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.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 34
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
reply to post by randyvs
 


Here is a nearly complete list of all of the gods science "fails to exclude".
LIST OF GODS
Using your logic I guess they all exist.


YOU are the one making extraordinary claims of invisible gods in the sky. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!


Seeing that scripture trumps science by thousands of years there by any scientist also. I think any one who says God dosn't exist ? Is actually the one making the extraordinary claim .




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   


Seeing that scripture trumps science by thousands of years there by any scientist also.

Seeing what scripture? There are many many many scriptures from many many many religions, so if you see them they must be true too? Seeing a book does not make the contents of the book true. I saw a Harry Potter book, are you saying that Harry Potter is a true story?




I think any one who says God dosn't exist ? Is actually the one making the extraordinary claim .


I am sorry, are you not claiming the existence of a supernatural being? If I am wrong and you did not make such a claim then we are done here. I am not responsible for it the same way you are not responsible for the billions upon billions of infinite things that do not exist that you do not believe in. You don't believe that there is a cube planet going around a giant lollipop somewhere deep in space and you do not have to prove it but if I came to you and said I saw a cube planet orbiting a giant lollipop you would ask for proof. Likewise if I came to you and said I can fly you would immediately say prove it to me. It would not be valid for me to say to you "prove that i cant". So either you give evidence for your extraordinary claim or you denounce your claim.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient because: typo

edit on 14-7-2011 by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
 




Very succinct yet simple Ziltoid. The obvious truth of what you say really should be common sense and probably is to most. Quite amazing that otherwise normal people can be so unreasonable after falling for the indoctrination of cult teachings. While seemingly normal and rational for the most part, where a certain delusion is concerned, common sense does an Elvis impersonation and leaves the building. In some ways understandable as it is hammered into them from the very beginning. Yet no less unreasonable, as the quotes you have chosen highlight quite clearly.

edit on 14-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 





The amount of energy and mass within the universe is always the same.


We don't even know the size of the universe...so we can't know if the energy/mass content stays the same. In fact, given that for all we know the universe is expanding, we will eventually reach a time where everything cools down to absolute zero.



You clearly didn't understand what randyvs meant by saying:



The amount of energy and mass within the universe is always the same.


You don't have to know how big our universe is to understand that the sum of our universes expanded energy/mass is = to what is was as a singularity/compressed state. It must be.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

You clearly didn't understand what randyvs meant by saying:




The amount of energy and mass within the universe is always the same.



You don't have to know how big our universe is to understand that the sum of our universes expanded energy/mass is = to what is was as a singularity/compressed state. It must be.






Logical enough.

Though it sounds like you might be telling the universe what it "must be", via speculation. Do you have anything to show this claim would be more than an opinion? Such as someone observing and having knowledge/evidence of the universe in its entirety. You do realize the part of the universe we do have knowledge of might amount to much less than a pimple on a mountain? That might even be a huge exaggeration.

It might well be as you say, though how can this be genuinely known for something that is speculated to be limitless?


edit on 14-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





You don't have to know how big our universe is to understand that the sum of our universes expanded energy/mass is = to what is was as a singularity/compressed state. It must be.


Not necessarily. Our universe could hypothetically be connected to another with an exchange of energy/matter happening. We don't know if that is the case or not. Look up multiverses



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Why would you look for evidence on top of a mountain and only find evidence there???


Pretty simple, if water ever got that high, like the flood says it did, don't you think looking on the highest mountains would produce the best evidence? I'm pretty sure there are some fossils up there that have alot to say about the matter. Of course scientist could not go that high without freezing to death
.
edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)


We do find fossils on top of mountains...but not because of a global flood. Look up how mountains are formed and you'll understand why we find fossils on mountains



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Seeing that scripture trumps science by thousands of years there by any scientist also. I think any one who says God dosn't exist ? Is actually the one making the extraordinary claim ."]

Are you still talking about Brahma? You keep referring to 'god' constantly, and the most likely (or least unrealistic) 'god' is Brahma.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

I can take every single part step by step, if you like.



I'd love to see it. I like to keep things in plain English though, so let's keep in mind that not everyone understands some of the big terms you use.


