View Full Version : Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302
The overwhelmingly validated theory of evolution tells us that the functions performed by our organs arose from associated increases in survival fitness. For instance, the bile produced by our liver and the insulin produced by our pancreas help us absorb nutrients and thus survive. Insofar as it is produced by the brain, our phenomenal consciousness—i.e. our ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves—is no exception: it, too, must give us some survival advantage, otherwise natural selection wouldn’t have fixed it in our genome. In other words, our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.
Psalm 139:13-15
13 For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8
A good explanation of how consciousness likely evolved along with us.
Straight Shooter
02-09-20, 10:50
Psalm 139:13-15
13 For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Just...AMEN brother...Amen.
To me...evolution has been about as "overwhelmingly validated" as the made up impeachment crap about President Trump.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-09-20, 11:26
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302
The overwhelmingly validated theory of evolution tells us that the functions performed by our organs arose from associated increases in survival fitness. For instance, the bile produced by our liver and the insulin produced by our pancreas help us absorb nutrients and thus survive. Insofar as it is produced by the brain, our phenomenal consciousness—i.e. our ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves—is no exception: it, too, must give us some survival advantage, otherwise natural selection wouldn’t have fixed it in our genome. In other words, our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.
Sounds like an argument against evolution and for not just intelligent design, but the old the universe is only 5 thousand years old. If it could not have evolved, it has to have been here all the time in us, which means that humans must have always been here.
Nope.
Not hard to see sentience, or self awareness evolving in animals. Dogs innately understand that humans can do and know things that they don't know or can do, wolves don't but a dog still doesn't understand a mirror. Primates have different levels of self awareness with some having self awareness to understand what a mirror image is.
There is a HUGE evolutionary pressure for sentience. Almost like the race for AI in computers. Planning, communication, society, ethics and abstract thought.
Just...AMEN brother...Amen.
To me...evolution has been about as "overwhelmingly validated" as the made up impeachment crap about President Trump.
You evolved from an Ape. Accept it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like an argument against evolution and for not just intelligent design, but the old the universe is only 5 thousand years old. If it could not have evolved, it has to have been here all the time in us, which means that humans must have always been here.
Nope.
Not hard to see sentience, or self awareness evolving in animals. Dogs innately understand that humans can do and know things that they don't know or can do, wolves don't but a dog still doesn't understand a mirror. Primates have different levels of self awareness with some having self awareness to understand what a mirror image is.
There is a HUGE evolutionary pressure for sentience. Almost like the race for AI in computers. Planning, communication, society, ethics and abstract thought.
If we are going to dig deeper, there is no reason to believe the universe is young. Just we are.
Straight Shooter
02-09-20, 15:33
Im pretty sure YOU did. The Lord God made me. Youll see one day soon.
vicious_cb
02-09-20, 16:02
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302
The overwhelmingly validated theory of evolution tells us that the functions performed by our organs arose from associated increases in survival fitness. For instance, the bile produced by our liver and the insulin produced by our pancreas help us absorb nutrients and thus survive. Insofar as it is produced by the brain, our phenomenal consciousness—i.e. our ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves—is no exception: it, too, must give us some survival advantage, otherwise natural selection wouldn’t have fixed it in our genome. In other words, our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.
You should look up Conway's game of life. Incredibly complex systems can arise from from a very simple system given enough time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgOcEZinQ2I
Im pretty sure YOU did. The Lord God made me. Youll see one day soon.
The Lord God made me an atheist.
vicious_cb
02-09-20, 16:12
There is a HUGE evolutionary pressure for sentience. Almost like the race for AI in computers. Planning, communication, society, ethics and abstract thought.
Thats the real argument right there. Perhaps intelligence is only up to to a certain point. Enter the Fermi paradox, if sentience and intelligence is so beneficial then why is universe so devoid of it? Its entirely possible intelligence is actually HARMFUL to existence as intelligent beings tend to destroy themselves more often than not a la making AI.
You evolved from an Ape. Accept it.
First off, I know there are things we cannot understand. Having said that, I believe that God's creation day may not have been the same as our 24 hour day.
The thing about evolution that I have never understood is where are all the half ape/half men? I mean how does it go, at some point nature says 'okay, all done, everybody in the pipeline that hasn't yet fully evolved, your out of here? And you there, you stay an ape - forever, sorry dude.'
Same thing about the big bang theory, so who put those atoms into play?
The thing about evolution that I have never understood is where are all the half ape/half men?
Have you seen Congress? Antifa? AOC? Etc?
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-09-20, 17:29
You evolved from an Ape. Accept it.
We evolved along side of apes.
Thats the real argument right there. Perhaps intelligence is only up to to a certain point. Enter the Fermi paradox, if sentience and intelligence is so beneficial then why is universe so devoid of it? Its entirely possible intelligence is actually HARMFUL to existence as intelligent beings tend to destroy themselves more often than not a la making AI.
I do worry about AI, but if it is truly that much more advanced, it will just leave us- which would also explain why we haven't heard from them. The universe is uncomfortably silent, eerily quiet. I like to run the Drake Equation backwards. The longer we go with out hearing from aliens, the less likely they become. Intelligence may be dangerous, but the universe is also frighteningly deadly. Or do you get smart enough to realize that it all doesn't matter and Aliens are a bunch of Lewbowski's. What ever man.
The thing about evolution that I have never understood is where are all the half ape/half men?
How does the game go- Screw, kill, marry.... Not kidding.
Straight Shooter
02-09-20, 18:27
The Lord God made me an atheist.
Nah. That was the other fella.
Nah. That was the other fella.
The Lord God made everything, read a bible. :)
Consciousness not only evolved, we’re about to create it in the computer labs.
The Lord God made everything, read a bible. :)
I am not a religious man nor am I a biblical scholar, but I believe that the Lord God made you with the option to chose to be an Atheist or not. The choice to follow whatever fellow that you want to is one of the gifts bestowed upon mankind. So some say at least.
I am not a religious man nor am I a biblical scholar, but I believe that the Lord God made you with the option to chose to be an Atheist or not. The choice to follow whatever fellow that you want to is one of the gifts bestowed upon mankind. So some say at least.
I don't recall being offered a choice, but if he did give me the choice to be an atheist he's an idiot.
Perhaps it was another god who gave me the choice !
" God standeth in the congregation of the mighty. He judgeth among the gods "
Psalm 82:1 KJV
Perhaps it was another god who gave me the choice !
" God standeth in the congregation of the mighty. He judgeth among the gods "
Psalm 82:1 KJV
The Psalmist, Asaph, wasn't saying there is more than one God.
"Morning stars" and "sons of God" were ancient Hebrew and Ancient Near East motifs for angels, or the divine council referred to in Psalm 82.
The Psalmist, Asaph, wasn't saying there is more than one God.
"Morning stars" and "sons of God" were ancient Hebrew and Ancient Near East motifs for angels, or the divine council referred to in Psalm 82.
The only difference between god and gods is one is singular and the other plural.
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302
The overwhelmingly validated theory of evolution tells us that the functions performed by our organs arose from associated increases in survival fitness. For instance, the bile produced by our liver and the insulin produced by our pancreas help us absorb nutrients and thus survive. Insofar as it is produced by the brain, our phenomenal consciousness—i.e. our ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves—is no exception: it, too, must give us some survival advantage, otherwise natural selection wouldn’t have fixed it in our genome. In other words, our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.
Most evolutions are arbitrary and random. Also waving about absolutes in science shows a limited understanding of science.
First off, I know there are things we cannot understand. Having said that, I believe that God's creation day may not have been the same as our 24 hour day.
The thing about evolution that I have never understood is where are all the half ape/half men? I mean how does it go, at some point nature says 'okay, all done, everybody in the pipeline that hasn't yet fully evolved, your out of here? And you there, you stay an ape - forever, sorry dude.'
Same thing about the big bang theory, so who put those atoms into play?
Because evolution talks about branch points not linear changes.
Remember, it's not like theres just ONE of "whatever" when a mutation happens. There's more. So mutated whatever keeps breeding and over time additional mutations keep going and you get a new species.
But the other Whatevers kept breeding too. So their species survives.
But there's nothing that says there's only one branch point. Or that something doesn't wipe out Whatever, or Mutated Whatever.
Take two identical ARs. One is your stock "go to" that you leave alone. The ither, you swap hand guards, rail, trigger, sights, paint job. At the end of the day one is markedly differe t from the other. But .... it's still identifiable as an AR, and they both started off the same.
Because evolution talks about branch points not linear changes.
Remember, it's not like theres just ONE of "whatever" when a mutation happens. There's more. So mutated whatever keeps breeding and over time additional mutations keep going and you get a new species.
But the other Whatevers kept breeding too. So their species survives.
But there's nothing that says there's only one branch point. Or that something doesn't wipe out Whatever, or Mutated Whatever.
Take two identical ARs. One is your stock "go to" that you leave alone. The ither, you swap hand guards, rail, trigger, sights, paint job. At the end of the day one is markedly differe t from the other. But .... it's still identifiable as an AR, and they both started off the same.
Excellent reply !
Psalm 139:13-15
13 For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my motherÂ’s womb.
14 I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Whatever happened to this ? Â….. To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine
LMT Shooter
02-10-20, 08:57
So what was the first step in evolution? How exactly did the change from inorganic to organic occur? How exactly did the change from nonliving inorganic to life occur?
Without knowing these answers, evolution seems a lot like a faith-based belief system to me.
So what was the first step in evolution? How exactly did the change from inorganic to organic occur? How exactly did the change from nonliving inorganic to life occur?
Without knowing these answers, evolution seems a lot like a faith-based belief system to me.
it's known as the theory of evolution because it's a theory. Even though there are unanswered questions it makes far more sense than an invisible man in the sky certainty.
LMT Shooter
02-10-20, 09:48
it's known as the theory of evolution because it's a theory. Even though there are unanswered questions it makes far more sense than an invisible man in the sky certainty.
How, exactly, is it that evolution, "makes far more sense?" All I did was ask a few questions that no one who believes in evolution knows the answers to, and point out that therefore evolution is as much a faith-based belief system as any other religion. Evolution is a religion where science is God. My intent was to either get a believer in evolution to answer the questions (which you cannot do), or at least admit that their belief in evolution is faith based. I fully expected to get neither in any convincing fashion. I also expected to get insulting and demeaning answers, such as referring to God as, "an invisible man in the sky." The greatest weakness in the theory of evolution is the inability of most of those who believe in it to debate the topic without insulting or demeaning religion. Richard Dawkins loves the phrase, "flying spaghetti monster," to refer to God because Richard Dawkins likes to be an insulting ass to religious folks. He has actually argued that aliens may have started life on Earth, as if that makes more sense. When pressed, he, like many other atheists who believe in evolution, will come up with any BS to bolster his belief in evolution, no matter how ludicrous. Sounds pretty faith-based to me.
As for myself, the God I believe in could have made us via the proces we call evolution, and I'm totally cool with that idea. I don't go to church, nor do I want to. I call myself an agnostic when pressed to describe my beliefs, only because I feel that the word agnostic describes my beliefs better than most other words. I do believe that the world is a better place because of Judeo-Christian beliefs and those who practice them.
How, exactly, is it that evolution, "makes far more sense?" All I did was ask a few questions that no one who believes in evolution knows the answers to, and point out that therefore evolution is as much a faith-based belief system as any other religion. Evolution is a religion where science is God. My intent was to either get a believer in evolution to answer the questions (which you cannot do), or at least admit that their belief in evolution is faith based. I fully expected to get neither in any convincing fashion. I also expected to get insulting and demeaning answers, such as referring to God as, "an invisible man in the sky." The greatest weakness in the theory of evolution is the inability of most of those who believe in it to debate the topic without insulting or demeaning religion. Richard Dawkins loves the phrase, "flying spaghetti monster," to refer to God because Richard Dawkins likes to be an insulting ass to religious folks. He has actually argued that aliens may have started life on Earth, as if that makes more sense. When pressed, he, like many other atheists who believe in evolution, will come up with any BS to bolster his belief in evolution, no matter how ludicrous. Sounds pretty faith-based to me.
As for myself, the God I believe in could have made us via the proces we call evolution, and I'm totally cool with that idea. I don't go to church, nor do I want to. I call myself an agnostic when pressed to describe my beliefs, only because I feel that the word agnostic describes my beliefs better than most other words. I do believe that the world is a better place because of Judeo-Christian beliefs and those who practice them.
That the theory evolution makes more sense than an invisible man in the sky is obvious to any sane person. It's a clinical fact that any adult person who has an invisible friend is a certifiable lunatic.
I can not answer your questions of "So what was the first step in evolution? How exactly did the change from inorganic to organic occur? How exactly did the change from nonliving inorganic to life occur" because I don't know, and neither do you.
I have no beliefs, I simply know what I know and everything else will remain a theory until proven one way or the other.
As for faith , Faith is believing what you know ain't so. … Mark Twain
PS it's extremely difficult not to give what you describe as "demeaning answers "when confronted with idiotic religious doctrine.
Using a fictional book written by man about a magic deity in the sky in order to explain phenomena that his lack of knowledge otherwise could not in order to discredit fact base science. Classic.
So what was the first step in evolution? How exactly did the change from inorganic to organic occur? How exactly did the change from nonliving inorganic to life occur?
Without knowing these answers, evolution seems a lot like a faith-based belief system to me.
Have you ever attempted to ask these questions of an expert in the respective fields? An accredited evolutionary biologist or their published work, for example.
It has already been theoretically demonstrated (thanks originally to Oparin and Haldane) that the presence of water, a variety of gases, and extreme heat in a closed reaction can produce the amino acids which polymerize into proteins and enzymes that are the foundation of all living things. These proteins and enzymes naturally form into molecules of RNA over time, triggering natural selection. This is the change from inorganic to organic you asked for; I learned this (relearned) with 15 seconds of research having literally copied your question into google search.
You can get as deep into this subject as you like because it's very intense and complicated science. Some of it is still on the bleeding edge of discovery. Don't ask me, do the research and have a good day.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 12:34
The 'or' isn't organic or inorganic.
It is chemical or biological, which isn't right either but is closer. If 'organic', even with out the 'greeny' stupidity, is the benchmark, you'd lose right there because there are plenty of organic chemicals in the universe that are not linked to biological processes. Amino acids have been found on comets and asteroids. The building blocks are there. Hydrophobic compounds form layers and micelles, cellular in nature. Billions of years, billions of galaxies, billions of stars, with billions of planets.
Evolution isn't creation
Organisms also don't react to their environment, they are constantly mutating and those changes sometimes are advantageous and sometimes not. You do have different gene expression due to natural effects which can look like genetic change, when it is really just expression of those genes.
Conciseness is a pretty good trick. I do think that scientists underestimate it. The rush for AI I think will go the way of the flying car. Never quite getting out of the prototype stage. Humans are, if you want to quantify it, exceedingly robust and complex creatures. I always find it interesting that we want to replicate cognizance, but we don't know what it actually is. That the best AI solutions are basically 'black boxes' that we don't understand or can audit is either humorous or frightening.
When do we start talking about sex bots?
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 12:44
Have you ever attempted to ask these questions of an expert in the respective fields? An accredited evolutionary biologist or their published work, for example.
It has already been theoretically demonstrated (thanks originally to Oparin and Haldane) that the presence of water, a variety of gases, and extreme heat in a closed reaction can produce the amino acids which polymerize into proteins and enzymes that are the foundation of all living things. These proteins and enzymes naturally form into molecules of RNA over time,
Insert Far Side cartoon "Then a miracle occurs"....
triggering natural selection. This is the change from inorganic to organic you asked for; I learned this (relearned) with 15 seconds of research having literally copied your question into google search.
You can get as deep into this subject as you like because it's very intense and complicated science. Some of it is still on the bleeding edge of discovery. Don't ask me, do the research and have a good day.
I'm not a Garden or Eden guy, but that is a bit of a weak argument. No one in the lab has gotten anywhere near an actual life form. That life is made out of the stuff that naturally can occur is a pretty good sign that life wasn't intelligently designed, but the chances are exceedingly rare- but not zero. (Hence my comment about billions and billions) For a start, all you need is some kind reaction that produces a membrane from some kind of proto catalyst. THen through random chance you can sartt to hang more complex self-replicating mechanisms that give the 'thing' more likelihood of survival and replication.
So what was the first step in evolution? How exactly did the change from inorganic to organic occur? How exactly did the change from nonliving inorganic to life occur?
Without knowing these answers, evolution seems a lot like a faith-based belief system to me.
TBH.... I have no damn clue. I can talk about organic chemistry, biochemistry, ion bonds, valence shells, evolutionary theory (and there are interesting studies showing population phenotype changing quickly). I can muddle through basic astronomy and physics. I had an anthropology minor and think cultural differences are pretty cool.
But I have no idea how a cluster of atoms suddenly makes a copy of itself and the they start becoming legos and organisms form. If there is a God, that's where he works.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 14:29
TBH.... I have no damn clue. I can talk about organic chemistry, biochemistry, ion bonds, valence shells, evolutionary theory (and there are interesting studies showing population phenology changing quickly). I can muddle through basic astronomy and physics. I had an anthropology minor and think cultural differences are pretty cool.
But I have no idea how a cluster of atoms suddenly makes a copy of itself and the they start becoming legos and organisms form. If there is a God, that's where he works.
Then you aren't trying very hard... Atoms 'cluster' into amino acids pretty regularly. That amino acids are basic to life and are naturally occurring doesn't seem interesting? If we were made out of stuff not found in nature that would be far better evidence. But even as rare as liquid water seems to be scale that at billions, or billions of billions of planets and moons... Look at Io. It is a chemical reactor the size of the moon. Not saying there is 'life' there, but it's been around for 4.5 billion years. And it is one moon around one planet. The earth is actually hampered because of its solid core. The surface and not the interior are available for a biosphere.
Have you ever attempted to ask these questions of an expert in the respective fields? An accredited evolutionary biologist or their published work, for example.
