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: 19
37
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'll educate you on the definition of fact.

Fact:

Definition:

1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

I could put more than one site, I could put over a hunderd. But the greatest resources come from these things found in libraries, their called books. Its hard to be a scientist when you have already determined your theory before the experiment has began. Even harder to find researchers crediable when they manipulate www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.plosone.org...
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.cbsnews.com...




Fact: The most printed book of all time. The bible. Not "The origin of species"



edit on 17-5-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by primoaurelius
 


Hey there Primoaurelius.


Let me show you how to increase your ability to engage on a topic... Instead of posting what comes off as inane responses... such as...

>first and foremost, your choppy post barely makes sense

I don't know. Break it down to pieces that you can parse.


It is broken down to smaller chunks... Cuz quite frankly that is all most folks (around here
) can process.

Your next statement is kind of amusing...

>im not here to sling # at each other. i enjoy debate, which is what i was trying to do. however you
>come along and say "your wrong" BUT WHY AM I WRONG, PROVE ME WRONG DAMNIT.

EVERYTHING postulated by 'Science' is wrong.

Starting from in the beginning.

You know the 0 = 1! part.

I previously stated that I would be happy to take on all 'Science' poseurs/pretenders/preachers/'EDUCATORS'...

But quite frankly there seems to be no takers...

Except, my friend, Primoaurelius.

>i have no problem admitting my wrongs, how else could i grow intellectually, just tell me why,
>GIVE ME A REASON TO BELIEVE YOU

One of the most serious defects with the approach by self-proclaimed 'Scientists' such as yourself, is the belief that they are somehow 'open-minded'...

That is totally laughable.


You believe that you understand what is going on around you, that you understand your world, when nothing could be further from the truth.

>seriously, do you know anything of quantum physics, (obviously not or you would have already
>come to grips with the fact that alot of it seem pretty far out) or even normal physics, OR EVEN
>ASTRONOMY, and i dont mean watching discovery channel, i mean actually reading books,
>studying, etc, etc. (pointless to even ask this question because like i said, you are right no matter
>what, so of corse your answer will be yes). or come in half way during the conversation and say a
>bunch of # that doesnt even make sense in the context of the previous conversation. and these
>romantic notions you speak of, those two words would best describe the virgin birth, the resurection,
>eaten by whales, living thru burning alive in an oven, Ezekiel; if you want to say these all really
>happened ( i personally belive they are all allegorical and symbolic ) than, you sir, live in a "romantic"
>world.

I find your curious 'notions' that you would like to project onto... I guess... apparently me... pretty clueless.

You are standing on your soapbox PARROTING what you (think you) 'KNOW'...

and you are apparently INCAPABLE of understanding ANYTHING around you.

Instead of mindless posting 'links' or regurgitating someone elses thoughts from 'reading a book'... why don't you come on over to the deep side of the pool...

The water is fine...


I think it's pretty safe to say that clouds seem to find your notion of GRAVITY, Mr. Physics, rather amusing.


(You don't mind if I talk past you at this point... Apparently, you have me somehow mistaken for a Fundamentalist. I guess there is NO substitute for paying attention.
).

The OP keeps insisting that there is no proof of the Great Flood, but somehow keeps referencing the FOSSIL RECORD.

Can anyone show the OP the tiny flaw in that notion? (Please feel free to use crayons while drawing him a picture.
)

Hello DBates! (long time, etc. etc).

The Frozen Snowball is way past this audience... Or... (gulp) The Cataclysm.



edit on 17-5-2011 by golemina because: formatting (ad naseum!)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


I've already posted links, in this thread, about snowball earth and the improbabilities of a global flood. Why don't you read them and debate on the evidence. Or can you? We'll see if you are any different than the rest of the believers when confronted with evidence.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'll educate you on the definition of fact.

Fact:

Definition:

1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened


I'll try not to be as condescending towards you.



I could put more than one site, I could put over a hunderd. But the greatest resources come from these things found in libraries, their called books.


Actually, I'd say the greatest resource would be from accounts in which a scientist was demonstrated to have falsified data...because people tend to test the experiments



Its hard to be a scientist when you have already determined your theory before the experiment has began. Even harder to find researchers crediable when they manipulate www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.plosone.org...


So your proof is witness accounts...but you do realize that this is a meta-study, right? Meta-studies merely analyze trends between studies...and we don't have any idea how accurate those numbers are unless you can actually provide supporting evidence of actual fabrication.

Also, 1-5% of scientists...
I'll disregard the timesonline article simply because scientists love to badmouth their colleagues.



www.prisonplanet.com...


Done to death, it's not an instance of fraud.

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD



www.cbsnews.com...


You do realize that this is an instance of scientists catching other scientists manipulating data...right. That's why it happens so rarely.




Fact: The most printed book of all time. The bible. Not "The origin of species"


Well, the Bible does have a few hundred years head start and a bunch of copies that nobody bothers to read. Do you honestly think that more than 10% of Bibles are actually regularly used?

And fact: this is a logical fallacy known as the 'argumentum ad populum', or argument from popularity.
More popular doesn't mean right.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by painterdude
 


It's a nonsense question.

That's the answer. Radiometric dating is a category. Carbon dating is a method within that category. There is no correct answer.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


>I've already posted links, in this thread, about snowball earth and the improbabilities of a
>global flood. Why don't you read them and debate on the evidence. Or can you? We'll see
>if you are any different than the rest of the believers when confronted with evidence.

'Debate'? 'Evidence'?

I think you might be slightly confused.

I don't do PARROTING.

Do you understand that the contents of those 'links' are nothing more than text on some web site?