Knowing or understanding science or logic is not defining a person's worth, so this question isn't an insult or meant to be intimidating, but for practical reasons: How much do you actually know and understand of science and/or logic?

The points I took up from gen. 1 can be considered from scientific perspectives, but I'll for now just take the simplest of the genesis-problems:

Gen. 1 and gen 2 contradict each other on one point. Can you see this? Do you have any comments on it?
edit on 15-7-2011 by bogomil because: clarification.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 





You don't have to know how big our universe is to understand that the sum of our universes expanded energy/mass is = to what is was as a singularity/compressed state. It must be.


Not necessarily. Our universe could hypothetically be connected to another with an exchange of energy/matter happening. We don't know if that is the case or not. Look up multiverses


Still; if you add them all up they will still equal the same energy mass as the original universe everything is from.

If our universe is formed by another, our universe must exist within that universe.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 

I sympathize with your position Seeker and no doubt you put your points forward quite well. Though there is not too much I agree with. I was once far more skeptical of science and evolution myself. Though less so now. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck................it evolved from theropod dinosaurs.




Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
The fact that I don't know where everything came from does not make someone else's claims of knowledge correct.

I agree. And it doesn't make what your saying correct either. After all, you can't provide a solid answer, you can only give theory.


Quite incorrect in the context of that part of the discussion. I have never inferred a theory of where everything came from. Hence the simple statement...I don't know. If I claimed to know where everything came from, I would obviously need more than the simple claims themselves to substantiate it.



Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is possible to provide facts without knowing the whole answer, why would you think otherwise?


So in other words, I don't know how it works, I just know that it does. I'll agree with that. Why can't the same rules apply to God. Just because we don't how it could be doesn't mean that it isn't.


Unreasonable. I don't know what gravity is, though I know it exists. It is a verifiable scientific law and fact. It is predictable and testable with known facts associated with it. As to what it really is, who knows? It isn't an invisible spaghetti monster making apples fall from trees by magic. Although he can't be completely ruled out. Unlike God, we don't have to (as yet) make all manner of facts (evolution) null and void to give him consideration. He is also more reliable. Archeology, history and the various branches of science have not yet proved the spaghetti monsters infallible word to be riddled with lies. He hasn't ordered us to slaughter sheep and burn turtle doves for him either.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
No, we know that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes. If there was any doubt (which there wasn't), the latest work in the fields of biology/genetics puts it to rest. Unless God looks like some ancient archaic primate. Evolution and speciation are known and observed. There is even work which shows evolution in progress within certain ethnic human groups over the last 10,000 years or so.


There is no such evidence when it comes to humans, while this might be possible with other spieces, there is no direct proof that humans came from apes. I've yet to see a ape that is also human, or even coming close to being human. If there is such a thing, it could have only been created in a lab.


There is a lot of evidence to confirm that humans are the result of evolution. Being skeptical of it is not necessarily a bad thing. Though unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, contrary claims will remain your unfounded opinion. As with your summation of the field of paleoanthropology. All you have done here is prove that you have your own opinion. Though I agree that we didn't evolve from the apes, as does the current evolutionary model. Though it does appear we share a common ancestor.

I can imagine the scenario if Dawkins lived in the days where the search for knowledge brought the wrath of God in the form of Inquisition, after being made to recant............"but it does, it does evolve, the pattern of resemblances in the genes show a hierarchy, a perfect family tree....."

Though it only took the Church around 350 years to admit Galileo was right. Which means they schould accept evolution in the next couple of hundred years or so.


As to the point of this thread, science definitely excludes the Judeo-Christian idea of God. Like heliocentricity before it, God will have to concede to, or at least find a way to reconcile with the fact of evolution(for starters) before he is available for consideration.

ex·clude - To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted.

Randy, please change the title of the thread to reflect reality. It is patently untrue as it stands.

Science might also one day disprove the common idea of God, despite what the logical philosophers claim. Neuroscience is making great leaps in our understanding of why people experience things which don't really exist. Much of the "paranormal" could be due for a redefinition. It might already be possible to put forward a genuine hypothesis-- theory about this. All of the available evidence points to God being an artificial construct of of the human psyche. It is a purely people driven phenomena. Without believers we are still let with not only zero evidence or need of God, but also zero claims. God exists as a delusion in the minds of susceptible people. This is what the only available evidence shows.