It has already been theoretically demonstrated (thanks originally to Oparin and Haldane) that the presence of water, a variety of gases, and extreme heat in a closed reaction can produce the amino acids which polymerize into proteins and enzymes that are the foundation of all living things. These proteins and enzymes naturally form into molecules of RNA over time, triggering natural selection. This is the change from inorganic to organic you asked for; I learned this (relearned) with 15 seconds of research having literally copied your question into google search.
You can get as deep into this subject as you like because it's very intense and complicated science. Some of it is still on the bleeding edge of discovery. Don't ask me, do the research and have a good day.
Like this guy? Born again Christian, top geneticist, and head of the NIH might know a thing about the topic:
"It is certainly true in the United States that there is an uneasiness about certain aspects of science, particularly evolution, because it conflicts, in some people’s minds, with their sense of how we all came to be. But you know, if you are a believer in God, it’s hard to imagine that God would somehow put this incontrovertible evidence in front of us about our relationship to other living organisms and expect us to disbelieve it. I mean, that doesn't make sense at all. " - Francis Collins
One thing that hasn't been touched on in this thread is the concept of genetic memory. Everything that was a part of your predecessor ancestors, is part of you. I think there is something to it, and I'll explain.
Back in my Army days I had a chance to visit the village of my ancestor who came to New Mexico in the early 1620's. The village also happens to have the same name as my surname, and our history there goes back to the 1100's. I was on leave and decided to go visit the place, even though I had never been there, nor seen any current pictures. Any relatives that had lived there had died out or moved to bigger cities. As I walked around this village, I kept looking to this one house on the side of a hill, and the house was very old. I continued sightseeing but my focus kept shifting back to the house on the hill.
I finally decided to hike up the hill and met an old woman who was widowed, but had lived in the house some 60 years. It turns out this old stone house dated from the early 1800's and was built on the site of an earlier house. I found out this was the location of the birth of my ancestor, born there in 1598, who arrived in the colony of New Mexico in 1622.
Something seemed familiar about the place; almost calming, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Not until I spent time talking with this elderly woman and a subsequent visit with the local historian did I know for sure that was my ancestral home location. How do you explain that? I'm not sure. My father or grandfather had no information on that location, but apparently my great grandfather (1856-1937) knew some family lore about it. I think it is possible that all of us receive certain information genetically that goes beyond physical traits, and is something extra beyond environmental influences.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 17:17
So God sat down Adam, Eve, Cain, Able and Seth and handed back their exams on Grand Unified Theory and the Me particle. Very disappointing, everyone was getting an F. God started thinking that maybe the Dolphins would be a better way to go, or just up-speech some different monkees. God starts again with strong and weak nuclear forces- all to blank stares. So he gives them some paper and says take this down, "In the beginning....."
The bible is a story of good and evil. It isn't an operating manual for the universe.
OH58- I remember a study that if you puree earth worms and feed them to new earth worms, the new earth worms learn the skills that the first earthworms had been taught. I have no idea how you train an earthworm, or test an earthworm. Seems like a waste of good bait.
LMT Shooter
02-10-20, 17:30
Have you ever attempted to ask these questions of an expert in the respective fields? An accredited evolutionary biologist or their published work, for example.
It has already been theoretically demonstrated (thanks originally to Oparin and Haldane) that the presence of water, a variety of gases, and extreme heat in a closed reaction can produce the amino acids which polymerize into proteins and enzymes that are the foundation of all living things. These proteins and enzymes naturally form into molecules of RNA over time, triggering natural selection. This is the change from inorganic to organic you asked for; I learned this (relearned) with 15 seconds of research having literally copied your question into google search.
You can get as deep into this subject as you like because it's very intense and complicated science. Some of it is still on the bleeding edge of discovery. Don't ask me, do the research and have a good day.
I've seen many, many videos & read many, many articles that are supposed to answer these questions. I have yet to come across a solid answer that convinces me that the creation of life is explainable in a way that excludes the possibility of a divine power. Many experts feel that the mathematical odds against life forming spontaneously are too high based on the chain of chemical reactions that must take place to support the various theories. Again, these are my points:
1- Belief in the creation of life without divine intervention and evolution is faith based, just like belief in God.
There is no scientific proof for much of it, just theory. I am not saying that the theory is wrong, as I stated earlier, this may have all been God's plan.
2- Science does not by its nature require that one disbelieve in a higher power.
Scientists who feel that their job is to disprove religious beliefs are working with preconceived notions that taint their work & undermine their ability to do true science, which requires one to accept that they do not know some answers, thus the reason that science exists, to find out how things work in the real world.
LMT Shooter
02-10-20, 17:39
Leuthas, thank you for being polite& respectful in your reply, I sincerely appreciate it.
To those who have chosen to reply with belittling, demeaning, and insulting comments regarding religion, thank you for proving one of my points for me.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 17:43
The proof is that we are here. The problem with God creating us is that he is an intermediary, something had to create him. Mathematical odds? Billions to the power of billions to the power of billions- on planetary scales. Blind chicken eventually finds a kernel of life.
And frankly, if humans were designed, we'd all be on the recall list. Some clever engineering for random chance, but what a crappy clean paper design. I would expect far better craftsmanship from an omnipotent being. Plus, why share 99% commonality with the next closest model. GM would be embarrassed with that differentiation between brands.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-10-20, 18:01
Leuthas, thank you for being polite& respectful in your reply, I sincerely appreciate it.
To those who have chosen to reply with belittling, demeaning, and insulting comments regarding religion, thank you for proving one of my points for me.
I hope you aren't referring to me, because this is the nice warm and fuzzy version of the discussion. I'm Catholic and a degreed chemist- no issues with balancing religion and science. I just don't accept people that just throw up their hands and saw- it must have been God. Just like don't accept that guy on the History Channel with a messed up hair who concludes that since its so complex it must have been aliens. At best, God is a constant gardener that is running a billion year Rube Goldberg experiment to make sentient life. Well played, almost lost it there a couple of times. The dinosaur-comet thing has to be the best plot twist or literal Dues Ex Machina of all time.
Frankly, I think that Particle Physics is a shell game that God plays with us-- oh, just one more level and you'll have all the answers... DOH!
I gave up when I got to the bit about the talking snake.
So God sat down Adam, Eve, Cain, Able and Seth and handed back their exams on Grand Unified Theory and the Me particle. Very disappointing, everyone was getting an F. God started thinking that maybe the Dolphins would be a better way to go, or just up-speech some different monkees. God starts again with strong and weak nuclear forces- all to blank stares. So he gives them some paper and says take this down, "In the beginning....."
The bible is a story of good and evil. It isn't an operating manual for the universe.
OH58- I remember a study that if you puree earth worms and feed them to new earth worms, the new earth worms learn the skills that the first earthworms had been taught. I have no idea how you train an earthworm, or test an earthworm. Seems like a waste of good bait.
The world would have been better off with Lilith me thinks but I digress.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just...AMEN brother...Amen.
To me...evolution has been about as "overwhelmingly validated" as the made up impeachment crap about President Trump.
I am a pragmatist and believe in evolution, but with caveats. One can believe in a Higher Power and still understand that our world has continually changed since millions of years ago. Why the two are often separated bewilders me.
In nature there is clear lineage as time has progressed, be it dinosaurs down-sized to iguanas (yes, an oversimplification), plants that have changed/morphed, and of course the human lines.
Consciousness as we know it came about somewhere at some time. Was it Austrolopithicus? Zinjanthropus? Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? (My mom's first cousin was an anthropologist so I recall these terms from when I was a kid in the 70's and was interested in such things). The monkey-to-man timeline and graph always fascinated me.
If there is a Higher Power why would accepting evolution be such a no-go? The two are not mutually exclusive.
Back to consciousness.....where/when did it manifest? Where along that pre-human to human timeline did it pop up? Was it gradual (if such a thing as consciousness can be gradually introduced to a species)?
I have often wondered if we ever made contact with an advanced civilization from another galaxy and asked the obvious question---"Is there something after we die or our life-form extinguishes?"---would they laugh at us as fools or sit us down and say "Oh, you haven't figured it out yet have you?" Because a Higher Power would apply to ALL life in the Universe if it existed.
LMT Shooter
02-10-20, 18:10
I hope you aren't referring to me, because this is the nice warm and fuzzy version of the discussion. I'm Catholic and a degreed chemist- no issues with balancing religion and science. I just don't accept people that just throw up their hands and saw- it must have been God. Just like don't accept that guy on the History Channel with a messed up hair who concludes that since its so complex it must have been aliens. At best, God is a constant gardener that is running a billion year Rube Goldberg experiment to make sentient life. Well played, almost lost it there a couple of times. The dinosaur-comet thing has to be the best plot twist or literal Dues Ex Machina of all time.
Frankly, I think that Particle Physics is a shell game that God plays with us-- oh, just one more level and you'll have all the answers... DOH!
I took no offense at any of your posts, and my post wasn't directed at you.
I'm glad to hear that you're one who can balance science with the possibility of a divine power. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like that's an extremely rare thing these days, which is a shame. Many of the people famous for their work in science saw their work as a means to explain how God's universe works. Nowdays, it seems like all scientists feel their job is disproving the existence of God.
I took no offense at any of your posts, and my post wasn't directed at you.
I'm glad to hear that you're one who can balance science with the possibility of a divine power. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like that's an extremely rare thing these days, which is a shame. Many of the people famous for their work in science saw their work as a means to explain how God's universe works. Nowdays, it seems like all scientists feel their job is disproving the existence of God.
As I said in my previous post, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You evolved from an Ape. Accept it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My past wives claimed I have Ape in my ancestry but they never said I actually evolved.
I'll be that guy though.... I learned a new word today. Sentience . Can't believe I've never heard that. I could be evolving!!
The proof is that we are here. The problem with God creating us is that he is an intermediary, something had to create him. Mathematical odds? Billions to the power of billions to the power of billions- on planetary scales. Blind chicken eventually finds a kernel of life.
And frankly, if humans were designed, we'd all be on the recall list. Some clever engineering for random chance, but what a crappy clean paper design. I would expect far better craftsmanship from an omnipotent being. Plus, why share 99% commonality with the next closest model. GM would be embarrassed with that differentiation between brands.
And this is why this is about as idiotic a discussion as we can possibly have.
People are trying to apply science (ie. that which is known for certain) to the supernatural (that which cannot be defined or limited by what we know) or worse applying the supernatural to science.
So it comes down to this, there either is or isn't a god. There is absolutely no evidence to support either position. There is nothing that proves, or even strongly suggests a god exists and by the exact same token there is nothing that proves, or even strongly suggests a god does not exist. If we apply science, we are completely limited in both cases by what is known based upon reliable evidence.
Now if people want to feel or believe that some parts of science reinforce their belief in any particular religion, so long as they aren't using it as an excuse to blow up buildings...well in my mind they should simply go with god and have a nice day.
Nothing can be resolved by debate and nothing is going to be resolved by debate because debate without irrefutable evidence is just a competition of opinion. My father and uncle always come to mind, my father was a doctor and in later life a teacher of environmental biology who was completely scientifically grounded. My uncle was a nuclear engineer who had a near death / short term death experience and strongly believes he met Jesus and was sent back with a religion mandate and later would also become deacon of a very orthodox church.
They never argued about evolution. My father knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated his brothers beliefs and my uncle knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated my fathers beliefs, for all he know evolution was simply gods tool. They never argued about this subject, they spent most of their time talking about guns, hunting and cuban food.
If we are going to dig deeper, there is no reason to believe the universe is young. Just we are.
I would have to agree with that. If our Universe is not old then pretty much everything we know about physics would be wrong or have been altered such that we are unable to reason it. I doubt the latter would be reasonable.
I'm with the old Universe, Young Humans.
As I said in my previous post, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that they don't have to be, but at this point in humanity's knowledge curve, the science aspect of it makes more sense to me than magic and institutionalized superstition. Until we know more and we're talking science rather than leap of faith, I'm going to go with straight evolution.
I agree that they don't have to be, but at this point in humanity's knowledge curve, the science aspect of it makes more sense to me than magic and institutionalized superstition. Until we know more and we're talking science rather than leap of faith, I'm going to go with straight evolution.
Oh don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution of some sort as science tells us so.....it isn't a "leap of faith" to me. But I also don't think that if you believe in God that you can't believe in evolution. I'm not a religious person but I don't see the need for a polarizing divide between the two.
Oh don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution of some sort as science tells us so.....it isn't a "leap of faith" to me. But I also don't think that if you believe in God that you can't believe in evolution. I'm not a religious person but I don't see the need for a polarizing divide between the two.
Yes, I agree. With the appropriate mental contortions one could fully believe in both, I suppose. Or, with less contortion, varying degrees of each. Personally, I lean almost entirely one way rather than the other. I respect those who adhere to a different ratio, but I've never found the arguments for that perspective to be at all persuasive.
I can't believe no one has posted this from the first season of HBO's True Detective where one character declares that human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t38ub_BchNE
vicious_cb
02-10-20, 21:52
I've seen many, many videos & read many, many articles that are supposed to answer these questions. I have yet to come across a solid answer that convinces me that the creation of life is explainable in a way that excludes the possibility of a divine power. Many experts feel that the mathematical odds against life forming spontaneously are too high based on the chain of chemical reactions that must take place to support the various theories. Again, these are my points:
1- Belief in the creation of life without divine intervention and evolution is faith based, just like belief in God.
There is no scientific proof for much of it, just theory. I am not saying that the theory is wrong, as I stated earlier, this may have all been God's plan.
2- Science does not by its nature require that one disbelieve in a higher power.
Scientists who feel that their job is to disprove religious beliefs are working with preconceived notions that taint their work & undermine their ability to do true science, which requires one to accept that they do not know some answers, thus the reason that science exists, to find out how things work in the real world.
Look at the video I posted, watch how simple things form complexity with a very limited set of rules. Now think how complex real molecules are, now expand the number of permutations that can occur over billions of years.
vicious_cb
02-10-20, 21:54
And this is why this is about as idiotic a discussion as we can possibly have.
People are trying to apply science (ie. that which is known for certain) to the supernatural (that which cannot be defined or limited by what we know) or worse applying the supernatural to science.
So it comes down to this, there either is or isn't a god. There is absolutely no evidence to support either position. There is nothing that proves, or even strongly suggests a god exists and by the exact same token there is nothing that proves, or even strongly suggests a god does not exist. If we apply science, we are completely limited in both cases by what is known based upon reliable evidence.
Now if people want to feel or believe that some parts of science reinforce their belief in any particular religion, so long as they aren't using it as an excuse to blow up buildings...well in my mind they should simply go with god and have a nice day.
Nothing can be resolved by debate and nothing is going to be resolved by debate because debate without irrefutable evidence is just a competition of opinion. My father and uncle always come to mind, my father was a doctor and in later life a teacher of environmental biology who was completely scientifically grounded. My uncle was a nuclear engineer who had a near death / short term death experience and strongly believes he met Jesus and was sent back with a religion mandate and later would also become deacon of a very orthodox church.
They never argued about evolution. My father knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated his brothers beliefs and my uncle knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated my fathers beliefs, for all he know evolution was simply gods tool. They never argued about this subject, they spent most of their time talking about guns, hunting and cuban food.
Or we live in simulation...maybe God is the substrate the simulation is running on
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgodofall.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2Fmind-blown.gif&f=1&nofb=1
People are trying to apply science (ie. that which is known for certain)...
That's my whole problem with the situation and science. It is always taken as "certain" from science, but the cream of the crop scientists will most often say ... "and this is where we don't know".
Well no kidding... that's the 'crux of the biscuit' as FZ would say. ... or if you're a Thomas Dolby fan "she blinded me with science".
I personally don't care where people fall on the believe vs science vs whatever spectrum. I do feel uplifted by people that, for their own personal journeys in life try to go on their private journeys and relate back what they find. Here's what I found, I believe in "x" you decide how it fits your life.
They never argued about evolution. My father knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated his brothers beliefs and my uncle knew there was nothing he knew FOR SURE that invalidated my fathers beliefs, for all he know evolution was simply gods tool. They never argued about this subject, they spent most of their time talking about guns, hunting and cuban food.
That's what always gets me. When you meet someone that thinks your 'deep world' outlook is bullshit yet you fully respect them and want to hang out and get to know them and actually be 'alive' as part of a conflicting union. You are told once how everyone feels and nothing more needs to be said. If you both find yourselves on a plane going down one prays, one says 'just my luck'.
It's almost like we are trying to prove the center of a magnet. Is it positive? Is it negative?
I'm kind of a "Chocolate Jesus" type person but I do believe in a singular creator. I'm not smart enough to submit proof under examination. That's just my gut feeling and it's served me this far.
I've stopped trying to convince people to be anything except a Liberal voter. In fact I don't even do that. I try to convince people to vote against Democrats. I don't care what they believe in.
Why can't the current theory be challenged without it being about religion?
I thought science was based on theories and testing them?
Science is a religion. It's simply protected in a different manner. All group thought is a religion.
Atheists claim to have no religion and in doing so have a 'religion'.
If there is anyone of sound and educated mind that has no feeling, no desire, no wants, no wishes, no remembrances, no nothing, in an instant when they are going to part this physical world.... I would love to know what goes through their minds in the instant they are pronounced dead of this life.
Science is a religion. It's simply protected in a different manner. All group thought is a religion.
Atheists claim to have no religion and in doing so have a 'religion'.
If there is anyone of sound and educated mind that has no feeling, no desire, no wants, no wishes, no remembrances, no nothing, in an instant when they are going to part this physical world.... I would love to know what goes through their minds in the instant they are pronounced dead of this life.
I'm an atheist. What is my religion ?
Whatever gets you through life. What you put your heart and soul into. When your feet hit the floor in the morning and a thought of 'this is real' goes through your mind... maybe that thought is your religion. Maybe that is what you live for. Maybe your religion is greater and when your feet hit the floor it is a beginning to your greater beliefs and desires.
You tell me. Don't confuse my text for being anti atheist. I worked for an atheist for seven years for $0 and feel like I failed the contribution to the societal gift being presented. So "I'm an atheist" is insignificant to me out of context.