Real Scientists do the heavy lifting themselves.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I'll define works...you're using a computer right now. That's all you're getting because I'm sick of this. You're playing pee-wee armchair philosopher. Please, actually read up on things like "rational arguments" and "empiricism" and "rationalism".



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 




There are so many instances of the scientific community losing credibility over making up data, publishing eroneous data etc, they have lost credibility in my eyes,


Name some. Now place those instances against the total number of completely honest scientific works that are published. It's a ludicrously small percentage of a percentage.



I am not likely to accept any conclusions that they make any time soon, I will look at any data and empirical evidence that they provide and make my own logical evaluations and judgements.


Yes, you. Someone who doesn't know all that much about science.


The circular logic that is the foundation of most of the modern paradigms makes it difficult for me to accept most conclusions and I for the most part am agnostic on most subjects although I do learn much of what they teach just to be aware of what their paradigms are.


Name the circular logic. Or is it just going to be an arrogant deduction based on something found in a middle-school science book?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by painterdude
 


As a separate reply. It's accurate up to 40,000 years, which means that samples dated that are older than 40,000 years get wildly varying and incredibly odd results. Including younger than 40,000 years.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


OK... Mohammed will come to the mountain.


>Name some. Now place those instances against the total number of completely honest
>scientific works that are published. It's a ludicrously small percentage of a percentage.

In your (not so unbiased) opinion...

>Yes, you. Someone who doesn't know all that much about science.

'Science' is TOTALLY flawed. (As I've quoted OFTEN, in this thread) Starting with the 'Big Bang' theory.

Another CREATIONIST myth.


>Name the circular logic. Or is it just going to be an arrogant deduction based on something
>found in a middle-school science book?

The 'Big Bang' theory. The 'Expanding Universe'. 'Quantum (mechanics) Physics'. 'Evolution'. 'SETI'. 'Gravity'...



You get my drift? Yet?
edit on 17-5-2011 by golemina because: formatting/typos



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Instead of mindless posting 'links' or regurgitating someone elses thoughts from 'reading a book'... why don't you come on over to the deep side of the pool...

The water is fine...


I think it's pretty safe to say that clouds seem to find your notion of GRAVITY, Mr. Physics, rather amusing.




Are you actually, erm, how can I say this politely, medically stupid?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by healthysceptic
 


>Are you actually, erm, how can I say this politely, medically stupid?

Is THAT really all you've got?



Details? (In your own words.
)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Those are called citations... They back my argument... Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept as you never use them.

So what you are saying is you don't have any evidence to refute or argue against the position and accepted understanding of those subjects? What has your heavy lifting shown to refute said claims? I like to be well informed in my decisions... What evidence can you provide for me to better educate myself on thes subjects?

Based on your response, I'm guessing you don't understand either concept or the science behind them. However, I'm all ears if "your" research suggests a different alternative.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 



Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


OK... Mohammed will come to the mountain.


>Name some. Now place those instances against the total number of completely honest
>scientific works that are published. It's a ludicrously small percentage of a percentage.

In your (not so unbiased) opinion...


So you'll just poison the well...it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's data. The amount of dishonest work is nothing compared to the amount of honest work.



>Yes, you. Someone who doesn't know all that much about science.

'Science' is TOTALLY flawed. (As I've quoted OFTEN, in this thread)


Really? Then how is it that all of the theory that goes into your computer isn't?



Starting with the 'Big Bang' theory.

Another CREATIONIST myth.



Nope.



>Name the circular logic. Or is it just going to be an arrogant deduction based on something
>found in a middle-school science book?

The 'Big Bang' theory. The 'Expanding Universe'. 'Quantum (mechanics) Physics'. 'Evolution'. 'SETI'. 'Gravity'...



You get my drift? Yet?


Um...how is that circular logic. You just labelled a bunch of scientific concepts and a human search for ETs...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


About 10-20 people on the planet. That is why this thread is so boring and stupid.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Actual fabrication? Ok, let me take the time out of my day to go from research center to research lab and find all cases. I'm no longer a college student. I dont have hundreds of hours a month to spend on that. But I will leave you with a bit of advice as far as your research studies. Your going to listen and swallow everything your proffesors feed you in the next few years, I did, but you will eventually begin to think for your self. This is when your truly self aware. Have a good one!

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."
Thomas Paine

Actual fabrication case for you on stem cell research: (JADA stands for Journal of American Dental Association, just in case you didnt know or didnt think it was a legitimate enough information source)
jada.ada.org...

edit on 17-5-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Actually, it's quite a few million...just in the USA.


reply to post by kellynap43
 


I appreciate the continuation of the condescending tone. I'm approaching my last year at university and I hardly lap up anything my professors give me, even the ones I greatly admire. I ask questions, I take arguments on their own merit. And this science stuff? This is what I do to 'unwind' from doing all of the creative work that I have to do for my lectures.

I know there are instances of fraud in science, but they make the news for a reason: they're outed by other scientists.

The scientific community frowns upon these shenanigans and exposes the claims. How? Peer review. Is it a perfect process? No. Can you think of a better one? I sure as hell can't.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


On second thought. Not going to do that. Hope you have a great year and best of luck after graduation. Keep it up.
edit on 17-5-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What on earth leads you to believe that I don't know that much about science....

Wow, I obviously understand relativity better than you, yet you start slinging around that I don't understand science. I happen to have two bachelor's and a master's and atleast one of those degrees is in one of the sciences....

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on the modern PARADIGMs of science does not mean that they are not well versed in the sciences...

In my case it is just the opposite, it wasn't until I became well versed in the sciences that I started to see all of the holes and flaws in logic of them...

Jaden



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


AMEN! Thank you. I could not have said it any better. I tried. But I couldnt get it across. Thank you



new topics




 
37
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join