In fond memory of (the delusion of) Judeo-Christian God
Born shrouded in the archaic mists of human superstition
Flourished in the rabid ignorance of the dark ages
Hurt by Copernicus
Wounded by Galileo
Bought to his knees by Darwin
Finally succumbed to ever present foes, common sense, reason and knowledge
Mourned by an ever dwindling circle of friends and followers
Will he find the peace he denied so many

"What ignorance giveth, knowledge taketh away"


RIP.



edit on 15-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

I can take every single part step by step, if you like.



I'd love to see it. I like to keep things in plain English though, so let's keep in mind that not everyone understands some of the big terms you use.


Knowing or understanding science or logic is not defining a person's worth, so this question isn't an insult or meant to be intimidating, but for practical reasons: How much do you actually know and understand of science and/or logic?

The points I took up from gen. 1 can be considered from scientific perspectives, but I'll for now just take the simplest of the genesis-problems:

Gen. 1 and gen 2 contradict each other on one point. Can you see this? Do you have any comments on it?
edit on 15-7-2011 by bogomil because: clarification.


Well I'm not a scientist that's for sure but I do know that Creation is made of particles and that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. But I didn't need science to tell me this for it is written right here:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Pretty amazing how the writer new that way before science.

In the case of Gen 1 and 2 I don't know how one could draw the conclusion that this is a contradiction. If you read both chapters together and in it's entirety you can clearly see that Gen 2 is merely a more detailed account of Genesis 1.
edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
There is a lot of evidence to confirm that humans are the result of evolution. Being skeptical of it is not necessarily a bad thing. Though unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, contrary claims will remain your unfounded opinion. As with your summation of the field of paleoanthropology. All you have done here is prove that you have your own opinion. Though I agree that we didn't evolve from the apes, as does the current evolutionary model. Though it does appear we share a common ancestor.


I still disagree with the evolution idea. Check out this video and tell me what you think. As always, approach with an open mind. This video makes since to me.




edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Ziltoid


Seeing what scripture? There are many many many scriptures from many many many religions, so if you see them they must be true too? Seeing a book does not make the contents of the book true. I saw a Harry Potter book, are you saying that Harry Potter is a true story?


You think you're being smart I guess, but you look as though you might suffer from ADS, if you ask me.
Maybe you havn't read through the thread. It should be obvious what scripture smart guy. But here it is all special for you. THE BIBLE. There you go sweety.
edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I presented sources in the form of links for just that purpose. Contrary to randy, I don't just make claims, I back them up with facts. Read the links and you have what you ask for


None of the few links you provided prove anything. They make a lot of conjectures, but it is quite far-fetched to call them demonstrations or even facts. Again, I want to see your facts demonstrated, not just opinions of people that disagree with them, and you happen to agree with. Let me make it easy for you. You made the claim that the following things are scientifically wrong. Prove:

1) People living in whales.
2) Global flood that never happened.
3) Meteorites being a sign of god.
4) Humans just popping up in their current form without evolution.
5) A wooden boat that can host 2 of each kind of animal.
6) Someone parting the waters.
7) Someone walking on water.
8) Talking snakes.
9) Angels with wings
10) Being able to see the entire earth when standing on a mountain.

Because I can demonstrate half of them to be perfectly possible, and the other half to be definitely not impossible. There is only one case that I'd have to agree that there is no valid scientific explanation.

But the burden of proof is on you that made the claims, so I'd like to see your evidence first.


Originally posted by bogomil
Here:
www.religioustolerance.org...


Your statistics say that:

33% of the world is nominally Christian, while 19,6% of the world is nominally Muslim, and that does not corroborate with your claim that Islam has overgrown Christianity. They'd have to almost double their numbers with Christians having 0 growth for it to happen. So you're wrong before we even began analyzing the data.

Now, I have noticed that nowhere in your prized website they cite actual numbers. They only deal with percentages. I am always always wary when someone cites statistics like this. Unless the percentage is normalized, it means absolutely nothing. Your website nowhere cites how they normalized the percentages, and the numbers they cite themselves contradict their own conclusions.