To me you are simply a name on a forum saying "I'm an atheist' but I'm sure to you and people that know you, you are much more. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume you 'believe you should' .... and that would form your religion, your home, your church, your religion.
I'm not suggesting religion is a cage. It's a state of mind that harbors intense calmness and attractive power.
vicious_cb
02-10-20, 23:31
Why can't the current theory be challenged without it being about religion?
I thought science was based on theories and testing them?
Because the OP decided to make a thread about a random brain fart some 15 yo who just smoked some pot would ponder.
Your thoughts arent deep and no one cares about them. This is the same problem leftist have. Keep your religious beliefs and your politics to yourself.
Whatever gets you through life. What you put your heart and soul into. When your feet hit the floor in the morning and a thought of 'this is real' goes through your mind... maybe that thought is your religion. Maybe that is what you live for. Maybe your religion is greater and when your feet hit the floor it is a beginning to your greater beliefs and desires.
You tell me. Don't confuse my text for being anti atheist. I worked for an atheist for seven years for $0 and feel like I failed the contribution to the societal gift being presented. So "I'm an atheist" is insignificant to me out of context.
To me you are simply a name on a forum saying "I'm an atheist' but I'm sure to you and people that know you, you are much more. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume you 'believe you should' .... and that would form your religion, your home, your church, your religion.
I'm not suggesting religion is a cage. It's a state of mind that harbors intense calmness and attractive power.
I'm an atheist because I do not recognise any supernatural gods, that makes me an atheist
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
h
Similar:
nonbeliever
nonthe
Or we live in simulation...maybe God is the substrate the simulation is running on
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgodofall.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2Fmind-blown.gif&f=1&nofb=1
Or maybe nothing exists, you aren't here and I am not here. The universe doesn't even exist and everything...all of it is just the day dream imaginations of Big Purple Kid.
I do not recognise
That's cool. If you do not "x". You have some form of understanding life. You are questioning religion. I do not have your answer. I wonder why you have a question. We may be in the same boat.
That's my whole problem with the situation and science. It is always taken as "certain" from science, but the cream of the crop scientists will most often say ... "and this is where we don't know".
Science has seriously defined limits. It only knows what we know and that is all it knows. And every time we learn anything knew we usually also discover many of the things we thought would be true aren't even close. Other times new knowledge complete invalidates things we were just about positive were true.
Take the universe, most people think of it in terms of the entire universe. In reality it is only the "visible universe" and we only know of it's presumed scale and age by how far we can see with the technology we have. It is probably a safe bet that we haven't seen anything beyond our mostly irrelevant part of the universe where we reside. The idea that we have a full understanding in scope or scale is very presumptuous.
But so far science is the best "tool for learning" that we possess even with it's faults and limitations.
Why can't the current theory be challenged without it being about religion?
I thought science was based on theories and testing them?
Lots of nonsense is presented as science. There are a lot of qualifications to be a "theory", any half thought out idea doesn't qualify as theory, most of what is called theory is nothing more than "scientifically based ideas" which many times is nothing more than sophisticated science fiction.
And if you have enough evidence to support an actual theory, most of the time we lack the means to attempt to falsify them or get repeated results. We still don't have a working theory of gravity even though it clearly exists and people use it every day.
And some people do practice science as religion, complete with dogma. It's not very good science and it's usually crowded with metaphysical ideas to make it sound "sciency" but it's pseudo science at best, nonsense at worst.
Religion is what we believe, it doesn't require evidence even if there is evidence in some cases. Religion also tends to function in the supernatural, and if the supernatural actually exists, then it isn't bound by science, rules of science and science becomes irrelevant IF the supernatural actually exists.
We know less about supernatural things than our current grasp on science so proving anything supernatural is probably not going to happen in our lifetime or in the lifetime of our species. Because if there really is an omnipotent creator out there someplace, and he doesn't want his yearbook photo taken, he can probably make sure that doesn't happen....well forever.
Science is a religion. It's simply protected in a different manner. All group thought is a religion.
Atheists claim to have no religion and in doing so have a 'religion'.
If there is anyone of sound and educated mind that has no feeling, no desire, no wants, no wishes, no remembrances, no nothing, in an instant when they are going to part this physical world.... I would love to know what goes through their minds in the instant they are pronounced dead of this life.
I disagree, see above. We can practice non dogmatic, agenda based science. Sadly not every scientist does that. In fairness, a lot of evangelists also fall short of their teachings. In true science we spend almost as much time learning how or why we were wrong about many things as we do learning about new things.
Every time we discover a new dinosaur fossil, we often have to evaluate other dinosaur fossils to pass the "If this is true, then it must be true every single time" test and the fossil record isn't always kind to us. We spend a lot of time playing "one of these things is not like the other" and while some are content to ignore a glaring inconsistency and engage in a little scientific dogma, there is always that guy who is going "But it doesn't fit...the math doesn't even work" and if he writes a strong enough paper we have to reevaluate just about everything.
If you want to have some fun, find Scientific American journals from the 1920s and 30s complete with drawings of Mars by Percival Lowell which often include "canali" which came to be known as canals, which other learned men took as inescapable evidence of an advanced martian civilization that was drawing water from it's polar caps and diverting it to martian habitats. A lot of people were simply positive that not only was there life on Mars, but that they might be far more technologically sophisticated than us.
But at the time, based upon what little we could see, it wasn't a completely ridiculous "scientifically based idea."
And of course the main reason science will continue to not be religion, is science will continue to be wrong with every new discovery and everyone will be forced to abandon long cherished "easy to grasp" beliefs and start wrapping their heads around ideas that aren't always friendly to the limits of the human mind.
I'm still kind of pissed about the whole Pluto thing, I thought for sure that is where we'd find the ice monsters.
I'm an atheist because I do not recognise any supernatural gods, that makes me an atheist
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
h
Similar:
nonbeliever
nonthe
But unless you can prove there are no supernatural gods, and it's damn hard to disprove a negative, you're probably agnostic. That is unless you want to simply engage in a belief system that requires no evidence THEN you can continue to be an atheist.
I know that I don't know. That is the one tenet of my "faith".
What gets me about the OP's post is the idea that human sentience could not have evolved, therefore had to be created by and omnipotent, omniscient, super-being who spontaneously created himself.
I always refer to my Christian understanding, because that is one of my reference points in life. I had an Astronomy Professor in college who actually claimed to be a Christian, and was able to not let symbolic Biblical stories affect his science. We had a discussion off the record about Free Will and Predestination.
The Bible says God can see Past, Present and Future in an instant. That gets into some Astro-Physics about space time continuum, multi-universe, etc. Yet we are also led to believe that we have Free Will - the choice to alter our present and future by actions we take. If it is already known what the future is, where is the chance in this since it is already known what will happen? Is it possible that Free Will and Chance Happenings are only an illusion in the mind of Man?
I just snapped my fingers, not knowing I would do that five minutes before, yet before the beginning of time it was known I would do that motion at that very moment. This whole business of a Supreme Being, Consciousness, etc. have to be tied together somehow in something that is so huge it pushes the limit of the human brain.
But unless you can prove there are no supernatural gods, and it's damn hard to disprove a negative, you're probably agnostic. That is unless you want to simply engage in a belief system that requires no evidence THEN you can continue to be an atheist.
Given the fact that there are thousands of supernatural gods recorded and not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a even one it's obvious to any sane person they are all false. :)
The Bible says God can see Past, Present and Future in an instant.
If that's the case then the bible shows that god is a nasty and useless cunt.
Life's a Hillary
02-11-20, 08:29
The proof is that we are here. The problem with God creating us is that he is an intermediary, something had to create him. Mathematical odds? Billions to the power of billions to the power of billions- on planetary scales. Blind chicken eventually finds a kernel of life.
And frankly, if humans were designed, we'd all be on the recall list. Some clever engineering for random chance, but what a crappy clean paper design. I would expect far better craftsmanship from an omnipotent being. Plus, why share 99% commonality with the next closest model. GM would be embarrassed with that differentiation between brands.
Unless this is all a simulation and none of us are actually here ;)
It's become clear to me nobody here has read the article. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT CREATION IN IT.
You all just want to argue about your religion.
I always refer to my Christian understanding, because that is one of my reference points in life. I had an Astronomy Professor in college who actually claimed to be a Christian, and was able to not let symbolic Biblical stories affect his science.
Uh huh. The trick is the definition. Some people would say the entire bible is a symbolic Biblical story and others would say the entire thing is the direct Word of God. We decide what we believe and then shape our interpretation of the bible to fit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
We decide what we believe and then shape our interpretation of the bible to fit. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And every cult has their own interpretations, that's why there are many bibles all saying different things. It's a joke.
If that's the case then the bible shows that god is a nasty and useless cunt.
Or we don't have the ability to comprehend the infinite. Some of these writings from 3000 years ago offer bits of information that can be compared to scientific fact. The concept of seeing Past, Present and Future all at the same time is quite advanced when in the context of some Supreme Being. Knowing the future or every possible future action gets into the multiverse area, which I think is interesting.
Uh huh. The trick is the definition. Some people would say the entire bible is a symbolic Biblical story and others would say the entire thing is the direct Word of God. We decide what we believe and then shape our interpretation of the bible to fit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The difference between me and the average Christian is that I look at a lot of the Bible as figurative, symbolic stories which convey a greater concept. The most uneducated individual can obtain value from these stories, or the Phd in Quantum Physics can also get something out of it. Unlike the Creationist who twists science to fit the Bible, I take passages of scripture and compare it to scientific fact. It's a case of what I can hold in my hand or see with my own eyes versus some cryptic story.
Then you aren't trying very hard... Atoms 'cluster' into amino acids pretty regularly. That amino acids are basic to life and are naturally occurring doesn't seem interesting? If we were made out of stuff not found in nature that would be far better evidence. But even as rare as liquid water seems to be scale that at billions, or billions of billions of planets and moons... Look at Io. It is a chemical reactor the size of the moon. Not saying there is 'life' there, but it's been around for 4.5 billion years. And it is one moon around one planet. The earth is actually hampered because of its solid core. The surface and not the interior are available for a biosphere.
What part am I not trying hard about?
I totally understand why a few carbon and oxygen molecules can make an amino acid. I understand how they align into larger molecules and go on to form tertiary and quaternary structures. I'm fine with those going on to cluster, and how lipids can form a bilayer, then folding over and randomly trapping amino acids.
But for that bobble of lipids and proteins to copy themself? Add a few sugar molecules to become RNA, then keep getting more complex....
That's where the A+B=D occurs.
I'm not totally in the religion or science only camps. My personal view is something laid groundrules out (sure, call it God), and we're how they've played out. Not quite Intelligent Design, but in that spectrum. We're just getting to the point to start figuring them out.
Give a Neanderthal a computer and eventually they'll reverse engineer the coding, given enough time.
What part am I not trying hard about?
I totally understand why a few carbon and oxygen molecules can make an amino acid. I understand how they align into larger molecules and go on to form tertiary and quaternary structures. I'm fine with those going on to cluster, and how lipids can form a bilayer, then folding over and randomly trapping amino acids.
But for that bobble of lipids and proteins to copy themself? Add a few sugar molecules to become RNA, then keep getting more complex....
That's where the A+B=D occurs.
I'm not totally in the religion or science only camps. My personal view is something laid groundrules out (sure, call it God), and we're how they've played out. Not quite Intelligent Design, but in that spectrum. We're just getting to the point to start figuring them out.
Give a Neanderthal a computer and eventually they'll reverse engineer the coding, given enough time.
If we remove random chance of it happening per above, then that leaves various possibilities such as panspermia, aliens, or higher powers/God.
I'm agnostic to any of those possibilities, but until evidence (cuz that's how science do...) suggest otherwise, the working hypothesis remains and should. If given the right conditions, is life common or uncommon? As we are working with only one example to study at this time, the answer is impossible to answer with any certainty. A good discussion RNA etc as it applies to life on earth:
https://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html
Given the fact that there are thousands of supernatural gods recorded and not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a even one it's obvious to any sane person they are all false. :)
I don't believe there is an Easter Bunny, but I know I can not disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny with the scientific method. The evidence for proof of existence or proof of non existence doesn't exist. And what we find to be "very likely" hasn't always proven to be true, that's all I'm saying.
I don't believe there is an Easter Bunny, but I know I can not disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny with the scientific method. The evidence for proof of existence or proof of non existence doesn't exist. And what we find to be "very likely" hasn't always proven to be true, that's all I'm saying.
Very well put.
I don't believe there is an Easter Bunny, but I know I can not disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny with the scientific method. The evidence for proof of existence or proof of non existence doesn't exist. And what we find to be "very likely" hasn't always proven to be true, that's all I'm saying.
Yup...it's all faith based like you very well stated earlier but didn't seem to catch. I do find it amusing in these discussions when folks feel a need to get nasty trying to disprove the other side while showing their own brazen dogma. Insulting one's religion they very well understand they know hold dear really adds nothing of value to the discussion.
<><
Yup...it's all faith based like you very well stated earlier but didn't seem to catch. I do find it amusing in these discussions when folks feel a need to get nasty trying to disprove the other side while showing their own brazen dogma. Insulting one's religion they very well understand they know hold dear really adds nothing of value to the discussion.
<><
When it comes to discussing personal beliefs with others who are of a different persuasion, there's no need to become hostile. I learn by listening and reading.
This discussion demonstrates the thought process by members of modern western civilization, but what about the mind of primitive tribes or even the Native American? I have a lot of contact with Native Americans in New Mexico - Apaches, Pueblos and Navajos. Their oral traditions are quite fascinating to hear. Even the Navajos firmly believe in their own creation story which also begins with a primitive earth, then moves into God Like beings as their ancestors. They believe in Ghost Sickness and refuse to spend any time around the Pre-Columbian ruins or pottery artifacts and stone tools found in this State. They also believe that animals can take a more human like form - Skinwalkers. I have a part-time Navajo wrangler who does the rodeo circuit, and he showed me a place where he saw a German Shepherd running on it's hind legs chasing his vehicle late one night. Neighbors in that area of the Navajo Reservation claim to have seen the same thing.
It seems in life the more we know, the more questions we have, which demonstrates we really don't know anything.
I don't believe there is an Easter Bunny, but I know I can not disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny with the scientific method. The evidence for proof of existence or proof of non existence doesn't exist. And what we find to be "very likely" hasn't always proven to be true, that's all I'm saying.
A lot of us don’t care about proving or disproving anything. We just live our lives according to whatever ethic we were taught and leave the proving/disproving arguments to the rest of you that are more passionate about it. I’m sure it’s an interesting intellectual exercise, but the root of the issue has little in the way of practical value.
There is simply no need for it...to me, believing we evolved from some 'primordial ooze' is harder to conceive / prove than creation or intelligent design but never felt the need to belittle anyone's faith of the matter regardless where they stand on the stated dogma. It's pretty clear the judeo christian is in the current crosshairs not only in the msm, but even among fellow shooting / firearm / hunting / fishing enthusiasts for some bizarre reason as seen here with the hostility.
I just finished reading Empire of The Summer Moon...my Nana always swore we had Comanche in our blood & yikes were those folks creepy in regards to the practices of their captives. I find it quite Fascinating all the various deities history shares & yes we all claim to be in the correct camp...some of those who don't claim any team seem to toot the loudest.
When it comes to discussing personal beliefs with others who are of a different persuasion, there's no need to become hostile. I learn by listening and reading.
This discussion demonstrates the thought process by members of modern western civilization, but what about the mind of primitive tribes or even the Native American? I have a lot of contact with Native Americans in New Mexico - Apaches, Pueblos and Navajos. Their oral traditions are quite fascinating to hear. Even the Navajos firmly believe in their own creation story which also begins with a primitive earth, then moves into God Like beings as their ancestors. They believe in Ghost Sickness and refuse to spend any time around the Pre-Columbian ruins or pottery artifacts and stone tools found in this State. They also believe that animals can take a more human like form - Skinwalkers. I have a part-time Navajo wrangler who does the rodeo circuit, and he showed me a place where he saw a German Shepherd running on it's hind legs chasing his vehicle late one night. Neighbors in that area of the Navajo Reservation claim to have seen the same thing.
It seems in life the more we know, the more questions we have, which demonstrates we really don't know anything.
Leuthas, thank you for being polite& respectful in your reply, I sincerely appreciate it.
To those who have chosen to reply with belittling, demeaning, and insulting comments regarding religion, thank you for proving one of my points for me.
My pleasure.
I'm not here to belittle the Judeo-Christian beliefs - those foundations are profoundly important to our civilizations. I was focusing on the comment relating Creation to Evolution via Faith, which I found rather short-sighted in the sense that it felt like there was some ignorance on the subject of Evolution. Understand too that I don't use the word 'ignorance' with negative connotations. I've seen the sort of thing before where a person might find themselves criticizing what they think Evolution says rather than what Evolution actually is and I felt that might be the case here, thus my reply.
Anyway, at the risk of being out of place as I see the thread has progressed without me keeping up to it, I hope to convey a point to you et al: Say we break the entire evolutionary history of man from goo to hipster into (arbitrarily) 10 steps. We know with fair certainty say steps 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and they each share a similar trend that adheres to our understand of the theory of Evolution, and in fact reinforces it. This leaves us with an ignorance of 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. Logic might dictate with reasonable accuracy the idea of what steps 6 and 7 might have been as we know the picture before and after (being steps 5 and 8), but we can not so easily determine 1, 2, and 3 because we don't have the same keys.
This leaves us with a grand question: What the hell are 1, 2, 3? I would say, with respect to science, that I don't know, but it's more likely than not 1, 2, and 3 are the products of the natural world, as all things that can be explained have been and further the idea our lack of knowledge of 1, 2, 3 indicates that 1 was a matter of intelligent design and is equal in validity to an expectation of the continuance of Evolution is not reasonable, for it introduces an entirely new concept without evidence into the equation. An expectation that the happening of life was a matter of evolution rather than intelligent design is, in my mind, one of reason rather than faith as it follows the trend of all other known factors.
