once you leave the merry-go-round, you won't necessarily spin around your axis at all. As a matter of fact, you most likely won't precisely because of conservation of angular momentum -- which is a vector product of your velocity vector and the position vector with respect to the point of rotation.


The visually verifiable characteristics of celestial bodies galaxies, retrograde motion planets, and retrograde orbits of planets satellites and axis rotations clearly show that the idea of a Big Bang is impossible based on elementary Physics.


It's a safe bet to say that I have a very firm grasp of elementary physics. I find no evidence of Big Bang being patently wrong based on what we see in the Solar System and beyond. It's indeed a radical theory and may be testing for some.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Okay, fine, you don't like the fact that there are galaxies that rotate counter-clockwise from other galaxies?


Who said I didn't like it? I merely pointed at a completely false starting point in your argument, about "clockwise" momenta -- because there is not "clockwise" or "counter-clockwise" in the Universe, period.


That's fine, I won't press you to grasp that glaring contradiction to the laws of Physics.


Oh, feel free to press me to grasp anything related to physics. I've had a keen interest in same since early childhood, so I made it my profession. If you can help me enhance my knowledge, you'll have my gratitude. I do doubt that this will happen.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Listen fellow Christians, NEVER let any self-righteous Christians try to tell you that dancing or drums, guitars, etc have no place in the House of God. Anyone who says that makes King David a heretic and a liar. Please refer them to Psalm 150:

"Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of his power.

Praise Him for his mighty acts: praise Him according to his excellent greatness.

Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp.

Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs.

Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise Him upon the high sounding cymbals.

Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD."


AMEN brother David, yes, all the Earth praise the Lord!!!


In all the years I spent here on ATS, I haven't seen anything more off-topic than this post. The thread starting with a semi-sensible look at probabilities (which is a good topic and can be intelligently discussed), and now it devolved into discussions of Bible study and use of stringed instruments for worship of God... "Religious Lunatics" -- heard of that album?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Hey, don't get mad at me for using the arguments Big Bang theorists use. I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM MYSELF, and find then preposterous. But the fact remains, this infinitesimally small gathering of all the universe's matter is your/their claims. textbooks from here to Timbuktu teach this infinitesimally small "dot" was spinning at a great speed prior to the Big Bang.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Unless you're a "fellow Christian" that post doesn't concern you. Secondly, it was going along with something brought up by another person, and was dropped immediately after it was posted. It didn't "derail" the thread in any way. So, I'd suggest, if you're not a "fellow Christian", scroll down a reply and you'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Unless you're a "fellow Christian" that post doesn't concern you. Secondly, it was going along with something brought up by another person, and was dropped immediately after it was posted. It didn't "derail" the thread in any way. So, I'd suggest, if you're not a "fellow Christian", scroll down a reply and you'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.


I never lost sleep because of nonsense posted by somebody on ATS (otherwise I'd be an insomniac for the past 7 years). However, your attempt to justify violation of common board rules is laughable. I'm sure there are more than enough boards for "fellow Christians" to discuss fine details of Bible study.

And yes, by posting off-topic material, you do lower the quality of the thread.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Who said I didn't like it? I merely pointed at a completely false starting point in your argument, about "clockwise" momenta -- because there is not "clockwise" or "counter-clockwise" in the Universe, period.


How can you determine if a wheel is spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise?

Answer: It's how it appears to your eyeball, the vantage point if YOUR EYEBALL. Meaning to you it appears to spin counter-clockwise or clockwise depending on the direction it is spinning when YOU look at it. When we view a distant galaxy light year away, it appears to OUR (Earth's) vantage-point to be spinning in a certain direction. I suppose technically if there were aliens on the opposite side of that galaxy looking at it they'd argue that we were wrong that it was actually spinning the opposite direction. But that'd be irrelevant HERE with EARTH'S vantage point.

Nooooooow, with that said (whew), why from OUR VANTAGE POINT, do some galaxies and celestial bodies have retrograde motion?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wow, you're never heard the term "Hyperbole" before?

Interesting.. interesting indeed.






posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD."


AMEN brother David, yes, all the Earth praise the Lord!!!


In all the years I spent here on ATS, I haven't seen anything more off-topic than this post. The thread starting with a semi-sensible look at probabilities (which is a good topic and can be intelligently discussed), and now it devolved into discussions of Bible study and use of stringed instruments for worship of God... "Religious Lunatics" -- heard of that album?

= = = = = = = =


I believe you have bought a lie, myth, a false belief. It kinda goes something like this...

There is a difference between the "secular" and the "sacred". The words/mentality in your post lend me to think this way.

This false dichotomy seeks to segregate...and draw a line in the sand from the "religious" and the "worldly"

It is a limited thought process sumed up best by author Dallas Willard, " "There is truly is no division between sacred and secular except what we have created. And that is why the division of the legitimate roles and functions of human life into the sacred and secular does incalculable damage to our individual lives..."

The true connection is detailed in this hilarious audio. I rerspectfully dare you to listen, my friend...


www.tonycampolo.org...

OT



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Hey, don't get mad at me for using the arguments Big Bang theorists use.


False statement. You didn't use same arguments, you used assertions that showcase your lack of understanding of physics and basic facts as they relate to the hypothetical Big Bang.


textbooks from here to Timbuktu teach this infinitesimally small "dot" was spinning at a great speed prior to the Big Bang.


I never saw an article that would demonstrate that the totality of the observed Universe has an axis of rotation. Without such observation, I can't assume that the primordial "dot" was spinning. I haven't found reliable sources stating same. You may have better luck in Timbuktu. However, last time I checked, it didn't have any research centers to speak of.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You are more confused than I thought.

First, you post an OP which deals with statistics and probabilities of Earth being the only place in the Universe where life sprang up. It's a fair game, regardless of how viable the argument was.

However, to digress into topics in Bible studies and appropriateness of using a particular musical instrument for the worship of God is grossly off-topic and in fact belies the real intent of your post, which is a self-righteous proclamation of your blind faith which has NOTHING to do with statistics or science. You do the ATS a disservice by masquerading as a science-oriented type who can find the '%' sign on his keyboard. If you look for a religious circle-jerk, just start a thread devoid of any math or science, it's more fair to other members.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
How can you determine if a wheel is spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise?

Answer: It's how it appears to your eyeball, the vantage point if YOUR EYEBALL. Meaning to you it appears to spin counter-clockwise or clockwise depending on the direction it is spinning when YOU look at it.


Can we leave the Dark Ages please?

Angular Momentum


do some galaxies and celestial bodies have retrograde motion?


As far as I know, galaxies spin in a bazillion random patterns. This has nothing to do with the Big Bang or the topic of this thread. The "celestial bodies", such as planet in our Solar system, may have the direction of spin opposite of others, and again, given the complex mechanics and possibilities of collisions in distant past, I don't see anything dramatic in that.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I believe Christianity was in te OP...and if you would have read the responses, questions were rised, that I answered...and my post to you was in response to your bashing NOT's post...come on now, does an admission to one thing so threaten you? Sad bro, sad




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join