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.

 

Pentagon draws plans for immortal ’synthetic organisms’

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Are you incapable of the simple effort to come up with possibilities?


You're the one making the claim.


see in your other thread about evolution how to defend a theory as fact, so I doubt I can argue you religious zealot


Oh so defending evolution makes me a religious zealot - gota love that.


viewpoint on that since you are incapable to deny a theory as belief.


Haha because it's not. A scientific theory is not the same as a personal theory. Scientific theories are based on scientific evidence, where as your theory isn't the same thing. Realise that.


You'll need to answer and explain yourself in regards to my earlier conjecture in this thread, first. The one I pointed out that 'today's world' science hasn't proven life beyond the solar system. Now, explain how you know for a fact it doesn't exist in 'today's world'


How about we continue this in U2 coz this has nothing to do with immortality, really dude.

"'today's world' science hasn't proven life beyond the solar system" yes thats true.

"explain how you know for a fact it (what is "it")doesn't exist in 'today's world'"

[edit on 8-2-2010 by andre18]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


My earlier point was made: the event of the DARPA post as linked in the OP shows progress that the U.S. is headed to a more research and development society rather than being stuck in capitalistic wars.


Scientific theories are based on scientific evidence, where as your theory isn't the same thing.


Scientific theories are based on gathered scientific facts; however, a collection of facts still doesn't constitute a solid belief.

Therefore, your attempt to rely on 'today's world' science without being able to 'think outside the box' and completely deny evolution and religion make it that much harder to relate real world experiences that even 'today's world' science hasn't yet caught-up to define. Just because science doesn't define it doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist. With that note, you still don't understand the possibilities of the immortality issue? (Just "immortality" alone before any desire to create a 'synthetic organism")

Maybe check out this other thread (instead of U2U):

I want Immortality

[edit on 8-2-2010 by dzonatas]



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join