If you like long, heavily punctuated run-on sentences I'll be here all week. :cool:
A lot of us don’t care about proving or disproving anything. We just live our lives according to whatever ethic we were taught and leave the proving/disproving arguments to the rest of you that are more passionate about it. I’m sure it’s an interesting intellectual exercise, but the root of the issue has little in the way of practical value.
And that is what I think everyone should do.
I'm not here to advocate one belief over another, I don't think everyone should become Buddhists simply because I enjoy aspect of the Ch'an sects. The bottom line is existentialism is a bleak world view and nihilism is even worse. So if a person can find a belief that adds meaning and value to their existence, especially if it actually helps make them a better person, then that is what they should do. It doesn't matter if some of their creation stories might be a bit iffy.
I don't believe a single word about Mormonism when it comes to how it came to be and latter day revelations. I think it's 100% made up nonsense. But if I had to spend a week with people from a religion, it's probably gonna be Mormons. They are in my experience the most genuinely nice people and seem to want to try and be nice to everyone else. I'm not saying it should be THE religion, but if it was I strongly believe there would be a lot less shit blowing up all over the place.
I don't know what the instances are of Mormons who engage in mass murder or active shooter events, but I bet they are damn near the bottom of the list even though they kind of advocate having a lot of firearms.
And they aren't the only one. Why are we here? Nobody can say for certain and back it up. But we are here and if you can find something that makes your existence at least tolerable, if not wonderful, then that is what you should do. If you find a church of people with a lot of commonality of belief, you should join. If it helps you have a happier family and raise better children, you should do that.
And if it happens that the story of Jonah and the Whale is no more valid then the story of Pinocchio and Gepetto and their whale encounter...who cares? Live your life, look after your family and be happy. Our whole lives we've learned that a lot of what we were given as "truth" was in fact something less, we can handle it.
Those stories aren't there to PROVE your religion is real, those stories aren't there to try and invalidate what we managed to learn with the scientific method, those stories are there to help you learn a lesson or to help you understand the important ideas of your religion.
Really it's a lot like kata in the martial arts. People who don't understand the point think it's a waste of time. People who haven't been taught the bunkai don't get the real value so they vigorously defend the idea according to some almost irrelevant tangent. Those who understand kata know it isn't a template for a fight and would never suggest it is, they simply take the benefit and they add it to their understanding of martial arts. And some people, even though they understand the true nature of kata and how it can be applied to combat, still simply do it as an interesting form of exercise that gives their life meaning.
All belief is shit... It's only possible to believe when you don't know, and if you don't know then what's the point ?
All belief is shit... It's only possible to believe when you don't know, and if you don't know then what's the point ?
All belief is shit. Well I completely disagree. I believe the MP5 is a magnificent SMG. I believe it because I DO KNOW. Perhaps you meant to say faith rather than belief.
All belief is shit. Well I completely disagree. I believe the MP5 is a magnificent SMG. I believe it because I DO KNOW. Perhaps you meant to say faith rather than belief.
You are obviously confused.
be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
plural noun: beliefs
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
Faith is believing is what you know ain't so...…. Mark Twain
And that is what I think everyone should do.
I'm not here to advocate one belief over another, I don't think everyone should become Buddhists simply because I enjoy aspect of the Ch'an sects. The bottom line is existentialism is a bleak world view and nihilism is even worse. So if a person can find a belief that adds meaning and value to their existence, especially if it actually helps make them a better person, then that is what they should do. It doesn't matter if some of their creation stories might be a bit iffy.
I don't believe a single word about Mormonism when it comes to how it came to be and latter day revelations. I think it's 100% made up nonsense. But if I had to spend a week with people from a religion, it's probably gonna be Mormons. They are in my experience the most genuinely nice people and seem to want to try and be nice to everyone else. I'm not saying it should be THE religion, but if it was I strongly believe there would be a lot less shit blowing up all over the place.
I don't know what the instances are of Mormons who engage in mass murder or active shooter events, but I bet they are damn near the bottom of the list even though they kind of advocate having a lot of firearms.
And they aren't the only one. Why are we here? Nobody can say for certain and back it up. But we are here and if you can find something that makes your existence at least tolerable, if not wonderful, then that is what you should do. If you find a church of people with a lot of commonality of belief, you should join. If it helps you have a happier family and raise better children, you should do that.
And if it happens that the story of Jonah and the Whale is no more valid then the story of Pinocchio and Gepetto and their whale encounter...who cares? Live your life, look after your family and be happy. Our whole lives we've learned that a lot of what we were given as "truth" was in fact something less, we can handle it.
Those stories aren't there to PROVE your religion is real, those stories aren't there to try and invalidate what we managed to learn with the scientific method, those stories are there to help you learn a lesson or to help you understand the important ideas of your religion.
Really it's a lot like kata in the martial arts. People who don't understand the point think it's a waste of time. People who haven't been taught the bunkai don't get the real value so they vigorously defend the idea according to some almost irrelevant tangent. Those who understand kata know it isn't a template for a fight and would never suggest it is, they simply take the benefit and they add it to their understanding of martial arts. And some people, even though they understand the true nature of kata and how it can be applied to combat, still simply do it as an interesting form of exercise that gives their life meaning.
Like I said...interesting intellectual exercise. But one that has been the genesis of thousands of wars and countless atrocities.
. So if a person can find a belief that adds meaning and value to their existence, especially if it actually helps make them a better person, then that is what they should do.
What's wrong with knowledge ? Surely that's better than any mad belief.
It doesn't matter if some of their creation stories might be a bit iffy.
Iffy ? Stupidity more like.
All belief is shit... It's only possible to believe when you don't know, and if you don't know then what's the point ?
In the absence of irrefutable knowledge you can quantify, all you have is belief or theory. If "All belief is shit", then you toss out a large amount of science and study, which uses theory. Sometimes theory leads to fact, sometimes it only leads to more theory.
I have a lot of beliefs, but I always strive for solid evidence in fact. Apparently you have managed to reach a level of knowledge the average person has not been able to achieve.
In the absence of irrefutable knowledge you can quantify, all you have is belief or theory. If "All belief is shit", then you toss out a large amount of science and study, which uses theory. Sometimes theory leads to fact, sometimes it only leads to more theory.
I have a lot of beliefs, but I always strive for solid evidence in fact. Apparently you have managed to reach a level of knowledge the average person has not been able to achieve.
Anything I know I know beyond doubt, everything else is just a theory and will remain a theory until proven one way or the other. Some theories make sense and are worth considering, others such as invisible gods are not.
Anything I know I know beyond doubt, everything else is just a theory and will remain a theory until proven one way or the other. Some theories make sense and are worth considering, others such as invisible gods are not.
That wouldn't work in Astrophysics when dealing with Dark Matter, estimated to amount to 85% of all Matter in the Universe. It's there, but you can't see it. All you know is that it has an influence on everything.
You should write a book on your evidence for no Supreme Intellect (God) in the universe or universes, then go on the lecture circuit. Just theorizing about it doesn't win you any prizes or loads up your bank account with royalty money. Write it and I'll buy it, provided you find a credible publisher.
That wouldn't work in Astrophysics when dealing with Dark Matter, estimated to amount to 85% of all Matter in the Universe. It's there, but you can't see it. All you know is that it has an influence on everything. I don't know that.
Anything I know I know beyond doubt, everything else is just a theory and will remain a theory until proven one way or the other. Some theories make sense and are worth considering, others such as invisible gods are not.
Pretty bold statement, care to post the list of “What Mick Boon knows beyond a doubt” for scrutiny?
Pretty bold statement, care to post the list of “What Mick Boon knows beyond a doubt” for scrutiny?
Beyond doubt to me means to know with certainty. I have no inclination to write a full list as it would go on for too long, but I am certain my name is Mick Boon. Please feel free to scrutinise :)
Beyond doubt to me means to know with certainty. I have no inclination to write a full list as it would go on for too long, but I am certain my name is Mick Boon. Please feel free to scrutinise :)
How about a short list then? How about 10 things you know with certainty. And let’s not play the silly games. Let’s make it items bigger than your birth name, say things about our physical universe.
Continue with being bold brother!
How about a short list then? How about 10 things you know with certainty. And let’s not play the silly games. Let’s make it items bigger than your birth name, say things about our physical universe.
Continue with being bold brother!
Am I supposed to take it that the game you want me play is not silly then ?
What's wrong with knowledge ? Surely that's better than any mad belief.
Iffy ? Stupidity more like.
For decades people lived satisfying lives content that Jupiter was god of all gods. That's all I'm saying. And there is nothing wrong with knowledge, but currently we can't prove a lot of stuff either way so why go titling windmills.
That other people could be wrong about their personal beliefs is hardly a tragedy. If I was going to invest time trying to change how EVERYONE thinks, it wouldn't be religion...it would be the idea that you put down your phone and drive.
For decades people lived satisfying lives content that Jupiter was god of all gods. That's all I'm saying. And there is nothing wrong with knowledge, but currently we can't prove a lot of stuff either way so why go titling windmills.
That other people could be wrong about their personal beliefs is hardly a tragedy. If I was going to invest time trying to change how EVERYONE thinks, it wouldn't be religion...it would be the idea that you put down your phone and drive.
I recently watched a video of a woman being stoned to death for insulting Islam, it was a tragedy for her. But it's not just Islam, the Christians do real nasty evil shit too.
The question I have for all the believers here is why does your God let it happen ?
I recently watched a video of a woman being stoned to death for insulting Islam, it was a tragedy for her. But it's not just Islam, the Christians do real nasty evil shit too.
The question I have for all the believers here is why does your God let it happen ?
Christians did (past tense) a lot of evil shit. When was the last crusade? When was the last witch burning? If Christians killed on the scale of other religions, THOUSANDS of Christians would kill someone every year for religious reasons.
And yeah, Islamic theocracies are savage and barbaric, today...still. They still have witch trials. They still execute people for adultery and all that other stuff. But until someone comes up with a practical solution, because "don't believe stupid stuff" doesn't seem to work in many parts of the world and honestly why should Buddhists and Shintoists have to change because Wahhabi is evil and barabaric?
But more importantly, right to belief is inherently a human right even with all of the baggage. Telling people what they can or can't believe is the beginning of dehumanizing people, even if some people actually believe some seriously stupid shit like we never actually went to the moon.
As for your question, you'll never get the answer you want. God and mysterious ways, if a person dies a horrific death but goes to heaven then that is gods plan and all that.
I recently watched a video of a woman being stoned to death for insulting Islam, it was a tragedy for her. But it's not just Islam, the Christians do real nasty evil shit too.
The question I have for all the believers here is why does your God let it happen ?
People in all groups have done evil, even athiests.
God gave us free will.
If you believe God, or a god, does not exist, you still have a belief, faith that none exists. And you still have a god that started our existence.
The only way to have no belief is to ignore the question of our origin.
believe
English
Alternative forms
* beleeve (obsolete)
Verb
(believ)
(label) To accept as true, particularly without absolute certainty (i.e., as opposed to knowing)
(Here, the speaker merely accepts the accuracy of the conditional.)
* 1611 , (King James Version of the Bible), 1:1 :
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us
*{{quote-magazine, date=2014-06-21, volume=411, issue=8892, magazine=(The Economist)
, title= Magician’s brain , passage=[Isaac Newton] was obsessed with alchemy. He spent hours copying alchemical recipes and trying to replicate them in his laboratory. He believed that the Bible contained numerological codes.}}
(label) To accept that someone is telling the truth.
(label) To have religious faith; to believe in a greater truth.
Usage notes
* The transitive verb believe and the phrasal verb (m) are similar but can have very different implications. ** To “believe” someone or something means to accept specific pieces of information as truth: believe the news'', ''believe the lead witness . To “believe a complete stranger” means to accept a stranger's story with little evidence. ** To “believe in” someone or something means to hold confidence and trust in that person or concept: believe in liberty'', ''believe in God . To “believe in one's fellow man” means to place trust and confidence in mankind. * Meanings sometimes overlap. To believe in'' a religious text would also require affirming the truth of at least the major tenets. To ''believe a religious text might likewise imply placing one's confidence and trust in it, in addition to accepting its statements as facts.
Derived terms
* believable * believability * believer * believe in * believe it or not * believe one's eyes * believe you me * disbelieve * unbelievable * unbeliever
Related terms
* belief * disbelief
Statistics
* ----
think
English
Alternative forms
* thinck (obsolete)
Verb
(label) To ponder, to go over in one's head.
:
*
*:So this was my future home, I thought ! Certainly it made a brave picture. I had seen similar ones fired-in on many a Heidelberg stein. Backed by towering hills,a sky of palest Gobelin flecked with fat, fleecy little clouds, it in truth looked a dear little city; the city of one's dreams.
*{{quote-magazine, date=2013-08-03, volume=408, issue=8847, magazine=(The Economist)
, title= Revenge of the nerds , passage=Think of banking today and the image is of grey-suited men in towering skyscrapers. Its future, however, is being shaped in converted warehouses and funky offices in San Francisco, New York and London, where bright young things in jeans and T-shirts huddle around laptops, sipping lattes or munching on free food.}}
(label) To communicate to oneself in one's mind, to try to find a solution to a problem.
:
To conceive of something or someone (usually followed by of'''; infrequently, by '''on ).
:
(label) To be of the opinion (that).
:
*
, title=(The Celebrity), chapter=3 , passage=Now all this was very fine, but not at all in keeping with the Celebrity's character as I had come to conceive it. The idea that adulation ever cloyed on him was ludicrous in itself. In fact I thought the whole story fishy, and came very near to saying so.}}
(label) To guess; to reckon.
:
(label) To consider, judge, regard, or look upon (something) as.
:
*, chapter=1
, title= Mr. Pratt's Patients, chapter=1 , passage=Thinks I to myself, “Sol, you're run off your course again. This is a rich man's summer ‘cottage’ and if you don't look out there's likely to be some nice, lively dog taking an interest in your underpinning.”}}
To plan; to be considering; to be of a mind (to do something).
*Sir (Walter Scott), (Ivanhoe)
*:The cupbearer shrugged up his shoulders in displeasure. "I thought to have lodged him in the solere chamber," said he
*
, title=(The Celebrity), chapter=4 , passage=“Well,” I answered, at first with uncertainty, then with inspiration, “he would do splendidly to lead your cotillon, if you think of having one.” ¶ “So you do not dance, Mr. Crocker?” ¶ I was somewhat set back by her perspicuity.}}
To presume; to venture.
*(Bible), (w) iii. 9
*:Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.
Synonyms
* (sense, communicate to oneself in one's mind) cogitate, ponder, reflect, ruminate; see also * opine; see also * guess (US), imagine, reckon, suppose * consider, deem, find, judge, regard; see also
Derived terms
* rethink * think about * thinker * thinko * think of * think on one's feet * think out * think over * think piece * think the world of * think twice * think up * think with one's little head * unthinkable
Related terms
* bethink * forthink * thought * thunk
Noun
(en-noun)
An act of thinking; consideration (of something).
:
Derived terms
* badthink * doublethink * goodthink * groupthink * have another think coming * rethink (noun, as in "have a rethink")
Verb
think' (''obsolete except in archaic'' ' methinks )
(label) To seem, to appear.
*:
And whanne syr launcelot sawe he myghte not ryde vp in to the montayne / he there alyghte vnder an Appel tree // And then he leid hym doune to slepe / And thenne hym thoughte there came an old man afore hym / the whiche sayd A launcelot of euylle feythe and poure byleue / wherfor is thy wille tourned soo lyghtely toward thy dedely synne
Statistics
https://wikidiff.com/believe/think
I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV
Sounds like a real nice guy ! :)
People in all groups have done evil, even athiests.
God gave us free will.
If you believe God, or a god, does not exist, you still have a belief, faith that none exists. And you still have a god that started our existence.
The only way to have no belief is to ignore the question of our origin.
Completely not true.
If a deity can be eternal or without beginning then so can anything, including the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Of course I don't have faith or belief either way, lacking any evidence to support either position I'm agnostic which means I understand we don't know.
Most atheists are simply people who don't completely subscribe to the scientific method and base their beliefs on what they find to be "most likely" given their experience. They aren't all people who know there is a god and are just stubbornly insisting they don't believe in god. And most of them are people who honestly don't believe in god and are simply tired of being subjected to religion and the harm done by religion globally. That is probably the factor that moves most people from agnostic to atheism.
As for me, I know even if I waved some kind of magic wand and all religions ceased to exist that people would simply invent new, possibly even more destructive, belief systems because humans seem to not be able to accept not knowing things. This is why we invented religions, this is why we invented science.
I wish everyone could simply move forward, with religious people abiding by their beliefs to make their lives better / more fulfilling and non religious people doing the same, but respecting everyone else and leaving them to their beliefs doesn't seem to be something humans do easily. Right now people in Africa are killing children over tribal conflicts and that doesn't even come close to religious differences.
I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV
Sounds like a real nice guy ! :)
So I'm not going to criticize. For years I had the same resentments and similar beliefs, especially when religious folks would come along and tell me I'm going to hell and my "non beliefs" is what is keeping the world from becoming perfect.
But at some point I realized I'm going to change nobody and honestly, if they aren't hurting anyone why should I want to change somebodies beliefs. As an agnostic with an existentialist philosophy my accepted realities can sometimes be bleak. I 100% really and truly wish I was confident that some kind of afterlife existed and I'd be a happier person if I really believed in some kind of creator, even if it was just deism and that "maker of everything" made us (or at least the conditions that led to us) and then promptly ignored us.
At least everything wouldn't be ultimately futile. So anyone who has that kind of belief, I wouldn't want to take that from them, especially for no better reason than I believe I'm right and I believe they are wrong. It annoys me that in some places people can't buy beer on sunday or whatever, but I still wouldn't want to take that from somebody unless they are over the line and justifying actual crimes with religion.
I know some Shintoists, and technically that means they believe just about everything has a spirit including trees. But I'm not going to give them shit and make fun of them as tree worshipers because they aren't giving me crap and telling me I need to respect the spirit of the tree. Also a lot of Shintoists are practicing religious traditions and I'm not 100% convinced they all believe every tree has a spirit. So I leave them to their beliefs and they generally leave me to mine, unless I ask about their religion.
