and it might give you some insight into the person. It certainly tubed Huckabee who I thought up to then was an excellent and well-spoken candidate. Now, whether it is relevant at all to anything that a President might have anything to do with, is a different question. And the answer to that question is No. But ask away. Briefs or boxers, did you have sex with that woman, evolution, favorite comic book character...anything is acceptable.
I'd be interested in knowing how many POTUS candidates really deny evolution rather than just skirting around the question to avoid upsetting idiots in their base.
If we're going to compete with China and the rest of the developed world, especially with regard to bio-technology, it's important that educate our children by teaching them established science.
The president has significant authority when it comes to education and his or her willingness to be ignorant on stuff like this is a deal-breaker for this voter.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
education. With that funding the Feds have a great influence on what is taught and the way it is taught. The President's views on education are very significant.
The other thing is whether he is honest enough to answer a tough question honestly, especially if he is campaigning in Kansas.
supposed to have duck sniper fire so I don't know njm is referring too. However, regarding the question "is he dim" I would like to point out that he is from NJ so you kind of should excuse stuff like that from him. He can't help it
should have read njm instead if not, but you knew that
No, I don't believe that, nor is that in the spirit of why I asked the question. It has long puzzled me that someone can sell out completely to one viewpoint or another. We all know that no one viewpoint has all, or even most, of the answers to anything.
We all have our basic beliefs, and all lean in a certain direction, but to blithely accept one viewpoint seems to me to be stultifying and, ultimately, anti-intellectual. It truly puzzles me.
Absolutely. If a candidate says they don't believe in evolution
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Not really following that logic. There are quite clearly people with at least somewhat realistic Presidential aspirations who do not believe in evolution. And I think it's important for them to acknowledge and explain such beliefs so voters can fully understand their position. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that such potential candidates do not similarly believe in Santa Claus. If I thought some might, I'd probably want that put to them to get it on the record as well.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Problem is the question is usually brought up during the primary when the decision for the base is between a Republican and a Republican.
If it's first brought up in the general election, any savvy politician (assuming they aren't on record already) would simply say "yes, I believe in evolution".
You haven't said what question EXACTLY we're discussing.
Assuming it's "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving? If not, what do you believe about the origin and diversity of life on Earth."
A more specific question might mention Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but since you have some variations of Darwin's theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, that gives a savvy pol a way to wiggle out of the question without ever quite answering it.
I would actively work to defeat anyone who refuses to answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving?" It's disqualifying. Too many urgent public policy issues depend on leaving aside faith-based views of the world and making decisions based on facts and evidence. People who say today they don't believe in any form of evolution are either liars or fools.
supposed to have duck sniper fire so I don't know njm is referring too. However, regarding the question "is he dim" I would like to point out that he is from NJ so you kind of should excuse stuff like that from him. He can't help it
Please read more carefully. I very specifically stated that he is obviously NOT dim. I find many of njm's responses on this board to be both informative and well thought out.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
This. I'd rather find out about their economic and foreign policies. The President can't do anything about evolution or abortion or most of these social issues. It's a huge waste of time in these debates to bring them up. The Press only does it to get soundbites and tank the R candidates.
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Except that there really are adults in this country who don't believe in evolution, and this matters.
I agree that there are serious matters to discuss. Therefore, we should ask the evolution question to everyone who runs for President. If they say they don't believe in it, we can quickly move on to discussing the serious matters with those candidates who do.
Personally, if his personal view won't ever effect my life
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Uh, do you ask someone if they "believe" that 2+2=4?
If someone says, "Yes, I believe in Evolution.", does that mean that evolution is now a religion?
Last time I looked, Evolution was a well established scientific theory that currently is the best explanation of why species develop/change/go extinct over time.
Theories in Science aren't hunches, by the way; they are the best explanations we can come up with based on observations, and are as strong as the challenges they survive from peer review. Theories in science can be altered, based on new discoveries;
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
I guess you don't care that the evidence about vaccines was completely false and discredited?
It would be equivalent to asking them if they believe in gravity or the second law of thermodynamics.
But since that's not the world we live in, then it's perfectly reasonable question to ask anyone who wants to hold high public office. It informs a lot of things including science and education policy as well as the politicians intellect or basic honesty.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
not sure the answer will influence the overall vote all that much, if at all. Plus there is a middle of the road answer that most Christians believe (including myself), which is that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.
It would be equivalent to asking them if they believe in gravity or the second law of thermodynamics.
