Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 26
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   

SuperFrog

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?'.


That was my question that GI avoided to answer, of course it is not hard to figure out why.

Current science model places universe @ 13.8 billion years.

From calculations of Vedas, universe is 155.522 trillion of years old.


Where you got this 155.522 trillion figure?

Now you understand why I bounced back this question to you. I was not avoiding it. I knew you will come out with an absurd answer.

I would love to know your sources for this absurd figure.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

GargIndia
Since you answered a question with a question, you need to give the answer yourself.

What did you observe? What did you test?


My observation is this:

Anyone who takes Bronze Age fairy tales literally is not really interested in knowing the truth about anything, particularly science.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

GargIndia
Since you answered a question with a question, you need to give the answer yourself.

What did you observe? What did you test?


My observation is this:

Anyone who takes Bronze Age fairy tales literally is not really interested in knowing the truth about anything, particularly science.


Oh really.

Your ancestors did not live through the bronze age. And you of course do not believe your own history.

What knowledge of science do you have? Would be very interested to know.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Superfrog:

The calculation of time as per Vedic system is as follows (as expressed in earth years):

One day of 'Brahma' = 14 'manvantar' (one day of Brahma is duration of one creation)
1 'manvantar' = 71 'mahayuga'
1 'mahayuga' = 43,20,000 'varsh' (year)
1 'varsh' = 12 'maas' (month)
1 'maas' = 30 'ahoratra' (days) (the number of days in 'mas' can be more that 30 or less than 30 according to astronomical calculations to adjust for sidereal year)
1 'ahoratra' = 30 'mahoort' = 8 'prahar'

The current "yuga" is "kaliyuga" of 28th "mahayuga" of 7th "manvantar" of which >5200 years have passed.

The "kaliyuga" means age of machines.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   

SuperFrog

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?'.


That was my question that GI avoided to answer, of course it is not hard to figure out why.

Current science model places universe @ 13.8 billion years.

From calculations of Vedas, universe is 155.522 trillion of years old.


The science model that places universe @ 13.8 billion years is faulty. There are too many assumptions which are simply incorrect.

If you are a real scientist and you have access to a lab, then I shall tell you experiments to build which will clear which assumptions are wrong.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

GargIndia
Your ancestors did not live through the bronze age. And you of course do not believe your own history.


If my ancestors 'did not live through the Bronze Age' how is it that I am here?


What knowledge of science do you have? Would be very interested to know.


My knowledge of science is that it is not based on religious stories from 3,000 years ago.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 





My knowledge of science is that it is not based on religious stories from 3,000 years ago.


What science say and what stories say from 3000 years ago. Are two way different facts.

The Stories are probably more valuble and important than what or science state 3000 years after.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   

spy66
What science say and what stories say from 3000 years ago. Are two way different facts.


Actually, one is fact the other is mostly fiction. Only the gullible or the zealot believes the stories are all to be taken literally.


The Stories are probably more valuble and important than what or science state 3000 years after.


If you say so. I choose not to live my life trapped in a Bronze Age dogmatic existence.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   


Also, why does "nature" exclude intelligence or consciousness? When people say this happened naturally why does naturally mean without God, intelligence or consciousness? Where's the evidence that nature excludes God, consciousness or intelligence?


EVERYTHING is subject to forces. be those forces 'God' / the ultimate / infinite power / the absolute power / intelligence / consciousness. The very fact that EVERYTHING is part of this intelligent design decrees so.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
What science say and what stories say from 3000 years ago. Are two way different facts.


Actually, one is fact the other is mostly fiction. Only the gullible or the zealot believes the stories are all to be taken literally.


The Stories are probably more valuble and important than what or science state 3000 years after.


If you say so. I choose not to live my life trapped in a Bronze Age dogmatic existence.



How would you know that a story from 3000 years ago is mostly based fiction?

There is no way you or science can know that.

Does science disprove these stories?


If you Choose not to believe it is okay. But what you believe should not be standard for the rest of us.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

spy66
How would you know that a story from 3000 years ago is mostly based fiction?


If you honestly believe, for example, a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat and placed two of each specie on it then you are, in my opinion, believing fiction.


There is no way you or science can know that.

Does science disprove these stories?


Science? Maybe. Common sense? Certainly.


If you Choose not to believe it is okay. But what you believe should not be standard for the rest of us.


Fine with me but utilizing the Bible/Torah/Koran/Vedas to support some sort of creationist dogma shows that person has a severe case of cranial-rectal-inversion.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 







If you honestly believe, for example, a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat and placed two of each specie on it then you are, in my opinion, believing fiction.


Well science can not disprove that it didnt take Place. But science is non the less very fasinated by the story, because it has value to Our scociety.





Fine with me but utilizing the Bible/Torah/Koran/Vedas to support some sort of creationist dogma shows that person has a severe case of cranial-rectal-inversion.


Science can not disprove creationism either. Science dont know much pre Plank Time.

But either way science actually support creationism through physical laws.

The infinite must exist. And the infinite must be absolute. That means the infinite is a absolute constant.

How would a absolut constant form finite? Because finite is not infinite.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

spy66
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 







If you honestly believe, for example, a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat and placed two of each specie on it then you are, in my opinion, believing fiction.


Well science can not disprove that it didnt take Place. But science is non the less very fasinated by the story, because it has value to Our scociety.


Actually yes science, notably math can prove that it didn't take place. The dimensions for the ark are listed in the bible, you can build a scale model then determine the area that will be needed for two of every animal on the planet. If the area of all those animals exceeds the internal area of the ark, then it is impossible. Keep in mind the ark also needs to have the space for supplies, living quarters, and the operators of the vessel as well. Oh yeah and it also needs to be able to hold up under its own weight.