So start a crusade if you will, but I wonder what you are hoping to gain? Those that believe will probably continue to do so, some will take offense and become adversarial and others who believe as you do will probably continue to do so. Converts aren't that common and pointing out the faults of any religion isn't a very challenging exercise, especially on the internet.
Also there is a point to atheism being little more than an alternate belief system.
I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV
Sounds like a real nice guy ! :)
But if it's all fantasy, why worry about it?
Instead, I suspect more of a fixation with it all - something that stirs deep inside - almost like a gnawing rage. At least that's a hint you've provided in post #104 supra. You're on a mission pardner that leads nowhere.....
For me, I don't worry about it. I've probably seen things in this world that would make your skin crawl with the human depravity that comes just being pure evil, if that was the motivation for the events.
So I'm not going to criticize. For years I had the same resentments and similar beliefs, especially when religious folks would come along and tell me I'm going to hell and my "non beliefs" is what is keeping the world from becoming perfect.
But at some point I realized I'm going to change nobody and honestly, if they aren't hurting anyone why should I want to change somebodies beliefs. As an agnostic with an existentialist philosophy my accepted realities can sometimes be bleak. I 100% really and truly wish I was confident that some kind of afterlife existed and I'd be a happier person if I really believed in some kind of creator, even if it was just deism and that "maker of everything" made us (or at least the conditions that led to us) and then promptly ignored us.
At least everything wouldn't be ultimately futile. So anyone who has that kind of belief, I wouldn't want to take that from them, especially for no better reason than I believe I'm right and I believe they are wrong. It annoys me that in some places people can't buy beer on sunday or whatever, but I still wouldn't want to take that from somebody unless they are over the line and justifying actual crimes with religion.
I know some Shintoists, and technically that means they believe just about everything has a spirit including trees. But I'm not going to give them shit and make fun of them as tree worshipers because they aren't giving me crap and telling me I need to respect the spirit of the tree. Also a lot of Shintoists are practicing religious traditions and I'm not 100% convinced they all believe every tree has a spirit. So I leave them to their beliefs and they generally leave me to mine, unless I ask about their religion.
So start a crusade if you will, but I wonder what you are hoping to gain? Those that believe will probably continue to do so, some will take offense and become adversarial and others who believe as you do will probably continue to do so. Converts aren't that common and pointing out the faults of any religion isn't a very challenging exercise, especially on the internet.
Also there is a point to atheism being little more than an alternate belief system.The difference between us is that you are an agnostic , whereas I am a practising atheist.
PS, I think the title of Evangelical Atheist would suit me best …
" Evangelical Atheist
An atheist that combats religion as zealously as evangelicals thrust their religious beliefs on others."
But if it's all fantasy, why worry about it?
Instead, I suspect more of a fixation with it all - something that stirs deep inside - almost like a gnawing rage. At least that's a hint you've provided in post #104 supra. You're on a mission pardner that leads nowhere.....
For me, I don't worry about it. I've probably seen things in this world that would make your skin crawl with the human depravity that comes just being pure evil, if that was the motivation for the events.
I'm not worried about it.
The difference between us is that you are an agnostic , whereas I am a practising atheist.
I'm not worried about it.
You're Not an idle observer, but one engaged in an activity - in your case, a self-described atheist who practices your craft. That's fine, but I've run into quite a number of them over the years, and just like the zealous Christian, the atheist can also be zealous. I've seen atheists who demonstrate almost bipolar ticks of rage when anything deity is mentioned; they're calm one minute and a go full blown attack the next.
Christians can be wackos; so can atheists. I avoid all the crusaders and just enjoy my personal beliefs and knowledge, and let everyone else tear each other apart. Believe or Know what you want....or don't. Just don't get in people's faces about it.
You're Not an idle observer, but one engaged in an activity - in your case, a self-described atheist who practices your craft. That's fine, but I've run into quite a number of them over the years, and just like the zealous Christian, the atheist can also be zealous. I've seen atheists who demonstrate almost bipolar ticks of rage when anything deity is mentioned; they're calm one minute and a go full blown attack the next.
Christians can be wackos; so can atheists. I avoid all the crusaders and just enjoy my personal beliefs and knowledge, and let everyone else tear each other apart. Believe or Know what you want....or don't. Just don't get in people's faces about it. Do whatever pleases you and I will do likewise. :)
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 06:50
The difference between us is that you are an agnostic , whereas I am a practising atheist.
PS, I think the title of Evangelical Atheist would suit me best …
" Evangelical Atheist
An atheist that combats religion as zealously as evangelicals thrust their religious beliefs on others."
So you do have a religion. It's anti-religion. Also fed by faith...because in reality, you have no proof either.
Do whatever pleases you and I will do likewise. :)
And that is totally fine. I am comfortable with whatever I believe, know, but for what I don't know, I strive for greater knowledge. I am not a traditional Christian - I ask questions that the theology doesn't address, or want to address. I also see things in the natural world that isn't addressed by theology, and things the traditional Christian doesn't want to talk about.
Just because you are a practicing atheist, it doesn't mean we couldn't sit down for lunch and solve the world's problems. I can converse with most people, including those who have opposite points of view. No hate here, just trying to treat my fellow man/woman as I would want to be treated.
Completely not true.
If a deity can be eternal or without beginning then so can anything, including the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Of course I don't have faith or belief either way, lacking any evidence to support either position I'm agnostic which means I understand we don't know.
Most atheists are simply people who don't completely subscribe to the scientific method and base their beliefs on what they find to be "most likely" given their experience. They aren't all people who know there is a god and are just stubbornly insisting they don't believe in god. And most of them are people who honestly don't believe in god and are simply tired of being subjected to religion and the harm done by religion globally. That is probably the factor that moves most people from agnostic to atheism.
As for me, I know even if I waved some kind of magic wand and all religions ceased to exist that people would simply invent new, possibly even more destructive, belief systems because humans seem to not be able to accept not knowing things. This is why we invented religions, this is why we invented science.
I wish everyone could simply move forward, with religious people abiding by their beliefs to make their lives better / more fulfilling and non religious people doing the same, but respecting everyone else and leaving them to their beliefs doesn't seem to be something humans do easily. Right now people in Africa are killing children over tribal conflicts and that doesn't even come close to religious differences.
My point is that whatever existed forever is your god. Energy that started the big bang? That energy is your ‘god’. We cant currently prove how, what, why, so people have faith in what makes the most sense to them.
So you do have a religion. It's anti-religion. Also fed by faith...because in reality, you have no proof either.
I respect Knowledge, Truth, Reason, and Logic, I revere the Sun and common sense, and George Carlin was my hero...... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
If anti religion is a religion would that not make me anti myself ?
Life's a Hillary
02-13-20, 08:08
I recently watched a video of a woman being stoned to death for insulting Islam, it was a tragedy for her. But it's not just Islam, the Christians do real nasty evil shit too.
The question I have for all the believers here is why does your God let it happen ?
It doesn’t take a belief system for people to do evil things. If someone does evil because they believe a magic man in the sky wants them to, I got news for you brother, they’d find a reason to do evil without that.
It doesn’t take a belief system for people to do evil things. If someone does evil because they believe a magic man in the sky wants them to, I got news for you brother, they’d find a reason to do evil without that.
In that context, he’s not talking about doing evil things...he’s talking about doing evil things in the name of a belief system. An extraordinarily common thing in the history of humanity and one that we still see commonly today.
And that is totally fine. I am comfortable with whatever I believe, know, but for what I don't know, I strive for greater knowledge. I am not a traditional Christian - I ask questions that the theology doesn't address, or want to address. I also see things in the natural world that isn't addressed by theology, and things the traditional Christian doesn't want to talk about.
Just because you are a practicing atheist, it doesn't mean we couldn't sit down for lunch and solve the world's problems. I can converse with most people, including those who have opposite points of view. No hate here, just trying to treat my fellow man/woman as I would want to be treated.
Knowledge is the most important of all things, without it you will understand nothing. You will die in the darkness for lack of it, abuse it not for it opens all eyes and it will show you the way.
In that context, he’s not talking about doing evil things...he’s talking about doing evil things in the name of a belief system. An extraordinarily common thing in the history of humanity and one that we still see commonly today.
Exactly !
Life's a Hillary
02-13-20, 08:48
In that context, he’s not talking about doing evil things...he’s talking about doing evil things in the name of a belief system. An extraordinarily common thing in the history of humanity and one that we still see commonly today.
I don’t disagree with that, my point is people who do those evil things in the name of that belief system would still find a reason to do evil without it.
Knowledge is the most important of all things, without it you will understand nothing. You will die in the darkness for lack of it, abuse it not for it opens all eyes and it will show you the way.
The problem isn’t knowledge and striving for it. The problem is false knowledge, or believing that that guy in the black smock up at the front of the church is actually expressing knowledge rather than opinion. And by that I mean dogma.
It’s really easy to mistake opinion for fact, especially when it reinforces what we want to believe. Objectivity is not generally compatible with faith. In the end, we are little different than the ancient human squatting by the fire staring at the sky and wondering what all those tiny little points of light are. Someone more charismatic comes along and offers an explanation and he blindly grasps it because he knows no better. Over centuries, it becomes entrenched and a culture even forms around it, even though we do know better. And then we feel obliged to travel the world and enforce that belief on others, killing them, torturing them, or even exterminating them if that’s what’s necessary to make them believe what we believe. If nothing else, that part of our history more than any other negates the very concept of organized religion.
I don’t disagree with that, my point is people who do those evil things in the name of that belief system would still find a reason to do evil without it.
Sure. But it’s so much easier when you have the mandate of your “god”.
The problem isn’t knowledge and striving for it. The problem is false knowledge, or believing that that guy in the black smock up at the front of the church is actually expressing knowledge rather than opinion. And by that I mean dogma.
That's where reason and logic come into play.. False claims of gods can never stand up to scrutiny in the cold light of day.
It’s really easy to mistake opinion for fact, especially when it reinforces what we want to believe. Objectivity is not generally compatible with faith. In the end, we are little different than the ancient human squatting by the fire staring at the sky and wondering what all those tiny little points of light are. Someone more charismatic comes along and offers an explanation and he blindly grasps it because he knows no better. Over centuries, it becomes entrenched and a culture even forms around it, even though we do know better. And then we feel obliged to travel the world and enforce that belief on others, killing them, torturing them, or even exterminating them if that’s what’s necessary to make them believe what we believe. If nothing else, that part of our history more than any other negates the very concept of organized religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHiER6z2Gs
Sure. But it’s so much easier when you have the mandate of your “god”.
:) …..
That's where reason and logic come into play.. False claims of gods can never stand up to scrutiny in the cold light of day.
They have been doing so for millenia.
They have been doing so for millenia.
Doing what exactly ?
Doing what exactly ?
False claims of gods have been standing up to scrutiny in the cold light of day for millennia.
The problem isn’t knowledge and striving for it. The problem is false knowledge, or believing that that guy in the black smock up at the front of the church is actually expressing knowledge rather than opinion. And by that I mean dogma.
It’s really easy to mistake opinion for fact, especially when it reinforces what we want to believe. Objectivity is not generally compatible with faith. In the end, we are little different than the ancient human squatting by the fire staring at the sky and wondering what all those tiny little points of light are. Someone more charismatic comes along and offers an explanation and he blindly grasps it because he knows no better. Over centuries, it becomes entrenched and a culture even forms around it, even though we do know better. And then we feel obliged to travel the world and enforce that belief on others, killing them, torturing them, or even exterminating them if that’s what’s necessary to make them believe what we believe. If nothing else, that part of our history more than any other negates the very concept of organized religion.
My issue with organized religion is watching how the Preacher, Pastor, or whatever behave in their life away from the Church. Some who have the role of leading a flock turn out to be people who behave unethically in their personal lives. It's a turn off and I shut out people like that. I have learned to separate a relationship with a supreme being away from Man, and focus on a more direct seeking of a spiritual experience. Martin Luther did this partially when he taught that you can have a direct contact with God, without going thru an organized church.
False claims of gods have been standing up to scrutiny in the cold light of day for millennia.
LMFAO :haha:
My issue with organized religion is watching how the Preacher, Pastor, or whatever behave in their life away from the Church. Some who have the role of leading a flock turn out to be people who behave unethically in their personal lives. It's a turn off and I shut out people like that. I have learned to separate a relationship with a supreme being away from Man, and focus on a more direct seeking of a spiritual experience. Martin Luther did this partially when he taught that you can have a direct contact with God, without going thru an organized church.
My issue with religion organised or not is that there is NO GOD, never has been and never will be. :)
The difference between us is that you are an agnostic , whereas I am a practising atheist.
PS, I think the title of Evangelical Atheist would suit me best …
" Evangelical Atheist
An atheist that combats religion as zealously as evangelicals thrust their religious beliefs on others."
And you are at that magical stage of your existence where you truly believe that will accomplish anything meaningful. I understand your point philosophically, but in terms of meaningful activity it won't gain you much and evangelicals of any kind are only welcomed by their own kind. Get it together in your own head in a way that brings you contentment and move on with life.
My issue with organized religion is watching how the Preacher, Pastor, or whatever behave in their life away from the Church. Some who have the role of leading a flock turn out to be people who behave unethically in their personal lives. It's a turn off and I shut out people like that.
This was my experience as well, and why as a child, I refused to continue going to church once I looked around and began to notice what absolute shit people the preachers and parishioners all were. Talk up a big pious story on Sunday, then drink and lie and cheat and whore and just be total trash humans the rest of the week.
My issue with religion organised or not is that there is NO GOD, never has been and never will be. :)
Ah, the hypocrisy. Your certainty at that which cannot be proved as non existent is exactly the same as what you loathe in that which cannot be proved to exist.
For someone who is so certain of things, you are remarkable at displaying the same behavior you loathe in those who are certain of things that do not agree with you, when neither of you can prove existence or non existence of what you are certain about.
It's rather funny seeing the anger in your posts, as what you are angry about is exactly the behavior you are exhibiting against those you are angry at...
My point is that whatever existed forever is your god. Energy that started the big bang? That energy is your ‘god’. We cant currently prove how, what, why, so people have faith in what makes the most sense to them.
I really don't have "faith" in it. I know there are huge knowledge gaps in real science. I don't fill them in with faith. The only thing I have any faith in is that "we don't know for sure and it is a real probability that we will never survive as a species long enough to know for sure."
Additionally, even if we are actually correct, since no space existed prior to a big bang event we could never go back and observe conditions prior to that event regardless of any technology we might possess in the future.
So I don't have faith in many things beyond the observable and testable. And more importantly, I try not to have dogma so when new evidence comes along that changes previously accepted ideas, my faith isn't challenged.
It would actually be easier for me to accept a vast, endless universe that somehow had no beginning, but then someone discovered our "visible universe" was expanding and that came with a lot of implications, most of which weren't terribly satisfying. I would prefer a steady state, eternal universe that came from "I haven't got a clue" but that doesn't seem to be what we are observing.
And you are at that magical stage of your existence where you truly believe that will accomplish anything meaningful. I understand your point philosophically, but in terms of meaningful activity it won't gain you much and evangelicals of any kind are only welcomed by their own kind. Get it together in your own head in a way that brings you contentment and move on with life.
I know I will not achieve anything meaningful and that does not bother me.
I know religion is hypnosis, and that people in hypnosis will believe whatever they are told no matter how stupid. I'm a hypnotist .
I know I will not achieve anything meaningful and that does not bother me.
I know religion is hypnosis, and that people in hypnosis will believe whatever they are told. I'm a hypnotist .
HA. I don't believe in hypnosis.
And you are at that magical stage of your existence where you truly believe that will accomplish anything meaningful. I understand your point philosophically, but in terms of meaningful activity it won't gain you much and evangelicals of any kind are only welcomed by their own kind. Get it together in your own head in a way that brings you contentment and move on with life.
Yeah, that's about it. The only thing that has ever offended me about organized religion is its belief that they need to somehow impose those beliefs on me. I feel the same way about atheism. Evangelism in any form from any group is offensive to me. The arrogance of religious or anti-religious groups that so desperately want me, and others, to ascribe to their belief system is irritating.
Yeah, that's about it. The only thing that has ever offended me about organized religion is its belief that they need to somehow impose those beliefs on me. I feel the same way about atheism. Evangelism in any form from any group is offensive to me. The arrogance of religious or anti-religious groups that so desperately want me, and others, to ascribe to their belief system is irritating.
If you don't like it why do you get involved ?
If you don't like it why do you get involved ?
I don't get involved. I'm not a member of either group.
I don't get involved. I'm not a member of either group.
You are involving yourself by posting this thread
I'm not a member of either group either. :)
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 13:24
I respect Knowledge, Truth, Reason, and Logic, I revere the Sun and common sense, and George Carlin was my hero...... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
If anti religion is a religion would that not make me anti myself ?
Understood...but if you also understand that you and the human race are not all knowing...not even close...to write off a God is also anti common sense. Whether you want to believe it or not, you cannot disprove it, so logic says it is a possible outcome.
Understood...but if you also understand that you and the human race are not all knowing...not even close...to write off a God is also anti common sense. Whether you want to believe it or not, you cannot disprove it, so logic says it is a possible outcome.
If there was a god worth having it would not be an idiotic god like the one the one of the bible. There is no evidence of any god and there never will be, of that I am certain.
PS, And you can not disprove that the world was made by pink elves that live on the planet zircon who survive by eating each others shit.
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 13:44
If there was a god worth having it would not be an idiotic god like the one the one of the bible. There is no evidence of any god and there never will be, of that I am certain.
PS, And you can not disprove that the world was made by pink elves that live on the planet zircon who survive by eating each others shit.
Now you are just showing ignorance and hatred for what you dislike. If that is what you are...fine...that is your choice...but don't come into a thread touting science, common sense, and logic, when you are none of those.
If there is an all knowing, Omni potent God, we would be the last to be able to criticize what, why, and how God did things the way he did. We probably wouldn't even be able to grasp the knowledge in the first place. You thinking you would and deserving to do so shows how anti logic you are.
