Secret Space Secret Past

a reply to: Hanslune

Many thanks. You watched it so that we don't have to. I salute your patience.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Hanslune

Many thanks. You watched it so that we don't have to. I salute your patience.

It was my limited pleasure to do so!

Such things are amusing but sad also that so much time and effort is spent on this type of meaningless nonsense. I always feel my intellect has shrunk after viewing such things.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Well. This is old hat, actually. A smörgåsbord. Picked from the Internet and pieced together to fit current popular beliefs.

I had a good laugh when folks in here started to debate if this was true or not. Yeah, right ATS. As if we know...

Well - si non è vero è ben trovato!

originally posted by: JimNasium
Nobody sees the "all 6000 illusory years of it? Scan it again and SEE the BIG RED TRUCK... Instead of wasting 1 hr. watching useless drivel presented by folks who think that Mother Earth is only 'an illusory 6000 yrs. old' like some religious™ cults do, take a walk around the neighborhood, take a breath, watch an episode of Clint Walker in Cheyenne, watch re-runs of Seinfeld™ ALL 26 illusory minutes minus commercials..

Or watch it.. This is Earth a "Free Will Zone" who is much older than 6,000 illusory years..

6000 illusory years = snake oil..

namaste

Signed,

A common passerby.

To dismiss religious beliefs because you believe in something else is naive.
Do you have definitive proof the earth is older then 6,000 years? Just like they don't have proof it is only 6,000 years old, neither do you for your argument.

What if the science we use is wrong?
How do we know? Can you prove it isn't? Can you prove there isn't a more advanced science, a more advanced maths out there, that we haven't discovered yet? Maybe there's other civilizations out there(I believe there is, somewhere..universe is too big for us to be the only ones in it), are using more advanced sciences then we are? Maybe that's why we still use fossil fuels, and anything alternative still involves processes which damage the environment? Maybe that's why we are still all fighting each other on this tiny planet, when there's an entire universe, with billions of galaxies and billions of planets to explore?

To write off and dismiss other peoples beliefs just because you believe in something else is just as bad as those cults you mention.

originally posted by: mortex



To dismiss religious beliefs because you believe in something else is naive.

Er why? They contradict one another

Do you have definitive proof the earth is older then 6,000 years? Just like they don't have proof it is only 6,000 years old, neither do you for your argument.

What if the science we use is wrong?

There is a great deal of proof but if you deny that science you are pretty much so far down the rabbit hole it may not be possible to reason with you. Does science work - yes, the internet kinda proves it along with 10's of thousands of things invented using said science. Is science wrong about some things, yes, is it wrong about everything? no.

Maybe there's other civilizations out there(I believe there is, somewhere..universe is too big for us to be the only ones in it), are using more advanced sciences then we are?

Whether one believes in science or not has no effect on whether there are other civilizations

To write off and dismiss other peoples beliefs just because you believe in something else is just as bad as those cults you mention.

Yet, religions say that other religions are wrong. Religion was man's first attempt to explain the universe and it was found to suck doing so and to suck badly. Science is man's second attempt and it works a lot better. Is there a third way? Don't know but until we find that I think sticking with the second method, with has demonstrated its validity is better than hoping the first way might be right.

Hanslune probably votes, too. The proven science of partisan politics. That's all this debate is, long term conditioning vs the rabbit hole (has Hans so effectively put it)

I'll take anything that defies the status quo & eagerly await the destruction of our oh so scientific world.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Hanslune probably votes, too. The proven science of partisan politics. That's all this debate is, long term conditioning vs the rabbit hole (has Hans so effectively put it)

I'll take anything that defies the status quo & eagerly await the destruction of our oh so scientific world.

Howdy Eunuchorn (good name by the way)

but but...if you replace science and the status quo with 'x' then doesn't it just become the new status quo and by default wrong?

It would be nice if one could live in a world where ones belief shaped the physical reality around us but alas we all share the same reality.

I'm intrigued; if one did in the scientific world what would you replace it with?