All of that is JUST issues with the ark. Not to mention geologists study sediment layers and can tell if there was a flood in the area. A global flood from the time frame in the bible is all but disproven.




Fine with me but utilizing the Bible/Torah/Koran/Vedas to support some sort of creationist dogma shows that person has a severe case of cranial-rectal-inversion.


Science can not disprove creationism either. Science dont know much pre Plank Time.

But either way science actually support creationism through physical laws.

The infinite must exist. And the infinite must be absolute. That means the infinite is a absolute constant.

How would a absolut constant form finite? Because finite is not infinite.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Science certainly has disproven young earth creationism. It may not have disproven the idea that God created the universe and uses all the laws of physics, evolution and abiogenesis to create and develop life, but hey that's why I'm an agnostic.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Actually yes science, notably math can prove that it didn't take place. The dimensions for the ark are listed in the bible, you can build a scale model then determine the area that will be needed for two of every animal on the planet. If the area of all those animals exceeds the internal area of the ark, then it is impossible. Keep in mind the ark also needs to have the space for supplies, living quarters, and the operators of the vessel as well. Oh yeah and it also needs to be able to hold up under its own weight.

All of that is JUST issues with the ark. Not to mention geologists study sediment layers and can tell if there was a flood in the area. A global flood from the time frame in the bible is all but disproven.


None of this can actually disprove that it didnt take Place. It is just used as a argument. But it is not proof.

Science cant even figure out how the pyramids were built. But they were built.

What would science have stated today if the Pyramids were only a story and not a Visual fact?

Mathematically and cientifically the Egyptions shouldnt have been able to build them. Becase we dont know they did it.






Science certainly has disproven young earth creationism. It may not have disproven the idea that God created the universe and uses all the laws of physics, evolution and abiogenesis to create and develop life, but hey that's why I'm an agnostic.


I agree. Science have disproved that the Preachers of the Bible are wrong about the Young earth. And that is a good thing. But i dont think it will change anything when it comes to what they believe.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

spy66
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Actually yes science, notably math can prove that it didn't take place. The dimensions for the ark are listed in the bible, you can build a scale model then determine the area that will be needed for two of every animal on the planet. If the area of all those animals exceeds the internal area of the ark, then it is impossible. Keep in mind the ark also needs to have the space for supplies, living quarters, and the operators of the vessel as well. Oh yeah and it also needs to be able to hold up under its own weight.

All of that is JUST issues with the ark. Not to mention geologists study sediment layers and can tell if there was a flood in the area. A global flood from the time frame in the bible is all but disproven.


None of this can actually disprove that it didnt take Place. It is just used as a argument. But it is not proof.

Science cant even figure out how the pyramids were built. But they were built.

What would science have stated today if the Pyramids were only a story and not a Visual fact?

Mathematically and cientifically the Egyptions shouldnt have been able to build them. Becase we dont know they did it.






Science certainly has disproven young earth creationism. It may not have disproven the idea that God created the universe and uses all the laws of physics, evolution and abiogenesis to create and develop life, but hey that's why I'm an agnostic.


I agree. Science have disproved that the Preachers of the Bible are wrong about the Young earth. And that is a good thing. But i dont think it will change anything when it comes to what they believe.


The difference here being that the pyramids are mathematically sound. So even if we have written records saying the Egyptian pyramids were built but no pyramids, we would know that at the very LEAST the buildings could theoretically exist. However, the ark cannot possibly exist. Math shows that it cannot exist, unless there is some weird space/time anomaly in the ark that allows for the interior area to far outstrip its exterior area. But then if that were the case, why would the ark have to be so large in the first place? Just make a standard sized boat, have the anomaly and you are good to go.

So there you go, unless the ark breaks the laws of physics, it never happened. Simple as that.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


The ark is also impossible full stop. It would be the longest wooden ship ever built and would therefore twist and flex in heavy seas, as we saw with the Wyoming.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Hey now. Remember we are suspending the laws of physics for this boat. Let's not get too rational in this thread.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Math shows that it cannot exist, unless there is some weird space/time anomaly in the ark that allows for the interior area to far outstrip its exterior area. But then if that were the case, why would the ark have to be so large in the first place? Just make a standard sized boat, have the anomaly and you are good to go.


Now we are getting to the Source of the story. God is in the Picture here, when it comes to this story. Did science bring that into their calculations?

No.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

spy66
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Math shows that it cannot exist, unless there is some weird space/time anomaly in the ark that allows for the interior area to far outstrip its exterior area. But then if that were the case, why would the ark have to be so large in the first place? Just make a standard sized boat, have the anomaly and you are good to go.


Now we are getting to the Source of the story. God is in the Picture here, when it comes to this story. Did science bring that into their calculations?

No.


So it makes sense to you for God to have Noah build an ark that is too long to hold together in the middle all to shove a bunch of animals into the interior that won't fit? This is ok, because God is going to magic the ark to work? But this begs the question, if God was going to magic the ark to work in the first place, why does the ship have to be so large? It's a logical paradox and is just as supernatural and dumb as YEC which you already agreed with me science has disproven.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

spy66
Now we are getting to the Source of the story. God is in the Picture here, when it comes to this story. Did science bring that into their calculations?

No.



Yeah, we all know that God works in mysterious ways, whenever needed...

Why not destroy whole world and start all over from scratch, wouldn't that be easier then make it rain for so long...

Usually when I play Civilization game (call me God in that case), it is easier to click 'File', 'New Game'... than allow single huge boat to float on map...
edit on 17-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join