Hate religion all you want, but don't come here and hide it under the guise of logic and common sense.
PS, And you can not disprove that the world was made by pink elves that live on the planet zircon who survive by eating each others shit.
Certainly not, especially when there is ample evidence that their less developed descendants are among us; walking, talking, posting and worst of all, voting.
Now you are just showing ignorance and hatred for what you dislike. If that is what you are...fine...that is your choice...but don't come into a thread touting science, common sense, and logic, when you are none of those.
If there is an all knowing, Omni potent God, we would be the last to be able to criticize what, why, and how God did things the way he did. We probably wouldn't even be able to grasp the knowledge in the first place. You thinking you would and deserving to do so shows how anti logic you are.
Hate religion all you want, but don't come here and hide it under the guise of logic and common sense.
If I am showing hatred I am not showing it intentionally, I am being honest.
If there is an all knowing god that created everything, then he created me as an atheist in full knowledge that I will be pissing off the likes of you right here and now.... Don't blame me, blame your stupid god. :)
I'm not a member of either group either. :)
You are an enthusiastic member and deeply involved. You are an Evangelical Atheist (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?220800-Consciousness-Cannot-Have-Evolved&p=2814452#post2814452). Your stridency is as intrusive as any other religious zealot.
My issue with religion organised or not is that there is NO GOD, never has been and never will be. :)
Have you ever considered that the accepted understanding of a God is just the Cliff Notes, or simplified version of something too big or all encompassing that the human mind can't comprehend? I'm not talking some bearded dude on a golden throne in heaven, but something more complicated like Dark Matter, or some other supreme intellect that was around even before The Big Bang?
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 14:13
If I am showing hatred I am not showing it intentionally, I am being honest.
If there is an all knowing god that created everything, then he created me as an atheist in full knowledge that I will be pissing off the likes of you right here and now.... Don't blame me, blame your stupid god. :)
I am not mad bro, I just feel sorry for you..and you are not being honest.
If we all have free will, and there will be people that will go to heaven and some that don't with their free choices, then the only one to blame is yourself. You have chosen your path, no one else. Don't blame God.
I am not mad bro, I just feel sorry for you..and you are not being honest.
If we all have free will, and there will be people that will go to heaven and some that don't with their free choices, then the only one to blame is yourself. You have chosen your path, no one else. Don't blame God.
It's a clinical fact that any adult person who has an invisible friend is a certifiable lunatic. Sorry and all that but you are a total loony
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 14:34
It's a clinical fact that any adult person who has an invisible friend is a certifiable lunatic. Sorry and all that but you are a total loony
Nice...now that logic, common sense and science has failed you, all you have left is name calling.
You came in here boasting of intellectual superiority and muh science! Muh logic! Muh common sense! Now you have nothing left to stand on. Way to discredit yourself bro. Who's the crazy now?
Have you ever considered that the accepted understanding of a God is just the Cliff Notes, or simplified version of something too big or all encompassing that the human mind can't comprehend? I'm not talking some bearded dude on a golden throne in heaven, but something more complicated like Dark Matter, or some other supreme intellect that was around even before The Big Bang?
Never
Nice...now that logic, common sense and science has failed you, all you have left is name calling.
You came in here boasting of intellectual superiority and muh science! Muh logic! Muh common sense! Now you have nothing left to stand on. Way to discredit yourself bro. Who's the crazy now?
I have never claimed intellectual superiority and nothing has failed me..
It's true that I called you a loony and that was dishonest, and for being dishonest I apologise. Would you like to know what I should have called you ?
Adrenaline_6
02-13-20, 14:47
I have never claimed intellectual superiority and nothing has failed me..
It's true that I called you a loony and that was dishonest, and for being dishonest I apologise. Would you like to know what I should have called you ?
I don't really care what you think of me or what you call me. I know who I am and what I believe.
As far as nothing failing you, logic and common sense has. If you cannot prove God does not exist but you vehemently claim that he doesn't "because you just know ". That has fail written all over it.
I get it bro, you hate religion, which in itself is a religion based on a faith that God doesn't exist. Accept t and move on. That is what logic and common sense should be telling you to do if that is what you truly follow.
I don't really care what you think of me or what you call me. I know who I am and what I believe.
You obviously care a lot. :)
Didn't there used to be a general policy around here of not feeding the trolls?
Didn't there used to be a general policy around here of not feeding the trolls?
Are you not entertained? Is that not why we are here?
Didn't there used to be a general policy around here of not feeding the trolls?
Written or unwritten general policy?
I just don't understand someone who lacks the inquisitive mind. I grew up questioning everything. I didn't want to be told, I wanted to see it or do it myself. I don't have all the answers in life, but I am willing to think beyond what I can see, hear and touch. To even deny even a possibility of something existing or some theory actually being true demonstrates a closed minded person. I try to think outside the box - even in running a small business I am always thinking months or years in the future with detailed intricate plans. As an undergraduate college student, I did two Bachelor's Degrees in a 4 year period, and only accomplished that by taking maximum credit loads and summer school (in addition to working part-time, Army drill and summer training). When you're getting it free from the Army, take advantage of it.
To have someone refer to anyone as a lunatic for even thinking there is a Supreme Intellect of some kind in the Universe shows a shallow mindset - someone who refuses to consider the impossible or even take into consideration that every primitive tribe or advanced culture has the concept of something greater than ourselves.
Written or unwritten general policy?
I just don't understand someone who lacks the inquisitive mind. I grew up questioning everything. I didn't want to be told, I wanted to see it or do it myself. I don't have all the answers in life, but I am willing to think beyond what I can see, hear and touch. To even deny even a possibility of something existing or some theory actually being true demonstrates a closed minded person. I try to think outside the box - even in running a small business I am always thinking months or years in the future with detailed intricate plans. As an undergraduate college student, I did two Bachelor's Degrees in a 4 year period, and only accomplished that by taking maximum credit loads and summer school (in addition to working part-time, Army drill and summer training). When you're getting it free from the Army, take advantage of it.
To have someone refer to anyone as a lunatic for even thinking there is a Supreme Intellect of some kind in the Universe shows a shallow mindset - someone who refuses to consider the impossible or even take into consideration that every primitive tribe or advanced culture has the concept of something greater than ourselves.
Speaking for myself, I long ago wrestled with the supreme-being issue and concluded that there is just not enough data to prove or disprove his/her existence in accordance with current religious doctrine, and I an incapable of, unwilling to, and don't have the need to make the leap of faith necessary for that doctrine to be part of my life. I remain open to the possibility if and when new data presents itself to me, but for the time being, I'm quite comfortable with my current set of beliefs. I'm also quite comfortable with your beliefs, as well as those of Mick "Potato Man" Boon, as long as they don't intrude on mine.
..
@Steyr - Make it a live version with lions and that could be entertaining.
@OH58D - Unwritten but oft repeated years ago IIRC. Oh, and regarding your comment, I agree 100%. Something started everything from nothing but I have no idea what it is, so I'm open to all possibilities.
I've had a lot of contact over my entire life with both Navajo and Pueblo Tribes in New Mexico. All of them have similar oral legends which compare to the Jewish Genesis. Not so much the figurative Adam & Eve, but the images of darkness then exploding light, a primitive Earth and then it starts getting into God-Like creatures interacting with early humans. I don't really buy into the Ancient Alien stuff, but for primitive peoples from SW Asia and those from the North American Continent having similar creation legends, it makes you think.
I still keep going back to the idea that it would impossible for some primitive groups, without geology, astronomy or planetary science knowledge to have stories of an explosion of light, an early earth with all water, then humans being the last creation. It makes you think there was something provided to early humans from an external source that wasn't available from an earthbound perspective.
@Steyr - Make it a live version with lions and that could be entertaining.
@OH58D - Unwritten but oft repeated years ago IIRC. Oh, and regarding your comment, I agree 100%. Something started everything from nothing but I have no idea what it is, so I'm open to all possibilities.
I don't see why lions should be forced to participate in this pointless exercise.
As for why are we here and where did it all come from? I have no idea and I have a pretty strong understanding of how much we do not know and how far we are from actually answering those questions so as much as I'd love to actually know the reality is finding the best pizza in town is a lot more relevant and important to me.
Even things of far less philosophical importance like, have we ever been visited by other life forms is less important to my existence than who would and would not go out with me in high school, and I barely remember those people. Now if aliens actually show up one day, then it's a game changer and our knowledge base gets overhauled dramatically with a single, irrefutably documented encounter.
And perhaps just as important, I realize we as a species are pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, especially in the context of the entire cosmos. We are recent arrivals on a planet that for the majority of it's history has been represented by dinosaurs who were here for millions of years, we have to go back to very early proto humans that we believe were actually a type of sapien to even get our species to be almost a million years old, conservative individuals have us around far, far less at maybe 300,000 years at the most.
So given that, I find it difficult to believe we are the special creation of anything. Now there could be a grand clockmaker of all things that put everything into motion but we have difficulty detecting distant galaxies let alone finding the ultimate origin of everything. And such an entity either exists or doesn't exist, about the only thing I feel confident about is there is pretty much nothing to prove or even strongly suggest either point of view is more valid than another.
But even with all the dogma, ridiculing and the rest, I'd probably still rather talk about this than politics. There is at least a baseline of intellect required to discuss the subject that generally excludes those with no original thoughts or the ability to contemplate the abstract.
I still keep going back to the idea that it would impossible for some primitive groups, without geology, astronomy or planetary science knowledge to have stories of an explosion of light, an early earth with all water, then humans being the last creation. It makes you think there was something provided to early humans from an external source that wasn't available from an earthbound perspective.
I would suggest it's like the pyramids. The fact that various cultures far removed from one another built pyramids doesn't suggest a common parent culture as much as it shows that pyramids are simple structures that humans could envision and built, just like children with toy blocks often build pyramids.
I think the human mind does the same thing with creation stories, they tend to resemble each other because that is just the way our brains worked. Many cultures also had "sacrifice requirements" because we imagined that just as we need to be fed, we need to feed the god(s) or somehow satisfy a devotional requirement which lent validity to those beliefs. It doesn't mean there was a original parent religion with a deity that needed humans to slaughter goats (or people) to be satisfied. Seems to me any "creator" could easily get their own goats.
But this is the way our wheels spun, especially in the early days of our experiments with civilization in a world that wasn't terribly civilized. These ideas allowed the world, complete with all it's savagery, to at least be explained.
I would suggest it's like the pyramids. The fact that various cultures far removed from one another built pyramids doesn't suggest a common parent culture as much as it shows that pyramids are simple structures that humans could envision and built, just like children with toy blocks often build pyramids.
I think the human mind does the same thing with creation stories, they tend to resemble each other because that is just the way our brains worked. Many cultures also had "sacrifice requirements" because we imagined that just as we need to be fed, we need to feed the god(s) or somehow satisfy a devotional requirement which lent validity to those beliefs. It doesn't mean there was a original parent religion with a deity that needed humans to slaughter goats (or people) to be satisfied. Seems to me any "creator" could easily get their own goats.
But this is the way our wheels spun, especially in the early days of our experiments with civilization in a world that wasn't terribly civilized. These ideas allowed the world, complete with all it's savagery, to at least be explained.
Yeah, I don't have all the answers but I have lots of questions. It is either a massive coincidence, or external input that some person 3,0000 years ago (Moses ?) or whomever could envision a big bang - an explosion from nothing and then there was light. Then we jump to an Earth that appears molten, then water covering the surface and a thick atmosphere of clouds, then a separation of land and water. After all that then you have animals and last, modern humans.
All of this seems like pictures given to some archaic prophet of something he couldn't understand, but attempts to describe it in Genesis. The Pueblo of Zia in central New Mexico has a similar oral tradition that pre-dates Coronado and Ońate and the priests with them recorded these stories told by the holy men of the tribe, who really wanted nothing to do with Christianity.
I keep an open mind because I don't know what happened, and I certainly won't be critical of anyone who believes in nothing, but at least is willing to learn and be open to new evidence. I continue to be a sponge of knowledge - it makes life interesting.
Yeah, I don't have all the answers but I have lots of questions. It is either a massive coincidence, or external input that some person 3,0000 years ago (Moses ?) or whomever could envision a big bang - an explosion from nothing and then there was light. Then we jump to an Earth that appears molten, then water covering the surface and a thick atmosphere of clouds, then a separation of land and water. After all that then you have animals and last, modern humans.
All of this seems like pictures given to some archaic prophet of something he couldn't understand, but attempts to describe it in Genesis. The Pueblo of Zia in central New Mexico has a similar oral tradition that pre-dates Coronado and Ońate and the priests with them recorded these stories told by the holy men of the tribe, who really wanted nothing to do with Christianity.
I keep an open mind because I don't know what happened, and I certainly won't be critical of anyone who believes in nothing, but at least is willing to learn and be open to new evidence. I continue to be a sponge of knowledge - it makes life interesting.
So given that the observer effect MIGHT apply to the entire universe, meaning it acts one way unless we are directly observing it and then it acts according to some other set of rules, pretty much anything is possible. If the nature of the universe actually changes simply by being observed...well how does it know we are looking at it...and exactly what are the major implications if that turns out to be the case.
We easily wrap our brains around the observer effect in quantum mechanics, but if that exists on a universal scale we pretty much go back to "Well it turns out we don't know or understand very much of anything" and that is compounded by "at this point we can't even be sure if we are actually looking at a universe in the context that we THINK we understand it."
And that is where I would pop smoke and start watching something reliable like my DVD box set of Wild, Wild West.
And if we even begin to suggest ideas like there could MAYBE be some kind of sentience with respect to the universe itself...well I don't even know how to have THAT discussion. I also think we are on the verge of a new understanding of matter that will happen in the next 100 years which will force us to discard some very comfortable and cherished beliefs. I think relativity is going to prove to be Matter 101 with a basic conversion formula that is reliable but won't even begin to address the observations we will be making.
Well SteyrAug, you bring up good points. For me, I like to break things down to the lowest common denominator. Case in point, as I type this, I am on my 3rd cup of coffee this morning. Where I am, I am over a mile up in altitude. If you are closer to sea level, time is moving slower for you than it is for me. The thread is about consciousness, and what we experience is dependent on gravitation, which seems to affect everything in the universe.
What and how we see and perceive things around us is colored by the operation of our individual brains, at least that is what I have read. Maybe each of us needs a disclaimer like on some service or product: "Individual results may vary".
Believe in God or not. But denying the existence of the evolutionary process is naive.
Believe in God or not. But denying the existence of the evolutionary process is naive.
If believers really believe their god created everything, then what makes them deny the evolutionary process was created by him ?
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 09:04
Believe in God or not. But denying the existence of the evolutionary process is naive.
I don't think most deny the evolutionary process. To what extent, though, is the question. Does it just stay within the species or actually create and split off a whole new animal? That is the real question that is still unknown.
If believers really believe their god created everything, then what makes them deny the evolutionary process was created by him ?
I guess you haven't heard of a Mono-Theistic Evolutionist? One who believes in a Supreme Intellect (God) in the Universe, but also realizes the process of creation used evolution and involved a 4 billion year old Earth. Instead of random processes of amino acids and the primordial goo coming together by accident, it was a controlled event which was set in motion, with various tweaks along the way.
This isn't a Creation Science type of person who still shoe horns the literal Biblical into some time frame where Adam & Eve coexisted with T-Rex.
I don't think most deny the evolutionary process. To what extent, though, is the question. Does it just stay within the species or actually create and split off a whole new animal? That is the real question that is still unknown.
What is a whole new animal ? All animals including humans breathe drink and eat. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that we are all related.
I guess you haven't heard of a Mono-Theistic Evolutionist?
You are right about that. :)
If you really want to get deep into the rabbit hole, there's some math nerds that propose we are characters in one big simulation.
https://youtu.be/ZFID_rgzE_Y
You are right about that. :)
Excellent - now we have baseline for your knowledge.
Excellent - now we have baseline for your knowledge.
As theistic evolution is not a scientific theory it's hardly surprising.
As theistic evolution is not a scientific theory it's hardly surprising.
It certainly is a scientific theory that advances the lack of randomness in evolution and proposes a controlled process over billions of years. In a more familiar form, it's the creation of hybrids in the plant world or selective breeding and cross-breeding in animals.
It certainly is a scientific theory that advances the lack of randomness in evolution and proposes a controlled process over billions of years. In a more familiar form, it's the creation of hybrids in the plant world or selective breeding and cross-breeding in animals.
Having bred many hybrids including the tribrid pictured I'm familiar with cross breeding. There is nothing scientific about it, anyone can do it.
https://i.imgur.com/dHv151u.jpg
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1, KJV
That settles it.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1, KJV
That settles it.
The beginning starts with the creation of the creators creator. :)
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1, KJV
That settles it.
That's just written in a book, written by men, re-written, translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-interpreted over millennia. You're proposing that "that settles it?" :rolleyes:
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 13:30
What is a whole new animal ? All animals including humans breathe drink and eat. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that we are all related.
Since we were talking science, I meant lizard to bird, fish to mammal, etc. Because we all use the Earth's resources to survive, doesn't prove or disprove any theory whatsoever and is inconsequential.
Since we were talking science, I meant lizard to bird, fish to mammal, etc. Because we all use the Earth's resources to survive, doesn't prove or disprove any theory whatsoever and is inconsequential.
Don’t mind him. The prolonged nutrient deficiency of brown russets has taken a toll.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since we were talking science, I meant lizard to bird, fish to mammal, etc. Because we all use the Earth's resources to survive, doesn't prove or disprove any theory whatsoever and is inconsequential.
What makes a lizard to a bird a different animal, I would of thought it was obvious that they are very closely related.
That's just written in a book, written by men, re-written, translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-interpreted over millennia. You're proposing that "that settles it?" :rolleyes:
60887
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 13:45
What makes a lizard to a bird a different animal, I would of thought it was obvious that they are very closely related.
Shhhh....the adults are talking.
What makes a lizard to a bird a different animal, I would of thought it was obvious that they are very closely related.
Well yeah, they both need oxygen and water to survive. Pretty much makes humans and fish very closely related, despite their obvious differences.
