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.

 

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I'll leave this here, for the open-minded thinkers among us.


edit on 9-1-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

spy66
Because the single point you refer to isnt infinite. It is finite.


That does not answer the question. Why must the singularity being expanding against an external force?



The infinite dosent consist of finite matter or energy. It cant. The absolute infinite is absolute neutral. And Your Central point is not absolute neutral; it is a finite, it is changing. They are some of the basic differences between finite and infinite.


The singularity, by all cosmological physicists accounts, contains infinite mass and density, what mathematical evidence are you basing your assertions?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 





I'm curious, why do you think it will change in the future? I'm not saying I disagree, at least in principle because that to me is one of the beautiful things about science, that it is willing to admit when it's wrong and adjust appropriately.


Because science can only confirm what they can observe and study.
Science have not obsered Your claim.

I dont disagree with science. I dissagree with Peoples own personal interpretation and understanding of what they read, when it comes to science. That is baically what we do when we argue topics like this.






Just because we don't know what happened at the point of inception for the singularity or prior to the singularity does not mean that there was nothing before let alone no time before. It seems to me that you are imposing your own perspective on something that is much larger than the scope of human imagination.There are a lot of unanswered questions relating to the very beginning of what we refer to as our universe, that I certainly agree with. I always try to point out that science is not an omnipotent entity with all the Answers, it is the sum of what we currently know and the vest explanations we have based on the best knowledge we have compiled. All of that however is subject to new information and thus the concepts of science while on the surface seem rigid, are very malleable when presented with new Information that stands up to scrutiny.


You will never know from science what happened at the point of inception. Not in Your life time. What is the point of partisipating in topics like this if we cant come forth With Our personal conclusions?

Why are you here? Are you here on behalf of the Scientific community to police us? To tell us;; hey, you cant make that claim, because science havent figured that out yet. And who are you to tell me if i am wrong, if Your Source havent fiured it out yet. You dont know if i am wrong. You are the one who dont know, because Your Source dont know.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 




That does not answer the question. Why must the singularity being expanding against an external force?


Because the singularity is not infinite. It is as simple as that.

The infinite was present before the singularity was formed. A Space that was absolute empty of finite energy and matter. The Energy and matter we know of to day were formed after the singularity started to expand.





The singularity, by all cosmological physicists accounts, contains infinite mass and density, what mathematical evidence are you basing your assertions?


All finite particles and matter comes from the infinite. But they are not infinite. The inifinite is absolute empty of finite particles and matter. The inifnite must be absolute neutral. A finite can never be absolute neutral.

The infinite must be absolute neutral to be absolute inifnite, It needs to be absolute neutral to be a absolute constant, and take up all Space possible.

Science state that energy can never be created or destroyed. That is why they say finite will change for ever. But it can not change for ever. Finite is compressed energy mass. That means the energy mass will only expand a finite amount of time. Because it only took a finite amount of time to produce it.

There is only one true statment made from science, and that is that energy can never be destroyed. It can not be destroyed because the infinite takes up all Space possible.

Who is my Source?

My Source dont post on the nett. My Source is not a member of the Scientific community. But my source knows absolut everything.

Have you ever heard: Ask me anything and i will tell you the truth. Do you know who my Source is?
You should try it. You will learn a lot faster than what you will do from Your Sources.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
My reply is to you, OP, because it would be scrubbed if I replied to some responses, I expect.

It does require a certain amount of intelligence, to discern intelligent design.

Not everyone gets it....it doesn't fit in their little tool box.

# 119


edit on 9-1-2014 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

spy66
Because the singularity is not infinite. It is as simple as that.


That is your opinion and not the consensus of the cosmological community. I ask you again, what mathematical support are your providing to verify your statement?

]



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
Because the singularity is not infinite. It is as simple as that.


That is your opinion and not the consensus of the cosmological community. I ask you again, what mathematical support are your providing to verify your statement?

]


My Source dont post anything on the nett. My Source is not a member of the Scientific community. But my Source knows absolut everything.

Why should i seak the consensus from Your cosmological community? I have no trust in them.

Can you be specific when it comes to the mathematicall problem you seak. I might be able to provide one.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I tire quickly of these debates because one cannot use rational thought to inspire an irrational mind. Like most religious people the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs and use backward logic to rationalize the most absurd of concepts like "dna proves evolution" or explaining away iron bowls that are scientifically dated to be millions of years old (which either proves people were here millions of years ago with dinosaurs or the dating methods are not reliable) either way it disproves evolution hypothesis. Soft tissue being found in t-rex bones, dinosaur and human footprints in the same petrified rock, huge mass grave sites full of fossils (I guess dinosaurs had cemeteries), giant human skulls and bones (proof of nephilim), the lack of transitional animals dead or alive, the lack of any real scientific evidence or proofs, I could go on and on. The whole thing is speculation pretending to prove speculation. Pseudoscience is the term for it.