But since that's not the world we live in, then it's perfectly reasonable question to ask anyone who wants to hold high public office. It informs a lot of things including science and education policy as well as the politicians intellect or basic honesty.
not sure the answer will influence the overall vote all that much, if at all. Plus there is a middle of the road answer that most Christians believe (including myself), which is that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp to man connection is comical enough, but imo, the primordial soup to man wins first place for absurdity.
I still remember our long ago discussion about the little horses of the Americas that migrated over the land bridge to the old world and became much bigger.
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Haven't read much of the thread yet, but this.
I don't need a guy that agreed with me on everything. I need a guy that's going to be great at making the right decisions. If those decisions are faith based (unless it's a moral choice- and even then I'd rather it come from just being a good person rather than what thousands of year old book he reads ), he's not getting my votes.
I definitely don't want someone that subscribes to pseudo science.
I want someone that respects the beliefs of others even if he doesn't share them, but I absolutely do not want any policy based on those beliefs.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Man is a primate.
Al, there is no species identified to be specifically the bridge between man and primates. I would agree that it is hard to not see the incredible similarities between the two, supporting evolution but.. there again there is no species that links the two.. never...
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Man is a primate.
Al, there is no species identified to be specifically the bridge between man and primates. I would agree that it is hard to not see the incredible similarities between the two, supporting evolution but.. there again there is no species that links the two.. never...
Doing some research, yes they have not identified the last common ancestor of chimps and man. Kind of random luck involved in finding it. However at a certain point there is no evidence of either man or chimps but a bunch of species which appear to be common ancestors. This logically tells the story rather than basing a belief system based on not finding a needle in a haystack specific fossil. In other words. Not really necessary to find the last specific common ancestor when there are plenty older out there.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
Only if you are limited enough in your thinking that you require encyclopedic knowledge of the bible and an unshakable faith in God to have a basic sense of morality.
In fact it is not a skill at all. But it does speak to the person's character, and shows they have an established Northern coordinate for their moral compass.
I remember being in South Africa and this guy telling me
He didn't believe in evolution. I came home and researched it thinking it had to be a South African thing only to find there is actually an anti evolution museum in Kentucky. The fact that people don't believe in evolution is absolutely an affort on humanity. It's akin to someone professing they believe the earth is the center of the universe or the world is flat. And yes if someone is crazy enough to admit to not believing in evolution, i certainly would not trust their ability to reason the multitude of complex issues that will arise during a presidency.
RE: Chris, you are correct it's not vital skill...
In fact it is not a skill at all. But it does speak to the person's character, and shows they have an established Northern coordinate for their moral compass.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
Only if you are limited enough in your thinking that you require encyclopedic knowledge of the bible and an unshakable faith in God to have a basic sense of morality.
True
Don't the the majority of the voters feel that way? Left or right?
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
Bill, let me help you understand what I believe is the primary reason for the fanatical craze for evolution from primordial soup to man. Many need to put their hat on something to convince themselves and others that there really is no intelligent design. So, they come up with half baked theories and trust that most people are not very inquisitive and rather gullible and also just like them, looking for any excuse to NOT believe.
so they throw this theory out there and it sells like hot cakes. I'm sure many in this camp couldn't care less about the veracity of this theory or not. It's good enough to let them live their lives as if they are in control of their lives and not some Intelligent Entity called God.
Dare they ask the pertinent question you asked-where did the primordial soup come from? Nevertheless, someone will come out with some crazy answer and the masses will all respond in one voice, "There it is......"
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
Bill, let me help you understand what I believe is the primary reason for the fanatical craze for evolution from primordial soup to man. Many need to put their hat on something to convince themselves and others that there really is no intelligent design. So, they come up with half baked theories and trust that most people are not very inquisitive and rather gullible and also just like them, looking for any excuse to NOT believe.
so they throw this theory out there and it sells like hot cakes. I'm sure many in this camp couldn't care less about the veracity of this theory or not. It's good enough to let them live their lives as if they are in control of their lives and not some Intelligent Entity called God.
Dare they ask the pertinent question you asked-where did the primordial soup come from? Nevertheless, someone will come out with some crazy answer and the masses will all respond in one voice, "There it is......"
This sounds like the basis of an anti religion argument adjusted to turn it in the opposite direction.
On the part of Spock dismiss some of the finest minds in science of favor of a fucking ancient fairy tale and then have the balls to assert that it's science, not the fairy tale, that people use as a crutch for their pathetically inadequate minds.
