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.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?
...
The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),
...
See that bit just up there? Look at what you did.
It is a prejudicial and purposeful misdefinition of what 'fraud' means.
The creationist crackpot may even be right and you have no way of knowing it. Yet there you go, presenting your opinion as fact.
And you would have rejected the truth, not based upon evidence or fact, but based upon your personal opinion of your understanding of the belief system of the one who said it? How skewed is that?
Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?
If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.
The point of view that you cannot reach a conclusion is a balanced and 'scientific' point of view.
Taking a particular position on the basis of imperfect data when offered two conflicting theories is not open mindedness, you have closed your mind to one of the possibilities.
There is no default position/argument except to say that there is no default position/argument while the data is incomplete.
If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?
There are two possibilities in this debate
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?
...
The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),
...
See that bit just up there? Look at what you did.
It is a prejudicial and purposeful misdefinition of what 'fraud' means.
The creationist crackpot may even be right and you have no way of knowing it. Yet there you go, presenting your opinion as fact.
And you would have rejected the truth, not based upon evidence or fact, but based upon your personal opinion of your understanding of the belief system of the one who said it? How skewed is that?
Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?
If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.
The point of view that you cannot reach a conclusion is a balanced and 'scientific' point of view.
Taking a particular position on the basis of imperfect data when offered two conflicting theories is not open mindedness, you have closed your mind to one of the possibilities.
There is no default position/argument except to say that there is no default position/argument while the data is incomplete.
The numerous contradictions and inconsistencies found in these texts should be warning enough that they are not the words of God but rather the words of those who want to rule over others and control them.
originally posted by: coomba98
Would this not only be a warning that the 'god' thing is a myth used as the control mechanism?
originally posted by: chr0naut
I could point out that there is no end-to-end evidence for the entire process of evolution as formulated in the MES and demand that you present that, before I will accept it, but if that were the case it would be particularly stupid of me, wouldn't it?
You exist in a universe of existence, are asking big questions about existence and the evidence is all around you. What more could be offered?
Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.
The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.
Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything.
Consider the old "stuff from quantum fluctuation" BS. Try and derive a non-zero answer from Schrödinger's equation with inputs of zero. You can't. To further extend the 'quantum fluctuation' bit to say it produced a singularity (ignoring Pauli exclusion) is just so unphysical and unscientific I'm surprised that so few people point out how stupid and mythological it is.
Also, since philosophical argument is repeatable, verifaible, falsifiable, testable, objective and follows rules of rationality, why would you disregard it as evidence? Is it too hard for you?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic
More drivel from the cult who protects child molesters and rapists.
Come on creationists! Show us your evidence. Not cult webpages and mindless YouTube propaganda. Real evidence that your sky daddy is real.