Actually, "would of" pretty much settled the issue for me. I know, contractions are hard.
Well yeah, they both need oxygen and water to survive. Pretty much makes humans and fish very closely related, despite their obvious differences.
Actually, "would of" pretty much settled the issue for me. I know, contractions are hard.
Yes they both need oxygen and water to survive, but there's many more similarities than that... All birds, reptiles, fish, and animals come from fertile eggs, humans too. Reptiles and fish have scales , so do birds, feathers are modified scales.
PS, Next time you see a chicken take a butchers at it's legs.
Yes they both need oxygen and water to survive, but there's many more similarities than that... All birds, reptiles, fish, and animals come from fertile eggs, humans too. Reptiles and fish have scales , so do birds, feathers are modified scales.
PS, Next time you see a chicken take a butchers at it's legs.
Wait, so your saying animals evolved to adapt themselves to the environment they exist in?
How could you say something so brave yet so controversial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The beginning starts with the creation of the creators creator. :)
Negative - it starts with the creation of the universe from the singularity and ends with humans. It indicates that what we know as God existed before this - a kind of first mover. Try to fathom no beginning to time - it's always been in some form and always will be.
60887
The book on the left shows no picture of God, and contains only words. No descriptions. The book on the right provides imaging evidence that Spiderman exists. Even in Marvel Comic form, Spiderman is real. Reality is a relative thing.
Wait, so your saying animals evolved to adapt themselves to the environment they exist in?
How could you say something so brave yet so controversial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In this instance I'm saying all animals are related.
Negative - it starts with the creation of the universe from the singularity and ends with humans. It indicates that what we know as God existed before this - a kind of first mover. Try to fathom no beginning to time - it's always been in some form and always will be.
Got any evidence of that ?
In this instance I'm saying all animals are related.
Yes, they are all part of the animal kingdom. Most animals are not plants.
Most animals are not plants.
Whoda thunk ?
Whoda thunk ?
Mick, the clarity and revolutionary thought you've brought to this discussion has been so very enlightening. So does every living thing possess consciousness? Only animals? Certain animals? Only humans?
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 15:07
...and all are made of the same DNA...just in a different arrangement....so everything MUST be related
...or made by the same constructor who developed a system that with the right knowledge, can make all living things with the same process...that guy must be one SMART guy!
Got any evidence of that ?
Got any evidence to the contrary?
Your beliefs have no greater or lesser value than do mine. So why be a crusader on it?. The atheist can't prove anything to the same degree as the theist.
Negative - it starts with the creation of the universe from the singularity and ends with humans. It indicates that what we know as God existed before this - a kind of first mover. Try to fathom no beginning to time - it's always been in some form and always will be.
Actually IF we are correct, there was no space before the big bang. The big bang was the creation of space itself, it wasn't an explosion into empty space. As time is defined as "movement through space" before space, there was no time. Hawking explained this probably as well as anyone.
The complications of course are "what is the universe" and is ours the only one? If membrane is correct then our entire universe could be simply one bubble in a sea of foam bubbles that are an incomprehensible number of universes that cannot detect or in any way view one another.
Got any evidence to the contrary?
It's you making the claim, not me.
Mick, the clarity and revolutionary thought you've brought to this discussion has been so very enlightening. So does every living thing possess consciousness? Only animals? Certain animals? Only humans?
That would depend of how you define consciousness. Probably.
...and all are made of the same DNA...just in a different arrangement....so everything MUST be related
...or made by the same constructor who developed a system that with the right knowledge, can make all living things with the same process...that guy must be one SMART guy!
Or, over billions of years, after billions of tries, a random combination of primordial elements accidentally resulted in a living one-celled organism. Which then evolved over the next billions of years to where we are now...the most infinitesimal of organic specs in Earth's long history. No constructor required. In fact...that's likely more plausible than a magical entity waving its hand and accomplishing the same task in 7 days.
That's my vote, absent actual evidence in favor of the latter....
..
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 16:55
Or, over billions of years, after billions of tries, a random combination of primordial elements accidentally resulted in a living one-celled organism. Which then evolved over the next billions of years to where we are now...the most infinitesimal of organic specs in Earth's long history. No constructor required. In fact...that's likely more plausible than a magical entity waving its hand and accomplishing the same task in 7 days.
That's my vote, absent actual evidence in favor of the latter....
..
I respect your opinion and your belief, but if you look at the actual numbers and how organic chemistry actually works, your claim of your belief being more plausible as far as numbers and odds go is almost ridiculous...but it is still not disproved, so, likewise, it also cannot be ruled out.
Even the wordage "billions of tries" is misleading. In this theory, no one is trying anything. Nothing is living, therefore, there is no struggle for life to exist. It is organic elements that exist that really "doesn't care" about life at all or have a goal towards anything whatsoever. It just is.
It's you making the claim, not me.
Not a claim, just the hypothesis that the collection of oral traditions and writings from the earliest humans present a sequential timeline that often corresponds to the latest scientific accepted facts. An explosion from the singularity to what we see now - the early writing and oral legends give a simple to understand version; science gives us the macro version.
I have no problem with a 4 billion year old earth - a 13 billion year old universe that seems to be expanding at such a rate the from one side to the other visible side, it could be 90 billion years across. I am not someone who thinks the world was created in 4004 BC (in the Spring) based on Irish Archbishop Jame Ussher's chronologies. I just take these earliest human thoughts from all over the world, at different times, about some supreme first-mover or intellect and compare that to what we have as scientific fact. I think there is the possibility that there is more to it than we can understand, and the possibility there is a God is just as valid as those who believe otherwise.
What I find interesting is your posting style which demonstrates less willingness to engage in conversation, and more indicative of someone taking drive-by shots. Odd, indeed.
What I find interesting is your posting style which demonstrates less willingness to engage in conversation, and more indicative of someone taking drive-by shots. Odd, indeed.
Not really, he did define himself as an evangelist, even though he isn't using the term in it's intended definition.
Or, over billions of years, after billions of tries, a random combination of primordial elements accidentally resulted in a living one-celled organism. Which then evolved over the next billions of years to where we are now...the most infinitesimal of organic specs in Earth's long history. No constructor required. In fact...that's likely more plausible than a magical entity waving its hand and accomplishing the same task in 7 days.
That's my vote, absent actual evidence in favor of the latter....
..
This man gets it.
I respect your opinion and your belief, but if you look at the actual numbers and how organic chemistry actually works, your claim of your belief being more plausible as far as numbers and odds go is almost ridiculous...but it is still not disproved, so, likewise, it also cannot be ruled out.
Even the wordage "billions of tries" is misleading. In this theory, no one is trying anything. Nothing is living, therefore, there is no struggle for life to exist. It is organic elements that exist that really "doesn't care" about life at all or have a goal towards anything whatsoever. It just is.
When you look at the origin of life and evolution through the application of chaos theory and some aspects of thermal dynamics the question of genesis as we know it becomes a near certainty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really, he did define himself as an evangelist, even though he isn't using the term in it's intended definition.
A purveyor of nothingness outside of the physical universe. That's easy to do because the entire existence is based on what one can see, hear and touch. Nothing else has any value, nor is there the inquisitive nature to consider other possibilities.
Even the most ardent anti-God/anti-religion scientists I have encountered leave open the possibility there can be more, based on additional evidence. Others just shut out the possibility. I keep an open mind on many things because I continue to learn and seek knowledge.
I respect your opinion and your belief, but if you look at the actual numbers and how organic chemistry actually works, your claim of your belief being more plausible as far as numbers and odds go is almost ridiculous...but it is still not disproved, so, likewise, it also cannot be ruled out.
Even the wordage "billions of tries" is misleading. In this theory, no one is trying anything. Nothing is living, therefore, there is no struggle for life to exist. It is organic elements that exist that really "doesn't care" about life at all or have a goal towards anything whatsoever. It just is.
I have a Masters degree in Physical Chemistry. Organic Chemistry was a minor stepping stone on that path. A little later, a year of Biochemistry in medical school gave me a fairly reasonable grounding in the discipline.
A purveyor of nothingness outside of the physical universe. That's easy to do because the entire existence is based on what one can see, hear and touch. Nothing else has any value, nor is there the inquisitive nature to consider other possibilities.
Even the most ardent anti-God/anti-religion scientists I have encountered leave open the possibility there can be more, based on additional evidence. Others just shut out the possibility. I keep an open mind on many things because I continue to learn and seek knowledge.
Speaking for myself...I'm not anti-god. Prove its existence to me and I'm there. As to religion...yeah. I'm anti-religion. Over the millennia, organized religion has shown itself to be the grossest of perversions of the ideals that it purports to represent. Organized religion = extraordinary hypocrisy. I cannot believe anything it teaches. Organized religion talks the talk, but it simply can NOT bring itself to walk the walk.
A purveyor of nothingness outside of the physical universe. That's easy to do because the entire existence is based on what one can see, hear and touch. Nothing else has any value, nor is there the inquisitive nature to consider other possibilities.
That’s the entire foundational point of the scientific method.
Otherwise it’s dark ages in Europe with the church holding the monopoly on knowledge and disseminating it as they see fit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Speaking for myself...I'm not anti-god. Prove its existence to me and I'm there. As to religion...yeah. I'm anti-religion. Over the millennia, organized religion has shown itself to be the grossest of perversions of the ideals that it purports to represent. Organized religion = extraordinary hypocrisy. I cannot believe anything it teaches. Organized religion talks the talk, but it simply can NOT bring itself to walk the walk.
I am kind of in the same way of thinking, except I believe there is a Supreme Being or Intellect in the universe, but it's bigger and more expansive than can be imagined. I also think that there could be multiple universes and at some point, all reference points we have in physics gets expanded to new levels.
Organized Religion is a creation of Man - a pre-packaging of God. They all say: "We have the True God over here". Religion takes the infinite and puts it in an easy-to-understand form that keeps everything simple. If it's too abstract or esoteric, you lose the low information "seeker of something". I don't mind hanging with Christians...or atheists - I just have a hard time with people who claim they have all the answers, when their point of reference is no better or worse than mine.
That’s the entire foundational point of the scientific method.
Otherwise it’s dark ages in Europe with the church holding the monopoly on knowledge and disseminating it as they see fit.
For me organized Religion and the quest for knowledge don't play together very well. I am somewhat of an outsider when it comes to religion because I ask too many questions. A Church is a body of believers and if one of that group asks too many questions, you become a threat.
For me the sciences and a thinking that there could be something in the form of some Supreme Being or God doesn't conflict. The study of the Space Time Continuum, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Multiple Universes, Expanding Universe, etc. are mind blowing things to consider. There is nothing in those studies which preclude some kind of infinite presence that has always existed, even before our universe exploded from the singularity. They also don't point to the existence of a God.
I am kind of in the same way of thinking, except I believe there is a Supreme Being or Intellect in the universe, but it's bigger and more expansive than can be imagined. I also think that there could be multiple universes and at some point, all reference points we have in physics gets expanded to new levels.
I don't discount the concept, but there is no way of knowing who or what that Supreme Being is, so I just ignore it for the time being, waiting for illumination which may or may not come. One thing I'm certain of...there is no organized religion that understands that Supreme Being any better than I do. So I ignore them too.
eta: I like that notion..."pre-packaging of God". Those hucksters (organized religion) have tried to water the concept down to bite-sized pieces for the masses, forgoing actual knowledge (which they don't have anyway) and substituting dogma and silly ritual that more often is merely self-serving and for the primary purpose of keeping people hooked and the money rolling in.
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 20:36
I have a Masters degree in Physical Chemistry. Organic Chemistry was a minor stepping stone on that path. A little later, a year of Biochemistry in medical school gave me a fairly reasonable grounding in the discipline.
Cool. Much respect.
Do you have any rebuttals to this expert synthetic organic chemists issues with your theory?
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y
Speaking for myself...I'm not anti-god. Prove its existence to me and I'm there. As to religion...yeah. I'm anti-religion. Over the millennia, organized religion has shown itself to be the grossest of perversions of the ideals that it purports to represent. Organized religion = extraordinary hypocrisy. I cannot believe anything it teaches. Organized religion talks the talk, but it simply can NOT bring itself to walk the walk.
I see your reason for your frustration and disappointment in organized religion. Saying that, we as humans mess everything up, even religion. It in itself is not bad, just bad people and/or sinners (which we all are) make it that way. Organized religion talks it, we are the ones who don't walk it...but I get it.
Do you have any rebuttals to this expert synthetic organic chemists issues with your theory?
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y
No, I don't. It's all theoretical, and for each compelling theory there is an equally compelling argument as to why it's bullshit. Hard science has its own dogma problem.
I don't discount the concept, but there is no way of knowing who or what that Supreme Being is, so I just ignore it for the time being, waiting for illumination which may or may not come. One thing I'm certain of...there is no organized religion that understands that Supreme Being any better than I do. So I ignore them too.
eta: I like that notion..."pre-packaging of God". Those hucksters (organized religion) have tried to water the concept down to bite-sized pieces for the masses, forgoing actual knowledge (which they don't have anyway) and substituting dogma and silly ritual that more often is merely self-serving and for the primary purpose of keeping people hooked and the money rolling in.
Your background in Chemistry is impressive. I have a B.S. in Business Administration, a B.S. in Archaeological Science with a supporting Minor in Pre-Columbian Ceramics, both from the University of Arizona, and an MBA from the University of New Mexico Anderson School of Management. I've also dabbled in Astronomy while an undeclared major. Two Bachelor's Degrees was a tough road, but it was paid for by the US Army. I am grateful for that 4 year ROTC scholarship.
Organized religion is a business, just like any other - and it involves money and control, and it always has. I have managed to separate organized religion from my personal seeking of that Supreme Intellect in the universe. Sometimes I think the late Arthur C. Clarke was onto something with his black monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey, a least considering an external influence in the development of mankind.
Adrenaline_6
02-15-20, 21:11
No, I don't. It's all theoretical, and for each compelling theory there is an equally compelling argument as to why it's bullshit. Hard science has its own dogma problem.
Thanks for your honesty. I don't think this guy is calling it bs, just that there are a lot of holes that aren't being truly addressed and things like time that is seen as making this theory more possible due to all that time is actually a detriment in real life but is also not being taught/addressed.
Your background in Chemistry is impressive.
Eh. I discovered a few things on that path.
There's nothing you can really do with a Masters in Physical Chemistry. You need a PhD, and luck finding a non-teaching job that pays anything.
Chemistry is fun, but Physical Chemistry is more math then chemistry.
I'm not math-smart enough to be a PhD Physical Chemist at the level necessary to make a difference in anything.
Medicine proved to be an extremely rewarding path
As it turned out I'm a better surgeon than I would have been chemist.
A doctorate in Medicine made a lot more sense for me than a doctorate in Chemistry, and was probably an easier but much longer path.
I respect your opinion and your belief, but if you look at the actual numbers and how organic chemistry actually works, your claim of your belief being more plausible as far as numbers and odds go is almost ridiculous...but it is still not disproved, so, likewise, it also cannot be ruled out.
Even the wordage "billions of tries" is misleading. In this theory, no one is trying anything. Nothing is living, therefore, there is no struggle for life to exist. It is organic elements that exist that really "doesn't care" about life at all or have a goal towards anything whatsoever. It just is.
Everything has a goal towards entropy, which is fighting against life... so that would make it happening even more difficult than if things just floated around with no direction.
I have a Masters degree in Physical Chemistry. Organic Chemistry was a minor stepping stone on that path. A little later, a year of Biochemistry in medical school gave me a fairly reasonable grounding in the discipline.
How/why did you decide on Physical Chemistry? Was it something you wanted going into college or decide to go that direction part way through?
If there is a god who needs him ?
If there is a god who needs him ?
Atheists dont die upon claiming atheism, so either no God, or no one "needs" him.
Atheists dont die upon claiming atheism, so either no God, or no one "needs" him.
What are you talking about ?
How/why did you decide on Physical Chemistry? Was it something you wanted going into college or decide to go that direction part way through?
Nah. I always wanted to be a surgeon. I stuck with chemistry for awhile because I loved it and was good at it, and had a charismatic advisor that I respected. I finally hit the wall, Peter Principle at work, where my grasp of and interest in quantum chemistry just wasn't there and it became clear that that wasn't my path. I rose to my level of incompetence.
Speaking for myself...I'm not anti-god. Prove its existence to me and I'm there. As to religion...yeah. I'm anti-religion. Over the millennia, organized religion has shown itself to be the grossest of perversions of the ideals that it purports to represent. Organized religion = extraordinary hypocrisy. I cannot believe anything it teaches. Organized religion talks the talk, but it simply can NOT bring itself to walk the walk.
No money in that. When religious leaders take a vow of poverty I'll be at least willing to listen to their ideas. Otherwise it's just another form of politician who "claims to be a servant" but takes a hefty fee for their service.
Blessed be the cheeseburger makers for they shall inhibit thy girth.
Those of you who really wanna go down the rabbit hole of reality, will enjoy this discussion. It supports the idea that you don't go from unconscious matter to consciousness for those want to explore such things with God defined as "the one infinite conscious agent" as a model to work from using mathematics and new models of reality. This may be where science and higher consciousness finally meet and one - using the scientific method - may quantify the other. Science may be finally up to the task of showing our perceptions are just tip of the iceberg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro&feature=youtu.be
What's the point of consciousness ?
What's the point of consciousness ?
What is consciousness?
There are other animals that are self-aware.
What is consciousness?
Exactly.
LMT Shooter
02-20-20, 01:28
Those of you who really wanna go down the rabbit hole of reality, will enjoy this discussion. It supports the idea that you don't go from unconscious matter to consciousness for those want to explore such things with God defined as "the one infinite conscious agent" as a model to work from using mathematics and new models of reality. This may be where science and higher consciousness finally meet and one - using the scientific method - may quantify the other. Science may be finally up to the task of showing our perceptions are just tip of the iceberg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro&feature=youtu.be
Whoa, that was trippy.... Like a cross between "The Matrix" and an acid trip....