In a just world, there would be way to arrange a steel cage match between ISIS and Spock's ilk - birds of a feather.
and the like have done a fantastic job in identifying very rare organisims throughout Earths Billions of years history...
But yet there is no shred of evidence of a missing link between primate and Man, of Mans few hundred thousand years on this planet..
A species so common to both primates and Man that they could have actually mated, "you know evolved". Save for Neanderthal, which are still considered human.
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
RE: RE: RE: As long as you can ask a candidate.....
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Like the OP isn't political.....
Non-compo, all the way. You're unable to see that your response has nothing at all to do with my questions here. You are a classic example of a non-thinking, brain-dead political who is totally consumed with your "side," seeing anything that deviates from your meager views as a personal attack.
You are beneath contempt and are an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere. Take a gas pipe and do the world a favor.
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Er, man is a primate.
Er, the term Primate is a relative of man, not like it means much in my point
Please tell me you have a better argument than that .
You're right. Fred Phelps, David Koresh, and pedophile priests would all make exceptional presidents. Good point.
There will always be those that pervert and twist their chosen religions to achieve some ends or some personal gain (the whole Middle East is on fire right now because of that). There are many politicians that try to pass themselves off as people of faith, because they know how true people of faith are perceived. They are all users and not true people of faith, and that says something completely different about their character.
...
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
Animal and man? Believing in some primordial soup magically evolving into a single cell creature capable of reproduction is a modern day fairy tale for the foolish.
RE: Please tell me you have a better argument than that .
You're right. Fred Phelps, David Koresh, and pedophile priests would all make exceptional presidents. Good point.
There will always be those that pervert and twist their chosen religions to achieve some ends or some personal gain (the whole Middle East is on fire right now because of that). There are many politicians that try to pass themselves off as people of faith, because they know how true people of faith are perceived. They are all users and not true people of faith, and that says something completely different about their character.
So now you can judge who is a true person of faith? Do you do like a Scientology scan or something? How you can sit there and say that bible knowledge speaks to character while you readily admit how many frauds there are, and how many twist religion to their own needs and wants, boggles my mind. Religious belief does not equate to morality.
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
...
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
Animal and man? Believing in some primordial soup magically evolving into a single cell creature capable of reproduction is a modern day fairy tale for the foolish.
On the part of Spock dismiss some of the finest minds in science of favor of a fucking ancient fairy tale and then have the balls to assert that it's science, not the fairy tale, that people use as a crutch for their pathetically inadequate minds.
In a just world, there would be way to arrange a steel cage match between ISIS and Spock's ilk - birds of a feather.
Haha! This.
What purpose does it serve to discount intelligent design? Is there a lot of money in it?
Honestly, there seems to be a lot more money for the "religious leaders" that peddle their anti-evolution bullshit as they preach to their followers about emulating Jesus and then go home to their multi-million dollar ( tax free) mansions.
So, Spock- what's the motivation behind the "evolution conspiracy"?
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
WTF are you talking about? There is no hybrid. There is evolution.
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
Chef, dont hold your breath waiting for the missing link.
RE: I just wonder how an unidentified species, or two
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
but I wanted to post on it to find it easily when I have time to read the hilarity as long as it survives.
my opinion: of course it's a fair question, and I really don't care about their actual views, but hearing how they respond would be cool.
Some candidates would be able to respond to an inane question like this in a way that is positive regardless of how they view the issue, others simply answer literally, and some it brings out their worst.
so, even if you don't care about their answer, you might be interested in their response.
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
WTF are you talking about? There is no hybrid. There is evolution.
BUFORD, I like you.. but please identify which species created man in evolution
RE: RE: I just wonder how an unidentified species, or two
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
What makes you think I do that anymore.. I like you.. but you are participating typical douchebaggery I have outlined.. make a point please
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
What makes you think I do that anymore.. I like you.. but you are participating typical douchebaggery I have outlined.. make a point please
What makes me think you do that? Your choice of handle.
I like you too.
The point has been made multiple times, even by freaking Buford of all people, but you appear to only see what you want to see. Read the article Rob linked for starters. Link - ( New Window )
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
difficulty in acquiring primate fossils, versus other, older, animals. As well as the viable populations for which evolution must take place.
The missing link does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it supports the theory of evolution quite well.
If you believed in other, non-scientific, theories, that are based on no science at all, you would see a huge explosion in the fossil records at delineated dates. Which, of course, don't happen.
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
What makes you think I do that anymore.. I like you.. but you are participating typical douchebaggery I have outlined.. make a point please
What makes me think you do that? Your choice of handle.