"Scientists" had to finally concede that dna could not have formed on its own and so invented panspermia, yet another speculative adjustment to the hypothesis in order to try to save it.

They must have had to stop teaching the scientific method because it means that evolution is not science and that is why all of the younger people cant decipher science from speculation.

In their defense, these people have been indoctrinated from the time they could walk and talk, you might as well try to convince a muslim that muhammad is not a prophet or a christian that jesus isn't real. It is an exercise in futility, still good fun from time to time though.












posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   


The thing is, it's a false dichotomy to pit "ID" against science because "ID" inherently includes a "why"?
reply to post by Phage
 


I can't tell if you are asking a question, or making a statement...

As for the second sentence:




Science is not concerned with why things are they way they are, only how they work.


Whose science? Your science? Is this really a law?

That is an impossible distinction. Source, please, if only so I know what materials to avoid bookmarking.

Phage, I believe you have sealed it for me. At last, I understand your myopia.

What if 'why', is part of 'how'?

Would that shock you?

Did you truly never consider that this crude linkage could exist?

I'd be amazed if 'why' and 'how' were not absolutely integrated.

Nobody ever made a law that said it all had to be obvious, to everyone. That does seem...to be part of the design.

(confirmation bias, check)

Maybe it was designed that way...hmm, the more you see, the more is made open to you.

A-and, what if the designer included a 'soul lock' mechanism, just like a fairy tale novel?

Christ, if I were 'God' I'd certainly include safeguards....yeah, yeah, the world's all yours, but nobody is getting through the lock that houses souls....because here is something that science cannot destroy, let alone acknowledge, or even look for: a prime mover.

'How' without 'why' is like blue without sky.

Nonetheless, I would include a program that made full provision for free will. You are free to believe and function as if I never existed. I'd make it so as with each new day on your journey of scientific discovery, as you caught, and denied, subtle glimpses of my weaving, I'd help to blind you further, just to keep you happy, and in hearty company.

A soul lock....? Oh, no, that would be impossible, we haven't found the soul, so there simply is no possibility of that. You must mean a quantum computer that can cipher brainwaves that measure evoked potentials, and can bring out what a guy's really thinking....

I'm not bogged down, and limited, by the scratchings of science.

That would be like listening to the media, to know how, and what, to think, or exist.

In time, it would kill my sensibilities.

So I interpret the wind, and listen to the ground, instead.

# 120
edit on 9-1-2014 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Basically, you're trying to say: "I know you are but what am I?" All of the "evidence" you have marshaled to disprove what you call "the evolutionists" has been shown to be misinterpreted or fraudulent. You are welcome to base your world view on faith, but please, please, please, do not confuse it with science.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

spy66Because science can only confirm what they can observe and study. Science have not obsered Your claim.

I dont disagree with science. I dissagree with Peoples own personal interpretation and understanding of what they read, when it comes to science. That is baically what we do when we argue topics like this.


So indirect observations aren't as worthy a direct observation in your book. The thing is though that even direct observations are open to interpretation by the observer. Aristotle attempted a similar experiment as Newton once encountered with the falling apple. He threw an orange straight up into the air and instead of coming to the conclusion that Newton did, he determined that the earth did not move and the universe moved around it. Same excercise, same principle, same observations yet wildly differing conclusions. Everything is open to individual interpretation, even by two individuals standing side by side witnessing the same event. The difference is that when the observations are done by scientists, they use the scientific method so that the Arvin for error by personal interpretation is reduced. You are more than entitled to your personal opinion, just as I am mine.


You will never know from science what happened at the point of inception. Not in Your life time. What is the point of partisipating in topics like this if we cant come forth With Our personal conclusions?


That my friend is a bold and saucy statement made from incredulity. As I said above, you are certainly entitled to reach out with your own conclusions. The difference between us is I fully expect to be called to task to support any thesis I present whereas you seem befuddled that you're being questioned. I thought this was a dialogue to exchange differing ideas, if not perhaps I should find a different venue.


Why are you here? Are you here on behalf of the Scientific community to police us? To tell us;; hey, you cant make that claim, because science havent figured that out yet. And who are you to tell me if i am wrong, if Your Source havent fiured it out yet. You dont know if i am wrong. You are the one who dont know, because Your Source dont know.


I'm not here on behalf of anyone other than myself. I'm here to learn from others and share what I know. I think that your earlier statement that you believe science but don't believe interpretations by people is a pertinent point of reference here after reading the above sentence regarding claims that science has yet to figure out. Since we're going on and pontificating about personal opinions, mine is that you don't actually believe science at all because it is perpetrated by fallible humans who are he'll bent on proving their own point of view come hell or high water. Your contempt is fairly palpable here judging by your rhetoric. I loved the incredulousness at the end though. Who am I to tell you you're wrong? I'm simply a slightly educated fella trying to share my knowledge, you can take it or leave it. It makes no difference to me what you do with the information once its out there. You can't take it so personally when you put something out there on a public forum and someone takes you to task on it. If you aren't open to others opinions the why are YOU here? The thing is though that I can present data and support it, you on the other hand got offended and tried to be cute about slagging me for trying to share information. If you're not interested in a dialogue maybe mommy can get you some warm cookies and a glass of milk. While I don't know that you're wrong, I'm pretty sure you are and you have yet to demonstrate anything resembling support for your thesis. Bck it up and we've got a dialogue that perhaps each can learn from. If you won't to continue to get offended because I haven't kissed your ring then then not much point in continuing this is there?









posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I never did say it so I'll say it now to the OP. Great post! It was a good read and your logic is sound. Star and flag from me.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


That's the thing, there is tons of evidence to support my beliefs and nothing but speculation to support yours. Circumstantial evidence at best. You can't debunk physical proof, all you can do is attempt to explain it away with convoluted nonsense. Did you read how they are trying to explain away the supposed 70 million year old trex soft tissue, it is laughable.

I am really pleased at how your side always ignores evidence or says it has been debunked because some moron gives some ridiculous explanation for it. Like the human footprints are really dinosaur footprints. Oh yeah that's an easy mistake to make right? Because bipedal dinosaurs and humans have very similar feet.

Because you already "know" the truth any evidence that goes against it must be wrong so you'll believe any explanation that will explain it away. It is called willful ignorance or just plain gullibility.

Cambrian explosion anyone? There is more speculation to explain that as well. Speculation being used to promote speculation.

The willful lack of understanding from the evolutionist crowd makes me wonder if some of them aren't just shills.

Have you ever asked yourself how scientists know the distance to the nearest star? I'll give you a clue, they don't.
edit on 9-1-2014 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What i calim is suppoted by science, but the information is not on one and the same wiki page. It will take me days or to put eveything together.

I know that you wont take my Word for what i claim. Not yet. But i know you will over time. Because i know that i am right.
Because i know i can correct everything you bring up if it is not correct. Its a bold claim, but try me.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

spy66
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What i calim is suppoted by science, but the information is not on one and the same wiki page. It will take me days or to put eveything together.

I know that you wont take my Word for what i claim. Not yet. But i know you will over time. Because i know that i am right.
Because i know i can correct everything you bring up if it is not correct. Its a bold claim, but try me.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


I've been trying you and you have yet to support a single statement with anything but self pious homilies. I'm still willing to give you that opportunity though. It's nothing personal that I won't take your word for it, my professors werent offended and applauded my desire to engage in due diligence. I would hope that your support would not rely heavily on a wiki page so when you do get your information together feel free to post it or U2U me.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 





Did you read how they are trying to explain away the supposed 70 million year old trex soft tissue, it is laughable.



goop

Bet you feel pretty embraced. Well you should but don't beat yourself up to much. Creationist sites that parrot that stuff don't want you to actually research the facts and they never update their stories when new evidence comes to light that may damage their case. It is pretty common.

My advice to you is whatever the claim try to verify it from different sources that means you need to look beyond creationist sites. Good luck to you.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



That's the thing, there is tons of evidence to support my beliefs and nothing but speculation to support yours.


I said that you are welcome to believe what you do based upon faith. Now you are claiming that I am not supposed to believe what I do based upon evidence. Please provide your evidence. Be specific. Cite sources. If I can prove that your sources are inaccurate or fraudulent, will you abandon your faith?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Peter,

The arguments should not be science vs faith.

All true knowledge can be called "science". Any faith that does not follow truth is useless.

Please give details of experiments (a list) which form the basis of your conclusions.

This will give an objective basis to the discussion.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   

peter vlar

spy66
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What i calim is suppoted by science, but the information is not on one and the same wiki page. It will take me days or to put eveything together.

I know that you wont take my Word for what i claim. Not yet. But i know you will over time. Because i know that i am right.
Because i know i can correct everything you bring up if it is not correct. Its a bold claim, but try me.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


I've been trying you and you have yet to support a single statement with anything but self pious homilies. I'm still willing to give you that opportunity though. It's nothing personal that I won't take your word for it, my professors werent offended and applauded my desire to engage in due diligence. I would hope that your support would not rely heavily on a wiki page so when you do get your information together feel free to post it or U2U me.



Did you have to ask Your professor for permission to engage in this topic?
If Your professor is engaged along your side, he/she just have to take whats comming. If he /she is affended, it is Your professors personal problem, He/she better work out their emotions issues somewhere else. This is a Public forum. I am not under Your professors authority and dont have to answer to Your professor.

Your professor can freely create hes/her own account and join in. Will i be talking to you or Your professor while we do this?




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

spy66
My Source dont post anything on the nett. My Source is not a member of the Scientific community. But my Source knows absolut everything.


Who are you citing as your source and how do we verify their theory?


Can you be specific when it comes to the mathematicall problem you seak.


The mathematics by which you have determined that the universe is finite and expanding into something.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join