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.
Prezbo369
GargIndia
There was a worldwide flood around 5200 years back which sunk the city of Dwarka in Gujarat, India. The flood was due to a sudden melting of continental ice at the end of last ice age.
The "Noah's arc" as a Biblical story is symbolical story which says that Jews survived this flood. The story does not have to be completely accurate as our ancestors were as much given to hyperbole as we are.
As given as we are today perhaps?
Could you give some specifics on this claim?
GargIndia
First I need to give you a disclaimer. The history cannot be "proven", only inferred.
Many people have tried to find the truth behind the tale of lost city of Dwarka. They have undertaken underwater missions and come out with the findings.
I am providing you some links. However I do not vouch for accuracy of any material contained therein. It is what it is.
Any Biblical story from Old Testament is about Jews because they wrote that book.
I am not aware of any Indian who wrote the Old Testament. There is no accounts of Noah's arc in Hindu mythology or Chinese mythology.
Even native Americans have no account of Noah's arc in their mythology.
I hope you get it.
As for hyperbole, if the whole humanity was saved by Noah's arc, it is reasonable that mythology of other races would include that fact.
GargIndia
peter vlar
GargIndia
Oh really? Again, can you name the experiments you have conducted yourself?
Let me ask a question to test your knowledge of science. The following link en.wikipedia.org... publishes mass of an electron. Please describe the method to find the mass of an electron.
Are you looking for the mass of an electron at rest or an electron in motion? Perhaps you're not as familiar with the parameters of the experiment yourself? Surely someone of your intellect wouldn't be so inspecific about such a precise experiment no? But just because I'm nice like that you use this formula-
The only thing I can expect to see from a person of low intellect like you is a Wiki quote.
Is this all you are capable of. I feel sorry for you.
I asked this question to a person who was not you. Let that person come back with an answer.
GargIndia
As for hyperbole, if the whole humanity was saved by Noah's arc, it is reasonable that mythology of other races would include that fact.
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by neoholographic
Self evident truth = all religion is made up BS by men and not by gods.
neoholographic
In science, there are things that are self evident. For example, an apple falling from a tree, rain, the seasons, snow or the sun shining.
Science can now tell you why the sun shines or why an apple falls to the ground.
Intelligent Design is a self evident truth. When we see it, we know it. When we see an airplane, television, car or computer monitor we know it was designed by intelligence. It's a self evident truth.
This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.
What are the key components to a system that was designed by intelligence? There's 2 of them.
The first component is, you will find instructions. These instructions will be letters, numbers or symbols that are in a sequence that instructs the production of cars, DVD players and yes, proteins. Intelligence will give the sequence of these letters, numbers and symbols.
The second component, is machinery. Intelligence will then design machinery to read this sequence of letters, numbers and symbols.
Again, we see this in DNA, DVD players, cars and everything else designed by intelligence.
When DNA is in a regulatory sequence you get promoters and operators that regulate the production of proteins. You get sequences that produce proteins. You get transcription, translation, error correction and now a new discovery about a second hidden code gives us gene control through what's called duons.
For instance if I were to write aaccThehhhjMANhhiuACROSSnnmmTHEjddfSTREET. I would first have to give meaning to the sequence of the letters THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. I would then design machinery that can scan the letters and can pick out the sequence of letters that say THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. This is what's happening with DNA. Sequences of DNA letters are being transcribed and translated. Even when a mistake occurs, it can be caught through error correction.
It doesn't get any clearer than this.
What happened is, people looked at the phenotype and came up with a convoluted theory of evolution. This theory eventually ran into the instructions(DNA) and it has just gotten worse and worse for the convoluted theory of evolution.
Evolution is the end result of intelligent design. It's the end result of a sequence of DNA letters that instruct the regulation and production of proteins.
Nature can produce design. It can produce a mountainside or a snowflake. It can't produce a snowflake that will translate and transcribe regulatory sequences on another snowflake.
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?edit on 16-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
In science, there are things that are self evident.
I can list a few things that science has assumed and declared a fact without conclusive evidence...
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to neoholographic
In science, there are things that are self evident.
Yeah, no.
That's sort of the polar opposite of science. Science does not assume something and declare it a fact. You can assume a hypothesis, but you then have to go out and test for it.edit on RAmerica/Chicago31uSat, 15 Mar 2014 09:55:35 -05003-0500fCDT09 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: formatting
An analogous term for a scientific law is a principle.
Scientific laws:
1. summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
4. are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."
Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment.
Although the nature of a scientific law is a question in philosophy and although scientific laws describe nature mathematically, scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolution.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws.
Maybe. But they are still central to our mainstream scientific views. It's the reason why only abiogenesis is being regarded as a valuable theory for the origin of life, while something like biocentrism is shoved aside, despite them both being in the hypothesis phase.
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by vasaga
Materialism and Determinism are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. Nature has no purpose is, similarly, a philosophical question.
It's definitely not the only one in practice...
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I will concede that there is actually one assumption which science does make, though like everything in science it is never absolute and it is certainly not declared a 'fact' - the null hypothesis.
The idea is that the default position for any claim is the possibility that the claim is bogus and does not exist. This is called the null hypothesis.
You must've surely heard of the placebo effect? Or the nocebo effect? In case you haven't, watch these:
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The Our brains produce our minds, Biological inheritance is purely material and (possibly, depending on what you actually mean) Only mechanistic medicine works bits would fall into this category, since no one has been able to prove alternate theories like the idea of a soul, or crystal healing energies or whatever.