I like you too.
The point has been made multiple times, even by freaking Buford of all people, but you appear to only see what you want to see. Read the article Rob linked for starters. Link - ( New Window )
Chris, I don't think my movement in my profession should impact my Football handle.. In fact I could more than service a cater function from my home.. none of that to satiates my curiousities or faith.. it is all what you want I guess.. I have faith.. but trying to stay away from it here.
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
Anyway...reciting a fairy tale does little to support your position. And for a book inspired by a deity, it sure is filled with a whole lot of stupid and, in some cases, soft core porn...not that I mind.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brothers wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. [Genesis 38:8-9]
stuff Christopher Hitchens wrote in God is not Great? I mean it would be like me bringing a howitzer to Spock's pea shooter. I'd almost feel for the guy(almost)
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
No basis in scientific truth? Haha.
Is the Earth still the center of the universe? That was the last "big" scientific claim that religious folks railed against because there was "no basis in scientific truth."
No biggie. Your mind is made up. There is absolutely no evidence that will convince you otherwise.
RE: And the fact that people don't have any fucking
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
Hey Spock, I'm gonna cut off my toe for your mortgage payment!
Makes about as much sense as the creator dying for our sins, IMO.
(stolen from somewhere- I'm not nearly original enough to have made that up myself)
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
understood, but there is no definitive link!
So?
That means all of the other evidence is invalid? Just this one piece invalidates the whole thing?
Which if you read one of the early links is nothing more than a red herring anyway...(just trying to understand your thought process beyond clinging to a dearly held belief)
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
understood, but there is no definitive link!
So?
That means all of the other evidence is invalid? Just this one piece invalidates the whole thing?
Which if you read one of the early links is nothing more than a red herring anyway...(just trying to understand your thought process beyond clinging to a dearly held belief)
People who don't believe want proof, I want the same.. and there is no definitive proof...
Thanks for offering to pay my mortgage, but the Lord has blessed me with a decent brain, common sense, good health, and then rewarded me with much of the riches of this world which I used to pay off my house. But don't envy any worldly treasure I own because such is fleeting and cannot be transferred to the next world. Rather, be envious of the greatest possession I own- ETERNAL LIFE! (I hope some day you are worthy to carry this promise to your grave too.)
PS However, if you love me that much, would you mind sending that mortgage payment to Salvation Army instead. They could always use it. Thanks.
Is a mountain of evidence across multiple disciplines, and on the other, zero evidence, and people get hung up on evolution for lack of "definitive proof".
Is a mountain of evidence across multiple disciplines, and on the other, zero evidence, and people get hung up on evolution for lack of "definitive proof".
I assume you know how to google topics, so if you google "Creationism" you will see a ton of research that supports creationism and refutes evolution. Good luck.
Is a mountain of evidence across multiple disciplines, and on the other, zero evidence, and people get hung up on evolution for lack of "definitive proof".
I assume you know how to google topics, so if you google "Creationism" you will see a ton of research that supports creationism and refutes evolution. Good luck.
That pretty clearly doesn't understand what the word research means. You should pray to howdy dowdy or whoever the fuck your god is to grant you a clue.
That pretty clearly doesn't understand what the word research means. You should pray to howdy dowdy or whoever the fuck your god is to grant you a clue.
That pretty clearly doesn't understand what the word research means. You should pray to howdy dowdy or whoever the fuck your god is to grant you a clue.
i can tell your profession is not lawyer or teacher. You have zero skills in communication. Just curious, Are you in the concrete business?
The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), even when secular astronomers claim otherwise: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them (Exodus 20:11a)."
Are substantial. My ability to suffer fools is lacking.
Says who?
Not me!
All you do is resort to name calling, which shows one or more of the following: lack of education, lack of self esteem, lack of conviction, or lack of God.
It was almost enjoyable fellows. Thanks for the few laughs I did manage to find here. I don't suppose I will see this thread tomorrow, so catch you on a later thread.
It was almost enjoyable fellows. Thanks for the few laughs I did manage to find here. I don't suppose I will see this thread tomorrow, so catch you on a later thread.
Moses wrote the first five books probably around 1500bc, so that puts the good book around 3500 years old, not 2000. The New Testament is about 2000 years old, but people of true faith usually believe in the veracity of both books- the first (erroneously referred to as the Old Testament) and the New Testament.
How could Moses write a book that describes his death?
Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No" Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
Well, Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"
I don't you really care, but I will answer your question about Moses. I can't be dogmatic here but if I had to bet my two dollars, I would say JOSHUA finished the part of the book that Moses that described Moses' death. Joshua was the next leader and was awesome in his own right. Too bad you think all of that is fairy tales though.
By the way, I can't recall any Jew coming on here adding support to my beliefs and interpretations in the First testament. They all can't be unbelievers, are they? So, if there are any Jews out here who also believe Adam was the first contemporary man who did not evolve from primordial soup, speak up.
There is NO missing link! People looking for a "missing link or people using the absence of a "missing link" as an argument against evolution simply have no concept of how evolution works. The process of evolution negates the possibility of a so called missing link.
Crtitical thinking skills are a must have for a presidential candidate in my book. Believing in creationism over evolution would be a non-starter for me.
There is NO missing link! People looking for a "missing link or people using the absence of a "missing link" as an argument against evolution simply have no concept of how evolution works. The process of evolution negates the possibility of a so called missing link.
"The phrasemissing linkhas been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature."
RE: How could Moses write a book that describes his death?
but you'll never get a straight answer from the candidates who are counting on the votes of evolution deniers. Every republican candidate knows that every homophobic or science denying statement they make will cost them the independant votes they need to be elected. On the other hand the creationists have nowhere else to go as long as the candidate does not actually laugh out loud at them. So it pays them to weasel out of the question.
You can see the strategy in action in the house every year when dems try to pass a resolution honoring charles darwin on his birthday. Republicans try to keep it from coming to a vote and will abstain or vote against. But most who have higher ambitions won't try anything silly like honoring ken ham or the other creationist frauds.
is to ask them if they think all the National Academies of Science of all the developed nations on earth are lying about climate change.In my experience, the evolution deniers and the climate change deniers are closely linked so you may be able to infer the answer both answers with one question.
but you'll never get a straight answer from the candidates who are counting on the votes of evolution deniers. Every republican candidate knows that every homophobic or science denying statement they make will cost them the independant votes they need to be elected. On the other hand the creationists have nowhere else to go as long as the candidate does not actually laugh out loud at them. So it pays them to weasel out of the question.
You can see the strategy in action in the house every year when dems try to pass a resolution honoring charles darwin on his birthday. Republicans try to keep it from coming to a vote and will abstain or vote against. But most who have higher ambitions won't try anything silly like honoring ken ham or the other creationist frauds.
Actually 3 of the candidates at a 2008 Republican debate raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution.
is to ask them if they think all the National Academies of Science of all the developed nations on earth are lying about climate change.In my experience, the evolution deniers and the climate change deniers are closely linked so you may be able to infer the answer both answers with one question.
I don't agree with that at all. First, it conflates climate changed with human-induced climate change. Second, there's still some questions about data manipulation that are likely the result of normalization type things but which still need to be made clear to people. Third and most importantly, both deniers and proponents are unlikely to actually know much about the underlying science; their opinion of the science veracity is heavily influenced either by their ideology or their economic viewpoint. Remove that and you would get a fairer picture about what people know or believe.
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
I don't think there is a issue with being religious
and believing in evolution. As I said, the Catholic Church has sanctioned it. You can still believe that 'God Created' the Earth and Man through evolution.
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
(and now I know where this thread came from...you dems must be worried about Walker....)
Quote:
I Dont Care Whether the President Believes in Evolution and Neither Should You
How is this question related to actual federal policy?
I'm sure some science-minded libertarians and conservatives would have just preferred he gave a simple "yes" to avoid exactly this kind of story that completely ignores anything Walker may have actually said about trade. Now the story is this silly nonsense that has zero impact about any sort of pending or potential federal policy. Reuters attempts to tie it to both public opinion polls about support for the theory evolution (has anybody ever voted for a president on the basis of his opinion on the theory of evolution?) and recent controversies about science and vaccinations. At least there are genuine policies connected to vaccinations at play (which, nevertheless, have nothing to do with the president).
and believing in evolution. As I said, the Catholic Church has sanctioned it. You can still believe that 'God Created' the Earth and Man through evolution.
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
To some here, religion is defined as their religion and beliefs.
No. But you said none of the candidates would give a straight answer. They did give a straight answer.
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
exactly - stupid anti-science views whether it's anti-vax, global warming deniers or anti-evolutionists are not monopolized by either political party
but I wanted to share some thoughts. I am a Christian and a firm believer in evolution. I don't see a battle between religion and science. Science is as much a search for answers as religion. The two are too comparible to be opposites. The one constant... humans are imperfect and don't have the ability to comprehend something as complex as life and the infinite. Science and religion are a mirror for the reflection of imperfection.
