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.

 

Can science prove this???....

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If the bible is true, my favorite explanation for the dinosaurs comes from Good Omens. It's something along the lines of "The dinosaurs were just a big joke that no one had figured out yet."




posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Wait - why have you limited it to a CHRISTIAN God? Islam has Allah - the translation of God.

So, believe what you will, but, in turn, please don't make offensive remarks like this.

That is all.

Oh, on topic: I don't think 86% of the population of Earth (roughly 5 billion, 100 million people) will change their faith because of something that will never be disproved. God, in definition, is existant while non-existant. Science needs logical explanation - God is not this.

-wD



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
i think the universe and our planet alone proves that there is a god and he exists above our lives. look at the way the planet evolves and goes through certain cycles. our planet describes a symmetry between our evolution and the early stages of existence. it would be pure ignorance to assume a god doesnt exist.

and another thing. yes the egyptians lined up temples with constellations etc. but they can be easily shot down. its very easy to prove that they werent under the best guidance. i mean if you put a species somewhere and its first time around evolving and developing a deeper conciousness will not be at its peak of intelligence as it would 30 years from it.

in other words, the egyptians just assumed many things which deserved more looking into. we cannot blame them however. they had very little resources.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
dinosaurs. where in the bible did it talk about dinosaurs. and if god or jesus were real then why havent we heard from them in like 2 thousand years. right after jesus was crucified we never heard from them again. its all just a fantasy story to me. a bunch of guys were making a book thats all it is a book.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   
All science is based upon underlying assumptions which have never been proven.

Science is a construction of the minds of men and is valid only within the framework of its own limitations.

In other words, Science is just another religion -- the least tolerant of religions, in fact -- and bears all the trappings of a genuine religion, including articles of faith called “axioms”, “theorems” and “postulates”. It is also replete with dogma, canons, scriptures, priesthoods, worshipers and lay-believers.

Nothing in Science is founded upon anything which could truly be considered “certain”. In fact, things have become even more uncertain as Science has progressed and built upon itself. Witness the current state of quantum physics, for example.

No matter how grand may be the workings of Science, they are still founded upon the assumptions and declarations of faith of those who practice it.

Science is not absolute nor is it infallible, it is simply a system of thought which holds itself in high regard. The fact that it is, in my opinion, the greatest system of thought devised by man does not change that, it is still something that we, and we alone, have created.

Like every religion, Science is meaningful only to those who practice it. Scientists tend to be prejudicial toward those who do not practice their religion, rejecting all systems of belief but their own. There are exceptions, but they are ruthlessly ostracized by their colleagues.

These boards are rampant with examples of the closed-mindedness that typifies so many self-styled Scientists. Salvation comes only to those who learn to realize their own limitations.

That includes accepting the fact that no one knows everything, and that much of what is accepted as true, “scientific” or otherwise, is at best nothing more than a model of the truth, and far more often, a delusion.

Objectivity is nothing more than subjectivity without honesty.

As for proving that God doesn’t exist, I suppose that depends on which “God” one is trying to disprove.

I define God as being all things without exception. Now, prove to me that my God does not exist!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Xeven - excellent example "Time". We created it and a way to measure it but it is not an actual tangible/physical thing that we can scientifically prove the existnce of.


Yes we created a way to "measure it...but we did not create it
..before humans existed...time passed...from one season to another is time passing, through a long ice age, into a time warmth, was time passing, when a creature was born lived and died, was time passing....there has always been time...man just gave it a name and a way to measure it....



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I've often wondered what made the worship of many gods less plausible than the worship of one god.

Both polytheism and monotheism are only based on ancient texts and beliefs. As was mentioned in the first post of this thread, it is thought that science has disproven the gods and their roles. How so? How are the multitude of Egyptian gods, for example, any less valid than a Christian god? So we understand more about Earth forces, etc.? Who's to say the gods aren't behind such forces?

Often, I think that the only reason we no longer have many gods, is that we simply haven't got the time for them. Most monotheistic religions today are very non-intrusive (Islam is a notable exception). Most do not require any time daily, but simply lip service every now and then. Perhaps THAT is to blame for the disappearance of gods of old, and not science?



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
All science is based upon underlying assumptions which have never been proven.

Such as?


Science is a construction of the minds of men and is valid only within the framework of its own limitations.

I agree absolutely. It can't answer anything about metaphysical/magical/theological questions.


bears all the trappings of a genuine religion, including articles of faith called “axioms”, “theorems” and “postulates”.

I don't see how you figure that. Articles of faith are invariant, they don't change because of physical evidence.

It is also replete with dogma, canons, scriptures, priesthoods, worshipers and lay-believers.

There isn't any dogma in science, anything and everything can be overturned, and the stuff that hasn't been, well, since it hasn't been its generally accepted. But anyone at any time could potentially disprove/falsify any of it. And scientits aren't like preists. While I don't doubt that some people listen to some of them because of 'authority', that doesn't mean that science itself operates on authority. A well known, successful and respected scientists can be utterly and completely wrong at times and his work will stand or fall on the weight of the evidence, not authority or beleif.


Nothing in Science is founded upon anything which could truly be considered “certain”.

Nor does it claim to 'absolutely prove' things. Every theory in science can potentially be overturned. I don't see that as a problem tho, its lead to its great strenght.


In fact, things have become even more uncertain

I agree entirely. Everytime something is understood in more detail another level or layer of detail is realized and it leads to even more questions.


No matter how grand may be the workings of Science, they are still founded upon the assumptions and declarations of faith of those who practice it.

Merely because you beleive this hardly makes it true. No one is under compulsion to not research something merely because another scientist doesn't beleive it. At worst, they could allways research it independantly if they can't get a grant.


Science is not absolute nor is it infallible,

Does anyone claim that it is and does?

Like every religion, Science is meaningful only to those who practice it.

Whether or not a person 'beleives' in a vaccine does not affect the immunity it grants.


Scientists tend to be prejudicial toward those who do not practice their religion, rejecting all systems of belief but their own.

Why should a scientst, in so far as they are scientists, accept without evidence or reason the irrational beleifs of religion? And there are certainly scientists who are religious and members of one religion or another.


There are exceptions, but they are ruthlessly ostracized by their colleagues.

Who is complaining? How are they being ostracized? Is there scientifically work being rejected for non scientific reasons? Or are they being socially ostracized for forcing their religious beleifs on others?


Salvation comes only to those who learn to realize their own limitations.

In your opinion it does, but there is no reason for anyone else to beleive that.


and far more often, a delusion.

Such as?


Objectivity is nothing more than subjectivity without honesty.

So you say there is no objective reality out there?

I define God as being all things without exception. Now, prove to me that my God does not exist

One can't scientifically prove that any god doesn't exist. Science is entirely mute on the subject of gods. At most it shows that such and such a thing can be shown to happen with out involvement of a god. Even then people will still be able to say 'there is still a god doing all that'. How could science even begin to address that sort of question? It can't. Science isn't a threat to religion, its entirely seperate from it.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Science is about ideas... Religion is about beliefs...

The 13th Apostle, Rufus, "You can change an "idea". But beliefs? That's not so easy..."



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Science isn't a threat to religion, its entirely seperate from it.


The fact that its seperate means its in conflict. Evolution vs creation. I learned in my second year psych class that religion is there to answer all those things that science and logic cant. But wat happens when one of these questions is answered by science all of the sudden becasue of some break thro and not by religion anymore???...DOes that not degrade religion??



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Yes we created a way to "measure it...but we did not create it
..before humans existed...time passed...from one season to another is time passing, through a long ice age, into a time warmth, was time passing, when a creature was born lived and died, was time passing....there has always been time...man just gave it a name and a way to measure it....


Can you prove that time existed before humanity? No, you can't; no one observed it, as far as we know. For all we know, all that stuff could have happened in an instant somehow, in a way such that it looked to people who observed time that all that stuff had taken thousands of years. But we can't know whether it did or not; If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? That's my favourite way of considering Heissenberg's Uncertainty Theorem, or whatever exactly it's called. It's a bit of quantum physics-the observer is an essential part of an experiment, or anything else for that matter. I personally define God as a label for the thign that's necessary for anything at all to exist; I accept Quantum Physics as truth (though I would drop that acceptance if I saw a reasonable alternative that didn't require a traditional god), and particularly the uncertainty theorem, i consider God to be consciousness. So, my idea is that every particle, or some such elementary building block of matter, is conscious somehow.

Now I just need to find a way to test that...



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
Can you prove that time existed before humanity? No, you can't; no one
...

OOoooooookkk...whatever you wish believe...but by the simple fact that we are no longer in an ice age, no longer have Dinosaurs roaming the earth.....that's a pretty good indication that time passed, the earth still revolved, the sun came up and set...a day passed... no it wasn't "named" day, no one measured it...but it still passed....sheeeeeeesh....use your head here and think!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Religionists can allways make up some explanation for why the evidence is against thier beleifs; at least when their beleifs made 'normal' statements. For example, evolution and creationism are in conflict, because creationism makes claims to being scientific. Similarly, one can say that some of the claims from the bible are 'historical' claims that are in conflict with actual historical studies. So in any realm where people attempt to extend religion onto reality, things are different. But religion in general doesn't concern itself with 'scientific' issues. Catholics don't say, well the host isn't made up of meat, so it can't be flesh. They say, 'the substance has changed' in some way that can't be detected by any device, or even human sight and taste. Granted, either religionists or scientists could make claims about each other's repsective domains. A scientist could say that he studied the efficacy of prayers and found it ineffective and claim that means there is no god. He'd be overstepping his bounds however, because at best the study would say that prayer as a group phenomenon isn't effective.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
LadyV:

Please, dont' act like I'm beign an idiot, because for once I'm actually being fairly not-idiotic. We have no real evidence of the Ice Ages and such; just geological and archological and such things for which an Ice Age is the most reasonable explanation we've come up with. Plus, I'm not saying that time didn't exist, just that we don't know that it existed; i think there was probably something else there with some sort of consciousness to observe it. And maybe, if there is a sort of Christian-style god, he isn't omnipotent, only omniscient, so that something is observing at all times.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
LadyV:

Please, dont' act like I'm beign an idiot

I am sorry that implied you were being idiotic...I did a get bit riled there didn't I? However, my stand on the subject stays the same....
Again, I apologize for implying anything down grading your intelligence, it wasn't really meant that way...just a way speech....



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
I'm not saying that time didn't exist, just that we don't know that it existed; i think there was probably something else there with some sort of consciousness to observe it.



Um, sounds pretty self-contradictory.

You don't know that it existed, but you think something else observed it.

If something else obvserved it, then it existed.

Misfit



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
First off, lets get something straight its the SAME GOD for muslims, christians and jews. Next off, if I tried to PROVE that there is a God to you, you'd give me some bull# answer that has to relate to science. Good for you, but who do you allowed you to discover that knowledge?

People who are religious aren't trying to PROVE God exists, we just have faith that he does. I have strong faith that he does, because throughout my life, there have been experiences that lead me to confirm his existence. Even if you prove somehow He doesn't exist, I still would not fold and I would be steadfast in my belief.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   
LadyV:

Don't worry about it, it's fine


Misfit:

I don't know that the observer existed either; it just seems the most reasonable explanation to me, for all the things that came before.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis. We have no real evidence of the Ice Ages and such

Similarly, there is also no 'real' evidence for pretty much everything around us, like atoms and electrons and chemicals and the structure of the earth and ultraviolet light and radiation.


just geological and archological and such things for which an Ice Age is the most reasonable explanation we've come up with

If its the most reasonable explanation, and consistent with all the evidence, and nothing refutes it, then why not take the leap and say, well, it probably happened?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I am taking the leap and saying that it probably happened; I'm just admitting, and even sort of promoting, the possibility that it might not have happened. I do believe that it happened; just that there's not really all that much solid proof for it, so it too is a belief, rather than an absolute fact.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join