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.
I'm talking about his GRT. IT (the GRT) has been confirmed since he made it (1916) by others 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places. Basically GRT = indisputable FACT.
I can't find any examples...but since you said there's tons of examples, I'm sure you can list at least 1...just one.
GRT is part of theoretical physics, right?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
I can't find any examples...but since you said there's tons of examples, I'm sure you can list at least 1...just one.
Even better. Word of mouth is the most compelling evidence on the planet, watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein, there are several of the thousands of examples and you can listen to those professors and scientists themselves tell you what happened in their lives when they decided they wanted to challenge the golden calf of Secular Humanism.
Let them few guys tell you what happened to them. Most of them aren't Christians, they just made the career suicidal error of finding issues with Darwin and being stupid enough to bring them up for rational discussion.
Listen to their stories firsthand.
edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
GRT is part of theoretical physics, right?
Who are you trying to school on Physics?
To date no Physicist has won the Nobel Prize for refuting GRT. In fact, fellow Physicists have proven GRT by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places.
It's just as much "FACT" as your existence is.
In short, if you call GRT a fact, then you are also calling the theory of evolution a fact. Thank you for finally admitting it's the sound theory it is
Word of mouth the most compelling evidence? You're kidding, right???
I saw a 10m tall pink unicorn walk through town yesterday...that's word of mouth, according to you the "most compelling evidence". I wish you luck hunting that giant unicorn
Fyi, the most compelling evidence in this order is:
1) Scientific law
2) Scientific theory
3) Scientific hypothesis
4) Random word of mouth not backed up by evidence...
Subjective evidence is USELESS in science!
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
In short, if you call GRT a fact, then you are also calling the theory of evolution a fact. Thank you for finally admitting it's the sound theory it is
You're still making the equivocation fallacy. You won't find a Creationist on the planet that denies variations within the species, we do deny "goo-to-you" Evolution though, which has NEVER been proven by any method of science despite desperate attempts for over 150 years of trying.
(Sorry for the cliche)
You need to get something through your head. Science calls anything with a probability greater than 10^50th as "impossible/absurd". When we say GRT has been "proven by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places" that's in effect saying it's been proven 10^18th.
There are an estimated 10^19th atoms in the galaxy. (That's an unfathomable number)
LOL, I'm not talking about evidence for or against Evolution. Personal testimony from these professors and scientists for SPEAKING OUT against it and what happened to their careers as a result of their speaking out.
I'm not referring to that, you asked for "examples" of these things happening to scientists and professors who dared to challenge Darwin. We're not even talking about proving the theory true or untrue with his particular point. It's not "random" when these men and women are telling you their PERSONAL testimonies of THEIR experiences in their careers.
Focus dude, this particular discussion isn't about proving the theory true or false, just with what happens when people speak out against it.
Not if they provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they don't, of course the scientific community will make fun of them...after all, they don't back up their claims with evidence.
You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.
No it isn't
It doesn't matter if people speak out against it or not as long as they are UNABLE to provide objective evidence to back up their claims. If they can't back up their claims, you can't blame others for not taking them seriously.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
Not if they provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they don't, of course the scientific community will make fun of them...after all, they don't back up their claims with evidence.
That's absurd.
Me: "I got fired from my job 3 months ago for poor performance according to my supervisors."
You: "Objective evidence or it didn't happen!!!"
Me: "Can't I just tell you I got fired and what I did to get fired?"
You: "Objective evidence only!"
Me: "Huh, what the..?!
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.
I don't have to in this particular point.
Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.
It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!
The theory of evolution has just as much OBJECTIVE evidence behind it as the GRT...that's why they're both classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.
Of course you need objective evidence...and they need that too to fire people in the first place. It's required by LAW.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.
I don't have to in this particular point.
Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.
It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!
They need to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to back up their SUBJECTIVE claims. For example, if someone comes to you and says "I just saw an alien spacecraft", you don't just believe him. You need objective evidence, a photograph, piece of the craft, and alien hair...anything. But his "word" isn't good enough.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
Here's the equivocation fallacy:
The theory of evolution has just as much OBJECTIVE evidence behind it as the GRT...that's why they're both classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.
Sure it does when were talking about variations within the species themselves, and no Creationists deny that, never have. We know that dogs, wolves et cetra came from a common ancestor, a DOG-LIKE ancestor!!! No one denies that, there is a mountain of evidence no one can deny. Even a kid knows there are different kinds of dogs walking around.
The fallacy is in stating there is also a mountain of evidence to prove 1 species evolved from a totally different species not related in kind, or partially related. (I.E. men and chimps had a common ancestor, or birds came from dinosaurs)
That's completely bogus. And you commit the equivocation fallacy for claiming the evidential support for one extends to the other by using ambiguous terminology hoping the average reader is ignorant to the enormous difference. You bring up viruses and bacteria as an example, yet at the end of the day after billions of generations viruses are still viruses and bacteria are still bacteria.
EQUIVOCATION FALLACY. Deny Ignorance.
edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
The fallacy is in stating there is also a mountain of evidence to prove 1 species evolved from a totally different species not related in kind, or partially related.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.
I don't have to in this particular point.
Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.
It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!
They need to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to back up their SUBJECTIVE claims. For example, if someone comes to you and says "I just saw an alien spacecraft", you don't just believe him. You need objective evidence, a photograph, piece of the craft, and alien hair...anything. But his "word" isn't good enough.
Then throw out everything we know from recorded written history correct?
And eye-witness testimony in court is invalid correct?
edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by CaptainNemo
What came first, the man or the bacteria? I believe advances in the field of microscopy will provide the proverbial nail in the coffin for evolution. The Luciferian elites alter history to control mans knowledge of the god of the Bible. They switch the real Mccoy's with doppelgangers like Edison and Pasteur. Both of which were thieves and liars. Science isn't the enemy, it's just being manipulated.!
We live in the present age, which means you can know more about God than ever before. Know your creator before time runs out.!
YAHUOWAH OUR ELOHIM
Water is the only element to exist in all 3 states naturally on earth. It is the symbol for transformation and God's blessing
yaHuOwaH = H2O
Anywhere you look you see the holy name, he is self-evident.!
edit on 18-4-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)
So once again you provide a ton of preaching and zero objective evidence
Claiming water is a symbol for good isn't objective evidence btw...