This agrument is not a battle between science and religion. This thred reflects another attempt to define what the human mind cannot possibly understand. I'm okay with not understanding who's right, because nobody is... It doesn't make me feel stupid, it just reminds me that there are MANY things much bigger than I can comprehend. My brain finds this facinating, my faith tells me that I will know some day.
No. But you said none of the candidates would give a straight answer. They did give a straight answer.
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
Not to Hucklebee, but he and other similar candidates have little chance anyway.
RE: I don't think there is a issue with being religious
and believing in evolution. As I said, the Catholic Church has sanctioned it. You can still believe that 'God Created' the Earth and Man through evolution.
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
Actually, the Catholic Church has not "sanctioned" it. The Church has no official position on it, allowing the individual to believe what they want as long as they accept that man was created by God; that is, man became man he was imbued with a soul which God breathed into him, as seen in the metaphor of Genesis.
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
Just as I could not vote for a candidate who denies evolution and climate change, I could never vote for an anti vaxxer. The difference between the two is that republican science deniers have a huge influence in that party. I am not aware (but also admittedly have not searched all their statements on the issue) of the anti vaxxer position being supported by any serious national dem politician. If I'm wrong tell me who I'm missing so I can cross them off my list of rational people.
No. But you said none of the candidates would give a straight answer. They did give a straight answer.
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
Not to Hucklebee, but he and other similar candidates have little chance anyway.
That's unfortunate to me because I really do like Huckabee. I thin khe made a really good talk show host and he;s clear. I think I would be more disappointed in him form a policy perspective than his views on evolution since I feel like he was a little too big gov't in practice when he was governor.
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
Just as I could not vote for a candidate who denies evolution and climate change, I could never vote for an anti vaxxer. The difference between the two is that republican science deniers have a huge influence in that party. I am not aware (but also admittedly have not searched all their statements on the issue) of the anti vaxxer position being supported by any serious national dem politician. If I'm wrong tell me who I'm missing so I can cross them off my list of rational people.
Well, to be fair to them, it's hard to tell when they make statements if they actually believe them or are just tailoring/pandering to their audience. Also, you have to decide for yourself about how much their backers' beliefs reflect their own. I also think you will be hard-pressed to find a candidate who has his views line up with yours 100% of the time, even on emotional issues. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: I don't think there is a issue with being religious
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobodynot even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atomshad the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion.
―God Is Not Great
RE: RE: just as fair - and much more important IMO
I don't agree with that at all. First, it conflates climate changed with human-induced climate change. Second, there's still some questions about data manipulation that are likely the result of normalization type things but which still need to be made clear to people. Third and most importantly, both deniers and proponents are unlikely to actually know much about the underlying science; their opinion of the science veracity is heavily influenced either by their ideology or their economic viewpoint. Remove that and you would get a fairer picture about what people know or believe.
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retardor try to turn backthe measurable advances that we have made.
Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.
Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be saved.
―God Is Not Great
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
I agree with you.
Evolution and natural selection are the same thing. The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
RE: RE: RE: I don't think there is a issue with being religious
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
I don't think evolution has anything to do with "random coincidence".
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
And, miraculously, countries that have grown up without significant (or any) Christian influence, such as China and India, have managed to write down these standards.
Christianity is neither a pre-requisite, nor necessary, for morals and justice, as well as societal stability.
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.
These are tools that made it easier to see what our eyes were incapable of seeing. The microscope and telescope for the brain is the belief in something bigger than yourself. Rather than disprove the belief in the vastness of infinity or the complexity of small things, it validated that there is a whole lot we can't possibly understand about us and our knowledge.
Well, to be fair to them, it's hard to tell when they make statements if they actually believe them or are just tailoring/pandering to their audience. Also, you have to decide for yourself about how much their backers' beliefs reflect their own. I also think you will be hard-pressed to find a candidate who has his views line up with yours 100% of the time, even on emotional issues.
All very true. Thanks for the link. There is at least some difference between taking money from people and publicly proclaiming their crazy beliefs as your own. I can't say I'm disappointed in Hillary becasue my expectations are very low but I am surprised she initially said anything so stupid before backtracking. Or maybe I'm being too hard maybe the evidence was not as clear and easily discovered in '08 as now.
I never expect to find a politician who agrees with me about everything and I guess if I never vote for a politician who lies to get elected I'll just have to stay home on election day ;)
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
I agree with you.
