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.

 

The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

page: 14
37
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Please, do go on. How about you provide some evidence that confirms it? How about you demonstrate that a global flood actually happened or is physically possible?


How about you prove how giant areas of coal some with man made objects found in it is made through loonnnggg sloooww processses .




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Again, please provide evidence for this. If you have studied so objectively you could actually provide some instead of providing some non-sequitur about a global flood somehow proving the Earth is young.
edit on 16/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Please, do go on. How about you provide some evidence that confirms it? How about you demonstrate that a global flood actually happened or is physically possible?


How about you prove how giant areas of coal some with man made objects found in it is made through loonnnggg sloooww processses .



I have seen the modern objects in coal on TV and here at ATS. I found that kind of bizarre as did those that found it. Not sure if they ever figured out how the stuff got there but man was it weird.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Nobody can prove anything.
This is the truth.
Realize that we are in the state of unknowing.
This 'truth' will set you free.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by primoaurelius
 


>i can see how you could think that. im not worried about proof, but rather there is a very large
>volume of growing evidence that contradicts fundamentalists views . also by no means do i
>not belive in god, just not a christian world view. and if you would like proof, i could argue for
>both sides, both sides, religion, and science, both have lessons to be learned, to say that one
>is 100% fact correct, is close minded and will inevitably lead to an incorrect assumption.

My 'in' into this conversation was you taking someone to task for a lack of demonstratable 'proof'.

Since the 'theory' your "growing evidence that contradicts fundamentalists views" comes from a

0 = 1!

'foundation', it is essentially USELESS.

Just endless SPECULATIVE ramblings...

>as for the big bang, to say that something was created from nothing is an incredible
>understatement. if you would really like for me to sit here and type out different scientific
>theories i certainly can; the universe in super position with itself, because "before" the big
>bang the universe was as small or smaller than a single atom, and atoms, unobserved, are
>in superposition with themselves, and while in superposition, it reached a certain threshold
>and became instantly came into being. blah blah, thatsone scientific theory.

That is NOT Science, nor is it 'scientific theory'...

Just 100% Absurdist nonsense.


>then i could argue for spirituality and say that the universe could not have come out of
>superposition unless it was observed by something, even itself, it became aware of itself,
>and instantly became the primordial universe.

>i could continue on and on but i would rather not.

You've left the road that is a scientific discourse and you are somewhere in some ravine... Can you get a signal with your cell?

I CAN help.


>the point is no one has all the right answers and to believe otherwise is folly.

>my original post was that the guy was saying that someone was flat out wrong, without stating
>how or why. much like you did.

Au contraire mon vieux...

The belief being espoused by ya'll (and the OP
) is...

Just tacked on RELIGIOUS babblings...

with a whole LOT of romantic notions...

that simply doesn't bear up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Much less give you a 'basis' (to attempt) to point the finger at my religious brethren and take them to task for their supposed intellectual shortcomings.

>am i talking to fast?

Actually no... Still waiting for you to actually say something...

You know to back up that 'Science' knows best arrogance.

Or at least (make an attempt to) 'educate' me.



(Hint: Hint: I am at your disposal
)
edit on 16-5-2011 by golemina because: formatting (ad naseum!)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


All of them have been debunked. It's a hat older than the big ol' purple one on Galactus' head argument. There has never been a verifiable instance of this sort of thing. There are just far too many to list on this thread.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You're talking about epistemological certainty. I've realized this. Do you know why? Because I actually bothered to study philosophy. Nobody needs epistemological certainty to make reasonable, testable, and verifiable claims in concert with one another to derive a working understanding understanding of reality.

I know things. I just cannot have epistemological certainty.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


I won't call you names, I'll merely say that you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, we've all been wrong about something before. You can't learn something without being wrong previously.


You can't prove me wrong when I dont have a view point. How come your science and your english crap haven't figured that out yet?


do you ever stop talking?

Flaming and claiming ignorance is ridiculous. your making yourself look bad.


I agree whole heartedly with the OP. Scientists aren't just making things up, as much as paranoid skeptics would have you believe. We can easily learn from, and about, the world around us. The idea that someone would presume otherwise boggles my mind.

But, there is no arguing with this sort of religious fanaticism.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Let me ask you something, OP...

Why?

What do you think is going to happen here?

Fourteen pages later and you've convinced exactly zero people to change whatever bone head notions they may have about the beginning of the Earth.

To be fair, even the most accepted, scientifically 'validated' dates are conjecture, since no one alive was there at the time. Up until 500 years ago, the best theory around stated that the earth was flat, and you were a moron if you believed anything different. Are you so incredibly arrogant that you can't accept that maybe, just maybe, science is wrong about this?

It seems to me you may just be picking a fight with feeble minded simpletons in order to elevate yourself intellectually. Bad form, my friend.

You can do better.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Please explain how you're able to confirm non terrestrial decay rates from billions of years ago, also don't forget to explain how you know they're from billions of years ago

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How about you provide some evidence that confirms it? How about you demonstrate that a global flood actually happened or is physically possible?

Well it's not impossible. At one point the entire world was probably encased in ice and snow. There's no other logical way to explain the 1.2 billion years of missing sediment layers on the Earth. (The Great Unconformity) Unless you have a better theory as to why the Earth is missing 1/4 (one-fourth) of it's geological history.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


And tell me, how we know the age of items that are tested in the multiple tens of thousands of years for potassium argon dating???

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Sorry that still just means that gravity has an effect on the material used to measure time, not time itself...

use your brain for something other than toilet paper. Think for yourself, see the possibilities rather than eating the spoonfed crap.

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


By debunked what he means is dismissed because they can't explain it without completely rethinking their entire religion.

None of them have actually been debunked....

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Let me ask you something, OP...

Why?

What do you think is going to happen here?

Fourteen pages later and you've convinced exactly zero people to change whatever bone head notions they may have about the beginning of the Earth.

To be fair, even the most accepted, scientifically 'validated' dates are conjecture, since no one alive was there at the time. Up until 500 years ago, the best theory around stated that the earth was flat, and you were a moron if you believed anything different. Are you so incredibly arrogant that you can't accept that maybe, just maybe, science is wrong about this?

It seems to me you may just be picking a fight with feeble minded simpletons in order to elevate yourself intellectually. Bad form, my friend.

You can do better.


The problem with that is that many of those he's picking a fight with are quite a few rungs higher on the intellectual ladder....

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Let me ask you something, OP...

Why?

What do you think is going to happen here?

Fourteen pages later and you've convinced exactly zero people to change whatever bone head notions they may have about the beginning of the Earth.

Wanted to chime in here.
Such discussions are rarely if ever about trying to convince someone to be rational...its about showing them up.
Madness does a great job in bringing forth, piece by piece, theistic beliefs that are just plain silly....he will then start a pretty decent and intelligent flamewar and keep composure and reason as he does it.
The opposing side then devolves further and further into anger, frustration, etc.

Its not about them

Someone later on someone may have actual questions and curiousities about the subject...they may be wide open to influence of religion. They google search some keywords that bring this up, and he/she may read through the thread.
What that person will notice is one side being rational and scientific in their methods...the other side will seem like total helmet wearing window licking retards (as they tend to do)..and that person will have both his answer, and a healthy avoidance of religious quackery in the process.

That is why its done, and will continue to do...its not to change them, its to shine a light on their insanity so that others may learn from it.


To be fair, even the most accepted, scientifically 'validated' dates are conjecture, since no one alive was there at the time. Up until 500 years ago, the best theory around stated that the earth was flat, and you were a moron if you believed anything different.

Actually, the greeks knew it was a spherical earth. They understood this by using science.
That knowledge was lost due to x-ianity spreading and destroying logic/reason/science (aka, the dark ages).
You were not considered a moron, you were considered a heathen.



Are you so incredibly arrogant that you can't accept that maybe, just maybe, science is wrong about this?

It seems to me you may just be picking a fight with feeble minded simpletons in order to elevate yourself intellectually. Bad form, my friend.

You can do better.


Did you just insinuate that religious people = feeble minded simpletons?

heh

-ducks-
edit on 16-5-2011 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Really.. What is the point of this thread?

OP, while I applaud your attempts to inform some mislead people without insulting them, you have failed. I only read the first nine pages of this thread and most of what I saw was flaming and insults.

So what if someone wants to believe the Earth is six thousand years old? Does that affect ANYONE ELSE in ANY way? So what if they want to argue that they're right.. Are you really going to waste your time and argue with them? When someone is stubborn enough to argue against all facts, no one with any amount of reasoning is going to change their mind. I don't understand why people insist that they have to force their views on others, and this goes to both sides. If you want to show your point of view to someone, simply tell them. I saw someone in this thread even say "I insult them because it creates discussion" or something along those lines. How does this make any sense?

People are going to believe what they want to believe, and no one else is going to change that. If they want to see the other side of the argument, they will do so on their own accord. If they don't want to see the other side, then no one in this thread flaming anyone else is going to change that fact. It's not going to kill you if someone believes the Earth is six thousand years old, just like it won't kill anyone else if you think the earth is four billion years old.

TL;DR - This thread is full of stupidity. People will believe what they want to believe, and insulting someone or saying "LOOK HERE IS ALL MY EVIDENCE" is not going to change that. It shouldn't matter to anyone else if someone believes the Earth is six thousand years old, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else if someone believes the Earth is four billion years old.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well, I have watched this thread for a while now... hoping you would take time from your busy surgical dissections to respond to my minor query.

*sigh*

I have read you here many times before and though we don't always agree, you generally take up questions posed to you... and that is respectable in this place where shredded opinions are almost like a breakfast food.

Of course, my question was not specifically arguable and... you do like to stay on the offensive.

Defending yourself is not nearly as much fun


Oh well. catch ya on the flop...



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





What that person will notice is one side being rational and scientific in their methods...the other side will seem like total helmet wearing window licking retards (as they tend to do)..and that person will have both his answer, and a healthy avoidance of religious quackery in the process.


Yes.. because either side is "rational and scientific" when they're insulting someone for their beliefs?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by joshnichols189
Really.. What is the point of this thread?

OP, while I applaud your attempts to inform some mislead people without insulting them, you have failed. I only read the first nine pages of this thread and most of what I saw was flaming and insults.

So what if someone wants to believe the Earth is six thousand years old? Does that affect ANYONE ELSE in ANY way?

Sarah Palin Wants Creationism Taught in School

Yes...this insanity -does- effect others.

It must be refuted, squashed under a mountain of evidence, and humiliated.
edit on 16-5-2011 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join