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 Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ
The theory of the "great expansion" or "big bang" which brought our universe to its current form is supported by observable evidence.
Should new evidence present itself that can change.
Notice the flexibility of science which is based on observable evidence and religion, by comparison, is not.edit on 24-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by soyentist
reply to post by charles1952
That's fine, but that brand of reasoning has no place in the world of scientific thought. Science is the practice of experimentation, observation and categorization, not fabrication.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.
Except when you rejected string theory, right?
What a joke.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Originally posted by soyentist
reply to post by charles1952
That's fine, but that brand of reasoning has no place in the world of scientific thought. Science is the practice of experimentation, observation and categorization, not fabrication.
By that logic, string theory, dark matter, and gravitation must be fabricated. We cannot observe these directly, but we know they're there. Same with intelligent cause, however science is still rejecting that one for some reason.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.
Except when you rejected string theory, right?
What a joke.
I rejected string theory? Please, show me where.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
What is the mathematical calculation that supports Intelligent Design?
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
If you can't navigate the first 3 pages of your own thread, there is really no reason to continue a conversation about the creation of the universe with you.
you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
What is the mathematical calculation that supports Intelligent Design?
The amalgamation of every mathematical calculation in existence. Not to mention the mathematical nature of the universe itself.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by NewAgeMan
That was very interesting. I had always wondered how it was possible that the sun and the moon aligned so perfectly during solar eclipses.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Right in the very first sentence you got it wrong. There is NO reason to expect the universe to have a cause, purpose, or agenda. No justifiable reason at all.
Originally posted by jiggerj
There is NO reason to expect the universe to have a cause, purpose, or agenda. No justifiable reason at all.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
It's more than interesting when you really look into it and play the tape all the way back to present, it's utterly astounding and ought to confound even the most staunch atheist if they were being completely open minded and intellectually honest in the face of all the data.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Originally posted by jiggerj
Right in the very first sentence you got it wrong. There is NO reason to expect the universe to have a cause, purpose, or agenda. No justifiable reason at all.
Except that it began. But alright.
Also, I'm going to assume that you did not finish reading the OP. If that is the case, I advise you to do so.edit on 24-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by HarryTZ
They say they are all for evidence, and rigorous scrutiny and analysis, with an open mindedness that is not biased and is therefore receptive to all information and all data, so I don't see why not..?
Unless they just have some sort of anti-religious axe to grind and nothing more, but that doesn't and cannot serve as a basis for unbelief or a lack of belief
and hey let's face it we can't REALLY believe in something without ANY information because we believe what we know, what we discover and come to understand and recognize as truth. I myself was never really willing to accept anything without a valid reason to do so, so I investigated and what I've found in the process is by far more extraordinary even than what I might have expected to find or to find no evidence for.