It projects Islam crossing the 2 billion members barrier in 2025, when it is said to "overtake Christianity as the world's largest religion" even though Christianity already have 2 billion members, and it is growing at a rate close to the world's population. I see no data corroborating the idea that Islam will overtake Christianity in absolute numbers.

The website cites the "US Center for World Mission" mostly as its source. In fact, a whole deal of the internet cites this article, claiming that the US Center for World Mission says that Islam is growing faster than the world's population. What I couldn't find was a link to the study at US Center for World Mission website. Your website do not offer a link for the study, and people citing such statistics link to the website you linked and never to the US Center's website, despite the fact that all their studies are online and available.

I got in contact with US Center and requested them the study, and I am waiting for their answer so I can independently verify the data. Meanwhile, if you know exactly the study your website is referring to, it might save time.

Up to and until then, I deem your evidence "inconclusive." As soon as the US Center replies to my contact and point me to the study, I will post the link here so we can independently verify the claims.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Do you have any idea how much sedimental evidence a global flood would leave behind?


No one does. Stop acting like if you knew. If you expect me to believe that you can successfully model the geological consequences of such a global flood, you're just passing yourself for a greater fool than you already pose to be.

Moreso, the very fact that sedimentary evidence is often the most cited scientific argument in favor of the Great Flood shows how ridiculous your argument is.



And the resulting mass extinctions?


The Bible says that everything died, so what's your point?



Freshwater fish would die, so would saltwater fish,


There is no reason to believe that.



all plants,


All plants died. The Bible says such, so again what's your point? You're attempting to argue that the Bible is wrong by telling us that it would have happened and it said that happened?



soil would be ruined for years,


Why? Given the fact that many places (most notably the Nile Delta) rely on local floods to restore its fertility, why would it ruin the soil?

So yeah, science has completely debunked the myth of a global flood



It's pure fiction, entertaining fiction maybe, but still fiction and demonstrably NOT fact.


In so far, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence corroborating this claim, except your own opinion, which you are entitled to, but it is not evidence.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 





Hebrews 11:3


Including light.



edit on 15-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The sedimental evidence would be EVERYWHERE. So every time they dig down to a certain time period, they should find sedimental evidence...every single time. But they haven't found it, and given the amount of soil samples taken every single year for years and years and years, they would have found it by now.

Just like we know for a FACT that snakes are biologically incapable of talking...or just like we know that people can't survive in whales.


First, sedimentary evidence is everywhere. The whole Earth is sedimentary after just a few layers. Flood Denialists simply say that such sedimentary evidence was not created by the Flood.

Second, it is perfectly possible to survive in whales. I have studied their physiology. Whales do not chew when they swallow, have a partitioned stomach, and its first stage is devoid of any gastric acids and works as a storage. Food can, and many time does, remain there for a long time before progressing further into the stomach to be digested.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 





You don't have to know how big our universe is to understand that the sum of our universes expanded energy/mass is = to what is was as a singularity/compressed state. It must be.


Not necessarily. Our universe could hypothetically be connected to another with an exchange of energy/matter happening. We don't know if that is the case or not. Look up multiverses


Still; if you add them all up they will still equal the same energy mass as the original universe everything is from.

If our universe is formed by another, our universe must exist within that universe.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


No it doesn't...we don't even know if multiverses exist, yet you already claim to know their properties...that's ridiculous from a scientific standpoint



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


A global flood would leve behind VERY SPECIFIC sedimental evidence. Of course sediments are everywhere, but none support the claim of a global flood




Second, it is perfectly possible to survive in whales. I have studied their physiology. Whales do not chew when they swallow, have a partitioned stomach, and its first stage is devoid of any gastric acids and works as a storage. Food can, and many time does, remain there for a long time before progressing further into the stomach to be digested.


Sure...if that person doesn't need air to survive. And either way, once in, he wouldn't get out. And to pass through the gorge, the human would have to be crushed unless he's a midget. For someone who claims to have studied the physiology of whales, you completely ignored some obvious flaws in your thinking


You also clearly don't scuba dive. If you did, you'd realize the pressure whales have to cope with are far far far beyond anything a human can cope with. But who cares about facts, right?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join