Evolution and natural selection are the same thing. The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
Well, evolution and natural selection are not exactly the same thing. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs and proceeds
RE: RE: RE: just as fair - and much more important IMO
I don't agree with that at all. First, it conflates climate changed with human-induced climate change. Second, there's still some questions about data manipulation that are likely the result of normalization type things but which still need to be made clear to people. Third and most importantly, both deniers and proponents are unlikely to actually know much about the underlying science; their opinion of the science veracity is heavily influenced either by their ideology or their economic viewpoint. Remove that and you would get a fairer picture about what people know or believe.
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
I apologize. I was doing the conflating there. HH equated evolution with climate change and stem cell research, so I lumped it in with my response to you.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
Also, I still think that's a tricky question. The NAS, even in that statement, is more declarative about climate change than they are about human-induced climate change ("likely that..."). So, it wouldn't be a question of thinking that they are likely or not, but as to whether you believe that "likely is" is the same as "is". And the last part about actions I would dismiss out of hand myself. Again, it's not a question as to whether or not they are lying because they are not talking science at all. They are merely offering an opinion about policy which they are free to do but I am not sure that it is much different than anyone else's. In their opinion and recommendations, as it touches economic or political policy, I think that they are as influenced by personal ideology as anyone else.
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
And, miraculously, countries that have grown up without significant (or any) Christian influence, such as China and India, have managed to write down these standards.
Christianity is neither a pre-requisite, nor necessary, for morals and justice, as well as societal stability.
But those countries by and large have historically had *something*. I do agree with the thesis, even though I don't agree with the part that it need be Christianity.
what was meant by "random coincidences". Evolution proceeds by natural selection among hosts of random genetic changes in which harmful ones dies off without reproduction, neutral ones may survive and reproduce, but lack of survival and reproductive advantage doesn't favor flourishing, and changes favorable for survival and reproduction become dominant. Randomness is not a guiding influence on the direction of evolution, natural selection from among that randomness is. As a side note there is some evidence for a Lamarckian aspect to the process.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Why are the questions I'm responding to reflexively liberal? And please take particular note of your use of the word "response". I rarely, if ever, start these types of threads. Yet some people do so frequently with the express purpose of stirring shit and making political points. I suppose I could ignore them, and probably should more often, but their frequency leads me in many cases to respond. And no, politics does not run my life to that extent. At home in the evening if there's a Rangers game on it gets picked over either O'Reilly or Maddow. Actually, it might be worth asking the OP if politics runs HIS life to that extent, as he is starting the threads where I respond.
Semi - The person who would be asked that question is Hillary Clinton. It's the flip side of the "gotcha" question that's the subject of this thread. Politifact rated it as "pants on fire"
There are some organisms and even some sites within genes
of a particular organism where genetic changes, including but not restricted to, mutations occur with a much higher frequency that would be expected by randomness. Often that's essential to the survival of the type of organism and the individual organism itself.
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
How do you know the miracles, resurrection, etc. really happened? Aren't you just taking someone's word for it? How do you know they didn't just make it all up?
but I wanted to share some thoughts. I am a Christian and a firm believer in evolution. I don't see a battle between religion and science. Science is as much a search for answers as religion. The two are too comparible to be opposites. The one constant... humans are imperfect and don't have the ability to comprehend something as complex as life and the infinite. Science and religion are a mirror for the reflection of imperfection.
This agrument is not a battle between science and religion. This thred reflects another attempt to define what the human mind cannot possibly understand. I'm okay with not understanding who's right, because nobody is... It doesn't make me feel stupid, it just reminds me that there are MANY things much bigger than I can comprehend. My brain finds this facinating, my faith tells me that I will know some day.
I agree with most of this sentiment, although I'm not a believer.
Think of all of these things just studies of "the mechanism"- you can call it "god's mechanism" if you would like. The bible doesn't explain HOW god created everything (I mean beyond simple explanations like "dust" and whatnot). Evolution is the mechanism that was used.
I really don't see why religion and science are so incompatible in some people's eyes. Fuck, as a species one of the things we're so great at is rationalization! It's a shame when people don't use it.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was religion versus non-religion as opposed to being Christianity-specific.