Those of you who really wanna go down the rabbit hole of reality, will enjoy this discussion. It supports the idea that you don't go from unconscious matter to consciousness for those want to explore such things with God defined as "the one infinite conscious agent" as a model to work from using mathematics and new models of reality. This may be where science and higher consciousness finally meet and one - using the scientific method - may quantify the other. Science may be finally up to the task of showing our perceptions are just tip of the iceberg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro&feature=youtu.be
That was interesting and it solves some problems. But like the idea of infinite parallels, I find it more unlikely than likely. He's got some solid foundation, but at some point it's still interpretation.
I think a lot of what he says is true, that we experience our existence from a human centric position and very well may view "reality" from a very limited or skewed way but I don't agree that he has conclusively proven those things, especially given that if his views of reality are true, we couldn't prove it anyway because everything is perception and we aren't viewing true reality.
So if he's right, we could never know he's right. I think all he's done is effectively explain all of our contradictions with reality and conflicting scientific views and present them in a way that gives us a newer more relevant understanding based upon our current tech experiences. And given that new familiarity, his ideas simply seem right because we can relate to them.
My biggest problem is the idea that we can't perceive true reality at all, I think the moon was there before life existed on earth and I think the moon will be there (or at least someplace as it seems to be on an eventual escaping orbit) long after animal life is gone.
I've watched my dog ponder the moon, I don't think canine evolutionary paths gave him a brain where he simply creates the same "reality constructs" as the rest of us, I think the moon is actually there, even if nothing is looking at it.
That said, the problems between our understanding at a relativity level and our understanding at a quantum level, combined with what very much seems to be an observer effect (which is a lot of what he is advocating) that we can't even begin to reconcile with each other does suggest there is a lot we do not know, but I think we knew that.
I also think if our entire reality was an observer interface, as he suggests, it would be a lot more cohesive and we wouldn't have the atomic world at odds with the sub atomic world and we wouldn't notice the observer effect when we apply quantum ideas to distant stars. I think we'd always produce a reality where everything fits and works in a way that is comprehensible to the human brain.
That was interesting and it solves some problems. But like the idea of infinite parallels, I find it more unlikely than likely. He's got some solid foundation, but at some point it's still interpretation.
I think a lot of what he says is true, that we experience our existence from a human centric position and very well may view "reality" from a very limited or skewed way but I don't agree that he has conclusively proven those things, especially given that if his views of reality are true, we couldn't prove it anyway because everything is perception and we aren't viewing true reality.
So if he's right, we could never know he's right. I think all he's done is effectively explain all of our contradictions with reality and conflicting scientific views and present them in a way that gives us a newer more relevant understanding based upon our current tech experiences. And given that new familiarity, his ideas simply seem right because we can relate to them.
My biggest problem is the idea that we can't perceive true reality at all, I think the moon was there before life existed on earth and I think the moon will be there (or at least someplace as it seems to be on an eventual escaping orbit) long after animal life is gone.
I've watched my dog ponder the moon, I don't think canine evolutionary paths gave him a brain where he simply creates the same "reality constructs" as the rest of us, I think the moon is actually there, even if nothing is looking at it.
That said, the problems between our understanding at a relativity level and our understanding at a quantum level, combined with what very much seems to be an observer effect (which is a lot of what he is advocating) that we can't even begin to reconcile with each other does suggest there is a lot we do not know, but I think we knew that.
I also think if our entire reality was an observer interface, as he suggests, it would be a lot more cohesive and we wouldn't have the atomic world at odds with the sub atomic world and we wouldn't notice the observer effect when we apply quantum ideas to distant stars. I think we'd always produce a reality where everything fits and works in a way that is comprehensible to the human brain.
His entire premise is to take what has been "just words" until now to actual testing using the scientific method. He's not married to any of his conclusions per se, only that what what we experience as local reality is not accurate, and there are tests demonstrating that much. Apparently "the math" checks out which is how all major discoveries have started, then on to confirming it as they did when the math said the earth was round, or that black holes existed, and so forth. He's also perfectly open to the possibilities of dualism in reality and consciousness, and as a legit scientist, vs say philosopher, makes it clear his to get beyond just words but to mathematical models of consciousness and reality and test them. He also makes it clear the math may simply be smarter than he is or perhaps anyone and beyond knowing what's actually under/behind the math.
At 1;00 even he says "...I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong"
I do think he's 100% accurate in saying that physical-ism has served us very well for the past 300 or so years, but the make the next major leaps in our understanding of space-time, etc, a new approach will be needed. At the quantum level, it appears our basic understanding of physical-ism and space time breaks down, and it has been shown repeatedly the observer (the conscious agent) impacts that local reality. To what end, is unknown, and what I like about him is he does not claim to know it, only that it happens. To make the next big leaps in science, we will need a whole new paradigm how we view space-time, and perhaps consciousness itself.
While I have always found this topic interesting, it was always philosophical navel picking to me, his is the first I have seen that genuinely attempts to apply hard science to the topic of consciousness and reality, and he's clear if the math can't be tested, it's just philosophy. He seems very well aware of that.
I have listened to this interview twice now and worth it, especially about midway on.
His entire premise is to take what has been "just words" until now to actual testing using the scientific method. He's not married to any of his conclusions per se, only that what what we experience as local reality is not accurate, and there are tests demonstrating that much. Apparently "the math" checks out which is how all major discoveries have started, then on to confirming it as they did when the math said the earth was round, or that black holes existed, and so forth. He's also perfectly open to the possibilities of dualism in reality and consciousness, and as a legit scientist, vs say philosopher, makes it clear his to get beyond just words but to mathematical models of consciousness and reality and test them. He also makes it clear the math may simply be smarter than he is or perhaps anyone and beyond knowing what's actually under/behind the math.
At 1;00 even he says "...I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong"
I do think he's 100% accurate in saying that physical-ism has served us very well for the past 300 or so years, but the make the next major leaps in our understanding of space-time, etc, a new approach will be needed. At the quantum level, it appears our basic understanding of physical-ism and space time breaks down, and it has been shown repeatedly the observer (the conscious agent) impacts that local reality. To what end, is unknown, and what I like about him is he does not claim to know it, only that it happens. To make the next big leaps in science, we will need a whole new paradigm how we view space-time, and perhaps consciousness itself.
While I have always found this topic interesting, it was always philosophical navel picking to me, his is the first I have seen that genuinely attempts to apply hard science to the topic of consciousness and reality, and he's clear if the math can't be tested, it's just philosophy. He seems very well aware of that.
I have listened to this interview twice now and worth it, especially about midway on.
I get all that. I'm just aware that if the math works, that doesn't actually prove anything, it simply means it could be true and the math hasn't disproven it. I also appreciate that his starting point was using the math to attempt to falsify it.
So he's taken an important first step. But we have supporting math (although somewhat specialized math with new spacial dimensions) for membrane theory so while we haven't proven it can't be true, we haven't exactly proven anything else.
I get all that. I'm just aware that if the math works, that doesn't actually prove anything, it simply means it could be true and the math hasn't disproven it. I also appreciate that his starting point was using the math to attempt to falsify it.
So he's taken an important first step. But we have supporting math (although somewhat specialized math with new spacial dimensions) for membrane theory so while we haven't proven it can't be true, we haven't exactly proven anything else.
Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.
Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.
Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.
Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.
I'm aware. Based upon the math and limited observations Einstein theorized black holes must exist but it would be decades later before it could be confirmed. But there has been many a theory where the math supported it, but we were either way, way off or completely wrong from the start.
Also not trying to criticize this guy or his ideas, I rather enjoy theoretical science, I absolutely loved Carl Sagan even though nearly every sentence out of his mouth began with "We might even discover..." or "Imagine if..." and things of that sort.
I'd also rather listen to two hours of Hoffman discussing possible alternate realities than listen to "pop science" morons talk about the latest exoplanet they discovered and what the composition of the atmosphere is even though they have no real way of knowing that at all. We are making shaky guesses based upon stellar light as the planet (or what we strongly believe will be a planet) transits across the star. But we'd probably be more accurate identifying an individual person on the ground from an areal reconnaissance photo taken during WWII.
I also actually appreciate guys like Hoffman who are willing to explore these areas of science, many people have their credibility discounted if they explore non conventional ideas or what others deem to be "fringe" science and the fact that he is actually applying the scientific method rather than using a collection of fragments of scientific ideas to support a very unlikely hypothesis like many do.
I just find the complete premise unlikely even though most of his ideas are absolutely valid such as the fact that we view everything from a human centric perspective and that means we aren't seeing the complete and total picture. It could very well be that sentient alien species walk among us but we can't detect or interact with them and they cannot detect and interact with us because our individuals ways of viewing and interacting with our environment are completely different.
At any rate it's an interesting discussion.
"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.
'
— James Jeans in The Mysterious Universe, 1930
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jeans
Adrenaline_6
02-26-20, 07:43
Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.
Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.
Although true to an extent, those major scientific theories are usually either debunked and new ones made which has to wait again for tech to catch up or heavily modified once the tech catches up. "Guessing" although highly educated guesses are still just guesses and without the tech, we are notoriously bad at it.
Although true to an extent, those major scientific theories are usually either debunked and new ones made which has to wait again for tech to catch up or heavily modified once the tech catches up. "Guessing" although highly educated guesses are still just guesses and without the tech, we are notoriously bad at it.
Name one. None of the major theories (and remember, the term as used in science is not the same as used in common lexicon, see vid below) put forth by Newton, Eisenstein, etc have ever been debunked. Not a one, nor will they ever be if you understood them and how they were derived. Not one major theory nor G (constants) has been debunked that demonstrated the math (what you seem to referring to as the educated guess) was wrong. For non scientist, highly recommend viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0sSgLUbXk&feature=emb_logo
Adrenaline_6
02-26-20, 09:20
Name one. None of the major theories (and remember, the term as used in science is not the same as used in common lexicon, see vid below) put forth by Newton, Eisenstein, etc have ever been debunked. Not a one, nor will they ever be if you understood them and how they were derived. Not one major theory nor G (constants) has been debunked that demonstrated the math (what you seem to referring to as the educated guess) was wrong. For non scientist, highly recommend viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0sSgLUbXk&feature=emb_logo
At least do a quick google search...just because you know a few that haven't been debunked, that doesn't meant they aren't out there. I made a mistake in writing major, since that could be interpreted differently. Major theories in your view became major because they haven't been able to be debunked for a long time, a debunked one never makes it to the "major leagues". As tech caught up and they couldn't be debunked or actually supported, they became major in your definition. They all started off as theoretical, but some are "bigger" or more "famous" than others which was my interpretation as major. So counting only the major theories in your sense of the word is not being very objective.
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
Name one. None of the major theories (and remember, the term as used in science is not the same as used in common lexicon, see vid below) put forth by Newton, Eisenstein, etc have ever been debunked. Not a one, nor will they ever be if you understood them and how they were derived. Not one major theory nor G (constants) has been debunked that demonstrated the math (what you seem to referring to as the educated guess) was wrong. For non scientist, highly recommend viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0sSgLUbXk&feature=emb_logo
That is a truly excellent treatise and classically exemplifies the mindset of so many people who really, really, really want to believe something that runs counter to prevailing scientific theories. Creationism vs the Theory of Evolution immediately comes to mind, but the concept extends well beyond that. The "it's only a theory" crowd now has an effective sounding board (internet) to promulgate these falsities. Not only a sounding board, but a combination sounding board/echo chamber with which they can rally their fellow true believers.
Sadly, the above video is long enough that those many people who know or suspect that their denial of these various "theories" is on shaky ground will lose interest in it once they get to the point in the video where they begin to suspect that it will further demonstrate that they are fooling themselves.
Google can only go so far in conferring true expertise and makes it that much easier to convince one that they're right in their fallacious thinking. I see this routinely here on M4C in some people (often the same people) who expound on various medical subjects based on their internet "research".
At least do a quick google search...just because you know a few that haven't been debunked, that doesn't meant they aren't out there. I made a mistake in writing major, since that could be interpreted differently. Major theories in your view became major because they haven't been able to be debunked for a long time, a debunked one never makes it to the "major leagues". As tech caught up and they couldn't be debunked or actually supported, they became major in your definition. They all started off as theoretical, but some are "bigger" or more "famous" than others which was my interpretation as major. So counting only the major theories in your sense of the word is not being very objective.
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
That page alone and those comments shows you are seriously out of your lane. I have nothing further to add.
That is a truly excellent treatise and classically exemplifies the mindset of so many people who really, really, really want to believe something that runs counter to prevailing scientific theories. Creationism vs the Theory of Evolution immediately comes to mind, but the concept extends well beyond that. The "it's only a theory" crowd now has an effective sounding board (internet) to promulgate these falsities. Not only a sounding board, but a combination sounding board/echo chamber with which they can rally their fellow true believers.
Sadly, the above video is long enough that those many people who know or suspect that their denial of these various "theories" is on shaky ground will lose interest in it once they get to the point in the video where they begin to suspect that it will further demonstrate that they are fooling themselves.
Google can only go so far in conferring true expertise and makes it that much easier to convince one that they're right in their fallacious thinking. I see this routinely here on M4C in some people (often the same people) who expound on various medical subjects based on their internet "research".
That's an all time favorite vids. For those who want to learn the essential basics without allowing their cognitive dissonance to prevent it, it's a very well done vid. My second favorite on critical thinking is below. Between those two, should be required viewing in all schools, followed by discussion and such. Again. most don't even know the term theory as used in science is not the same as common lexicon. I hate to throw out the Dunning Kruger thing, but I do feel that knowing what's your lane and what's not, and being OK with either, is when/where learning really takes place. There's a lot of info posted on m4c that's not my lane, and I have no problems admitting that, and learning from those who clearly have something to teach me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=6OLPL5p0fMg&feature=emb_logo
Adrenaline_6
02-26-20, 10:15
That page alone and those comments shows you are seriously out of your lane. I have nothing further to add.
Lol...OK, bro. I like you man, but your typical condescending attitude gets tiresome sometimes. I don't even think you understand what I was really saying to begin with, but your quick defense to defend yourself because I was responding to your comment is a typical Will response. The funny thing was, I wasn't even really attacking that post whatsoever, just adding a thought process to it. I wasn't even attacking a specific theory. I was just making a statement that we do get it wrong, and as tech and new data surfaces, we adjust and come up with new theories to support the current new data. To deny this is borderline stupidity and/or denial.
The ironic thing is, that video you presented could apply to you equally also and you don't even see it...or wan't to maybe. I currently have nothing to add to this either.
Psalm 139:13-15
13 For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Says it all. Close thread.
Lol...OK, bro. I like you man, but your typical condescending attitude gets tiresome sometimes. I don't even think you understand what I was really saying to begin with, but your quick defense to defend yourself because I was responding to your comment is a typical Will response. The funny thing was, I wasn't even really attacking that post whatsoever, just adding a thought process to it. I wasn't even attacking a specific theory. I was just making a statement that we do get it wrong, and as tech and new data surfaces, we adjust and come up with new theories to support the current new data. To deny this is borderline stupidity and/or denial.
The ironic thing is, that video you presented could apply to you equally also and you don't even see it...or wan't to maybe. I currently have nothing to add to this either.
And you don't know what you don't know and everything you have said in the last responses were flatly wrong, full stop. Hence, while you can interpret as condescending if you wish, there's really no way to add anything at this point that would change your inability to simply realize your out of your lane to the point your bouncing off guardrails of incoming traffic.
No one claimed they/we don't get it wrong some times. No one claims as new things are learned, modifications take place. That's the nature of science.
It's always best to have questions you can't answer than answers you can't question.
Evolution, the seeds of which were planted slightly before Darwin, is a fraud IMO.
Darwin and those that controlled him wanted the basis in which to justify genocide and eugenics.
The fact that it was brought to the forefront of science in this manner discredits it quite a bit.
Not to mention it seems rather ridiculous that life started in the primordial soup and a spark of lightning.
Evolution in the way it's explained is like hurricane winds building a car from parts lying in a junk yard.
I think the powers to be know this, and they perverted the truth. The only evolution that takes place is in the womb.
Primordial Soup, the spark of life, and the different ways a baby looks as it grows in the womb.
Evolution, the seeds of which were planted slightly before Darwin, is a fraud IMO.
Darwin and those that controlled him wanted the basis in which to justify genocide and eugenics.
The fact that it was brought to the forefront of science in this manner discredits it quite a bit.
Not to mention it seems rather ridiculous that life started in the primordial soup and a spark of lightning.
Evolution in the way it's explained is like hurricane winds building a car from parts lying in a junk yard.
I think the powers to be know this, and they perverted the truth. The only evolution that takes place is in the womb.
Primordial Soup, the spark of life, and the different ways a baby looks as it grows in the womb.
Hmm, who is a source of info on this topic with more credibility on the topic of evolution? Random net guy with clearly no science/med background getting info from anti science tin foil hat sources, or born again Christian, top geneticist, and head of the NIH Dr. Francis Collins? Truly a difficult choice that...
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." - Francis Collins
Hmm, who is a source of info on this topic with more credibility on the topic of evolution? Random net guy with clearly no science/med background getting info from anti science tin foil hat sources, or born again Christian, top geneticist, and head of the NIH Dr. Francis Collins? Truly a difficult choice that...
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." - Francis Collins
Far too many have the white lab coat syndrome. Would it sooth you if I wore one? Maybe you'd believe me more.
I do understand though, I am no authority.
After all we know all men in positions of authority are benevolent and have our best interests in mind.
Adrenaline_6
02-26-20, 11:34
And you don't know what you don't know and everything you have said in the last responses were flatly wrong, full stop. Hence, while you can interpret as condescending if you wish, there's really no way to add anything at this point that would change your inability to simply realize your out of your lane to the point your bouncing off guardrails of incoming traffic.
No one claimed they/we don't get it wrong some times. No one claims as new things are learned, modifications take place. That's the nature of science.
It's always best to have questions you can't answer than answers you can't question.
Yet, even though that is what I was saying and that it is the nature of science, you still say I don't know what I don't know and everything I have said in the last responses was flat wrong. Pick one.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.