I was leaning more towards the non-living idea. We don't even know what life actually is, so, how do we know what is alive and what isn't? We can't figure out if a virus is alive or not. How can expect to do the same with particles, or the planet or whatever?
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Matter is inanimate - seems an odd one. Depends on which definition you are using. Do you mean inanimate = non-moving or inanimate = non-living. I mean at a sub atomic level it's all moving, and at macroscopic level it can be either alive or dead. Can you please clarify, and point me to the particular scientific position you are referring to.
Ok. Even though all of that is true, take as an example, the speed of light. It's always being referred to as being a fixed value, but in reality, it fluctuates quite a bit. Basically, everything that's referred to as a constant is not actually a constant. You don't have to watch it fully, since it's very long, but, the first 10-15 minutes or so might already give you an idea... For more info you can read the 'about' of the video.
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Laws of nature are fixed. Lets take a look at Scientific Laws. Wikipedia says -
So we can see there several important points which completely refute the idea that scientific laws are fixed, or that they are an assumed fact.
- They are based on conclusions from repeated verifiable experimentation
- They are often formulated and proven mathematically
- They are strongly supported by evidence
- They are not 'fixed' at all, but provisional just like any scientific theory and subject to change should they ever be successfully challenged by future observations or evidence
- Like all scientific theories, they are not intended to be taken in an absolute sense as immutable fact
Posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing Materialism and Determinism are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. Nature has no purpose is, similarly, a philosophical question.
Posted by vasaga Maybe. But they are still central to our mainstream scientific views. It's the reason why only abiogenesis is being regarded as a valuable theory for the origin of life, while something like biocentrism is shoved aside, despite them both being in the hypothesis phase.
“Consider the color and brightness of everything you see ‘out there.’ On its own, light doesn’t have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky – but the cells in our brain could easily be changed so we ‘see’ red or green instead. We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually everything.“
posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I will concede that there is actually one assumption which science does make, though like everything in science it is never absolute and it is certainly not declared a 'fact' - the null hypothesis.
The idea is that the default position for any claim is the possibility that the claim is bogus and does not exist. This is called the null hypothesis.
posted by vasaga It's definitely not the only one in practice...
posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The Our brains produce our minds, Biological inheritance is purely material and (possibly, depending on what you actually mean) Only mechanistic medicine works bits would fall into this category, since no one has been able to prove alternate theories like the idea of a soul, or crystal healing energies or whatever.
posted by vasaga You must've surely heard of the placebo effect? Or the nocebo effect? In case you haven't, watch these:
posted by vasaga That should throw the brain/mind one and the mechanistic medicine one out the _ As for biological inheritance, there's this stuff called epigenetics, where your body could behave as having a damaged gene, while the gene is actually intact, simply because your grandma damaged her genes while smoking or whatever. Watch this:
posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Matter is inanimate - seems an odd one. Depends on which definition you are using. Do you mean inanimate = non-moving or inanimate = non-living. I mean at a sub atomic level it's all moving, and at macroscopic level it can be either alive or dead. Can you please clarify, and point me to the particular scientific position you are referring to.
posted by vasaga
I was leaning more towards the non-living idea. We don't even know what life actually is, so, how do we know what is alive and what isn't? We can't figure out if a virus is alive or not. How can expect to do the same with particles, or the planet or whatever?
posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Laws of nature are fixed. Lets take a look at Scientific Laws. Wikipedia says -
So we can see there several important points which completely refute the idea that scientific laws are fixed, or that they are an assumed fact.
- They are based on conclusions from repeated verifiable experimentation
- They are often formulated and proven mathematically
- They are strongly supported by evidence
- They are not 'fixed' at all, but provisional just like any scientific theory and subject to change should they ever be successfully challenged by future observations or evidence
- Like all scientific theories, they are not intended to be taken in an absolute sense as immutable fact
posted by vasaga Ok. Even though all of that is true, take as an example, the speed of light. It's always being referred to as being a fixed value, but in reality, it fluctuates quite a bit. Basically, everything that's referred to as a constant is not actually a constant. You don't have to watch it fully, since it's very long, but, the first 10-15 minutes or so might already give you an idea... For more info you can read the 'about' of the video.
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
This is of extreme importance and he is missing it entirely - The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself, it creates a subjective experience (or representation) of the (objective) phenomenon.
Like many people, he misunderstands the anthropic principle and puts the cart before the horse, then uses this as his central argument that the universe to him is obviously tailored for us. It's exactly like Douglas Adams' puddle thinking "gee this hole in the ground fits me perfectly!".
PhotonEffect
The universe as I experience it is different from how everything else experiences it. And to take that idea a step further- humans have arrived at a consensus of what we are observing out there and calling a universe, but make no mistake that the universe as we know it is not at all like how any other living species anywhere else observes/experiences it. So in a sense Lanza may be right to say that the universe (as we see it) is specifically tailored to us and our senses, from our perspective.
edit on 27-3-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The object reality, no matter what being living on whatever piece of rock floating around the cosmos, is the same. It can be demonstrated (often mathematically) and is consistent, regardless of the subjective experience..
there is a big difference between faith and the truth
Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health. Lawyers destroy justice. Universities destroy knowledge. Governments destroy freedom. The major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality. ~ Michael Ellner
"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.
Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses