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.
GargIndia
reply to post by SuperFrog
There is so much that is simply wrong in your science.
Let us start with big bang theory for creation of Universe. Tell me what is the basis of this theory.
Science should be based on observations and measurements, not some wild imagination. When you do that, you are no different from belief system that you are attacking. You simply forget that fact.
Tell me what observations and measurements you have taken to support "big bang theory". And remember, I am going to trap you in each of your argument. So better be logical.
SuperFrogWell, do you just discredit all of his work just because he does not mind to tell what he thinks about religion, belief and answer to all those trying to promote religion as science. My guess that you kind of lost focus at who is doing what - Richard - protecting science, religious fanatics - promoting religion as science, claiming that earth is 6.5 thousands years old, and trying to push their agenda into school as equivalent to evolution and archeology.
It is interesting that no scientist ever said to hold all answers, but we will try and learn, while arrogant are the one who claim that they have all answers, written in book 2K years ago, that from start is very much against any science and based on NO FACTS. Rest of your post - yeas, good forum for it - it is conspiracy of scientist community to hide truth...
Late Christopher Hitchens used to say that religion should be ridiculed for what really it is. There is no witch hunting anymore, but good point, if you remember how religion used to deal with science and those who would dare to think for them selves. Childish nonsense - guess what those 2 words really well cover in my language.
Again, it is not science that has problem, but religion, as all scientific results point to religion to be wrong. Scientist really don't care, but I guess religious people got kind of offended. There is no such a thing as parapsychology, if that is what you trying to point. You can view my other discussion about it. At least so far no one was able to prove it. There is no secrets there, but there is lots of charlatans, huge industry that works on tricking people...
Again, asking you - are you kidding? Not sure who is insecure and why. Me believing that earth is 4.5 billion years old, life on earth 3.5 billion years or your book that tells its 6.5 thousands years old.
XyZeR
GargIndia
reply to post by SuperFrog
There is so much that is simply wrong in your science.
Let us start with big bang theory for creation of Universe. Tell me what is the basis of this theory.
Science should be based on observations and measurements, not some wild imagination. When you do that, you are no different from belief system that you are attacking. You simply forget that fact.
Tell me what observations and measurements you have taken to support "big bang theory". And remember, I am going to trap you in each of your argument. So better be logical.
You could have just done a 2 second Google search and you would have found the evidence for a big bang:
www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
www.astro.ucla.edu...
etc etc etc...
So far for denying ignorance...You've seemed to trap only yourself.
I would love to hear your version of what "Red shift" and "cosmic background radiation" is then,
and why the universe is expanding. Just let me strap in here...
edit on 4-2-2014 by XyZeR because: (no reason given)
PhotonEffect
I don't discredit his work- but quite honestly I'm distracted more by his rhetoric than what he's actually done. It seems his work these days [books/lectures] is geared more toward forwarding his scientistic/atheistic views.
PhotonEffect
Are you speaking for all scientists now?
And if you read more intently to what I'm getting at- it's not about what scientists are necessarily saying, although that is part of it. It's the attitude. Also I'm not suggesting that religion is not guilty of this attitude either; just that science has embraced a similar attitude. I see two sides of the same coin.
PhotonEffect
Witch hunting in the physical sense- No of course not. But in the ideological sense. Yes, perhaps just a bit. And again I'm not giving religion a free pass here. It's a flawed system that historically has been responsible for a lot of bad in this world.
PhotonEffect
Please don't try to sell anyone on the premise that scientists don't care. That's entirely false. There are scientists out there who are hell bent on doing the work not for the objectivity of it, or for the new mind blowing discovery, but more to shut the creationist group up. It's an agenda. And you can start once again with Dawkins. Do you truly believe that this guy doesn't care, or that he doesn't have some ulterior motive to promote a certain system of thinking and worldview? Let me ask you now, are you serious?
PhotonEffect
Evolutionary Theory, while widely accepted by the scientific community, still has some gaps in it. Granted it's the best thing we have, that is not creationist, as an explanation for the changes we perceive in life. But make no mistake, it's a consensus acceptance based on inter-subjective opinion, like all science. And if you want to be written up in a journal, or you want funding for your experiments, you're going to want to adhere to that paradigm, instead of sharing a new idea on how things work. It's a suppression of thinking. I often wonder how much force fitting of puzzle pieces goes on. I wonder how many leaps of faith scientists take... I bet more than anyone would be prepared to admit.
PhotonEffect
No, I'm not kidding. Your refusal to acknowledge that there is an agenda to promote certain scientific ideas and views tells me all I need to know about where your flag is permanently planted.
PhotonEffect
I say- Let science have its view and let religion have it's own. Each can be taught in schools- and let the student decide for him/her self what is or isn't. I think most educated people will not adhere to a creationist view of the age of the world. But ID may very well present some other interesting ideas to at least ponder. Give the opportunity to question the alternative view instead of gobbling it up because science/religion says so.
PhotonEffect
I don't know the nature of what is being taught in the religion classroom. I don't know if when teachers teach the Bible or some other religious text that the creation lesson is spoken from a literal sense. I would say that it should not be. Clearly these texts are allegory and should come with that pretense.
And I would think that science understands as much, than to have to go on rants about how wrong/crazy it is to believe in a religion. This is why is say there is an insecurity. What are they worried about?
Spirituality, the basis for religion, is not a bad thing. It does positively affect people mentally, and physiologically as well. There's something to it. If science feels they will find all the answers, then speak from a position of knowledge. Educate. Maybe Dawkins can instead say- "Hey, we're looking for God, we just haven't found it yet. But here's what we have found that you might find interesting."
Science should be about the discoveries, not about promoting agendas or belief systems. Because engaging in the latter makes it no different than a religion.
What matters is "truth".
GargIndia
Whenever the discussion turns to "religion", it goes in the wrong direction. The reason is quite simple. Religion has been misused by political authority for several thousand years. The books of religion have been turned into books of law rather than books of knowledge.
GargIndia
So you attended the "religion" class, but you studied already distorted forms of religion. So it is natural you developed a distaste for religion. I studied basics of several religions and came to the same conclusions.
GargIndia
However assuming that whatever is branded as "science" today as gospel will be your biggest mistake.
GargIndia
It is good that some scientists say they don't know about certain things. But do they know for sure what they say they know?
GargIndia
The idea of "big bang" at start of creation of Universe has come from "Veda", which is an ancient book. However your scientific "big bang theory" has several differences from the account in the "Veda". So you steal an idea and change it to suit your political preferences. Neat.
GargIndia
I invite a frank and factual discussion on "big bang theory", rather than rhetoric.
GargIndia
Let me tell you one more time - very clearly - Science must be based on scientific methods. And scientific methods are observation and measurement. If a theory is not based on scientific methods, you go in the area of "belief systems" or "cult".
GargIndia
What matters is "truth".
Neither science nor religion matters.
Really, what truth? Your truth?
GargIndia
'God' is not the same as religion. If you follow science with 'honesty' then you will realize that there is a superior power which science does not understand, which your instruments cannot observe but seems to dictate how things work.
'Our' instrument can observe many things, but only 'real' things. Even as small as parts of an atom or big as IC 1011 galaxy! Guess what... no signs of ID there...
GargIndia
A real scientist deals with dead ends more often than you would like to believe.
If you refer to breakthrough, sure, they are rare in some fields, but still happen. I am not sure what do you mean by 'dead ends', care to elaborate? Too broad statement. (It rain more often... not much of a statement if you can't compare it to something, place or time)
GargIndia
There are two things - one is real science that is setting up experiments and observing; and then there is "science narration" or what gets into text books.
Just in your head. Science is science, either in book, paper, experiment itself. It does take a time to update books, it is more ongoing thing, but new technology makes it easier.
GargIndia
You need to tell me what kind of scientist you are - the one that reads or the one that performs the experiments.
I believe I have already provided you with info that even reading scientific papers is 'scientific work'. For example, in recent debate Bill Nye used many arguments, but he himself was not involved in any of those experiments. Reading and understanding scientific papers is science as well.
What's going on? Can't find better way to discredit someone in discussion?
Phage
reply to post by GargIndia
What matters is "truth".
And...of course, you know the "truth". And...of course, the "truth" you know is the real "truth."
Tell us, how do you know that?
Is it because the book says that the book is the "truth".
That's very logical.
edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
GargIndia
2. Do I know the truth? This is what you can question.
And there is an answer to that. Everybody finds truth by EFFORT. One has to make effort and one has to learn from somebody who knows the truth. I have made a lot of effort in my life.
peter vlar
GargIndia
2. Do I know the truth? This is what you can question.
And there is an answer to that. Everybody finds truth by EFFORT. One has to make effort and one has to learn from somebody who knows the truth. I have made a lot of effort in my life.
Ahhhh so your truth is avoidance then. Because the most effort I've seen from you in this thread is in not actually answering questions. It's all riddles. Like Golem.
GargIndia
2. "How old is universe acording to Vedas? How long was human life in all 4 different time periods according to Vedas?
AugustusMasonicus
You might as well be asking 'how old is the Universe according to The Cat in the Hat?'.
The correct question is 'how old is the universe based on observation and testing?'.