RE: RE: RE: RE: just as fair - and much more important IMO
Also, I still think that's a tricky question. The NAS, even in that statement, is more declarative about climate change than they are about human-induced climate change ("likely that..."). So, it wouldn't be a question of thinking that they are likely or not, but as to whether you believe that "likely is" is the same as "is". And the last part about actions I would dismiss out of hand myself. Again, it's not a question as to whether or not they are lying because they are not talking science at all. They are merely offering an opinion about policy which they are free to do but I am not sure that it is much different than anyone else's. In their opinion and recommendations, as it touches economic or political policy, I think that they are as influenced by personal ideology as anyone else.
The use of "likely" is exactly the kind of language I expect. These are scientific organizations after all, not salesmen. And these are not smallm groups of scientists all being paid by the same benfactor or a few labs who expect to make a fortune on their new anti warming device. These are all the national academies of science of all the advanced countries on earth. And "likely" is good enough to base future actions on. As for those actions, they cannot be dismissed out of hand any more than the recommended action for smokers to quit in the face of overwhelming evidence that they substantially raise their risk of cancer.
Really there is no good scientific reason to doubt human caused global warming. And there is no good reason other than political allegiance to deny the usefulness of government action to help assess, prepare for, and minimize the effects.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was religion versus non-religion as opposed to being Christianity-specific.
It's early. Could very well have come across that way with my typing.
I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
That it is hard to know where to begin.
Random? Uh, no?
Studied evolution? Uh, no - evolution is at the intersection of multiple disciplines, thrilled to hear that you have a substantial knowledge of each of them.
Convinced? By what data?
All of this seems like a nice little pseudo-scientific bow to allow you to wrap up your beliefs that are based on "a fairy tale told me so."
that people, when they look at evolution, think of "random" as "luck".
Maybe that's what it means to feed your gambling habit, but random, in the social sciences, the hard sciences, and in math, means something quite significantly different.
"Random" has become an interesting word to try to explain around
'Yet' being the keyword. We have hundreds, thousands, millions, and even billions or years of evolution in Science left to explain a lot of those stuff.
Be patient.
But I am sure the explanation of God for everything Science can't explain is just a temporary placeholder until Science does explain it.
is it a fair question to ask a candidate if they believe in free speech or would they want to regulate the internet (and censor it and tax the hell out of it). Do they believe in the right to be free from illegal searches (wiretapping and data mining). Do they have a right not to be droned, or have their license plate tracked or have the IRS harass them?
The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
As I have noted here numerous times, the question has never been about how the initial spark of life occurred. Even if an outside being did that--call it God if you like--the question has always been whether that God then stepped back and let evolution with descent through natural selection occur as all of the available science suggests, or is an "intervener God" who guided the process.
And, if he/she/it didn't guide the process, then how would he/she/it know that an intelligent species would develop?
And if he/she/it didn't know that, when and how and why did he/she/it step back in to control the behaviors of humans?
And if he/she/it did step back in to control the behavior of humans, what evidence is there--other than unreliable eyewitness testimony--that he/she/it really needs us to go into little or big white boxes once a week to acknowledge what he/she/it already knows about itself?
An omniscient/omnipotent being really needs us to remind him/her/it of that? Why would that be? The logic associated with that says little about this being, and a great deal about the thinking of humans in the environment of knowledge from 1-500 A.D. or so, and the history of religious though.
And, as I have noted, you really haven't "studied evolution" through natural descent if you haven't gone through the logic on this site, which is complex, detailed, challenging, multidisciplinary and thorough.
Quote:
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Debating whether it's "natural" or "man-made" is a waste of time and resources and distracts from the issue at hand, which is what, if anything, can humans do to slow the warming and avoid the potentially catastrophic issues that could arise due to the earth warming? And what cost are we willing to pay for those measures?
Anyway...reciting a fairy tale does little to support your position. And for a book inspired by a deity, it sure is filled with a whole lot of stupid and, in some cases, soft core porn...not that I mind.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brothers wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. [Genesis 38:8-9]
Rrrr...
I think it was pretty classy of Onan to not bust a nut on his bro's lady. It's not always easy to remember to observe proper etiquette when one is hittin' it.
Related. I think net neutrality is now a legit question to ask about.
As far as the OP goes
buford : 10:55 am : link : reply
is it a fair question to ask a candidate if they believe in free speech or would they want to regulate the internet
I have no idea who is right or wrong on this issue with 100% certainty. Therefor, I'd error on the side of caution and make sure we don't put harmful chemicals into the ground & atmosphere.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
Lord Brahma, who is really a version of Lord Vishnu, really created the universe (this universe at least) - several times - and will create it again after Lord Shiva (also a version of Vishnu) destroys it again.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
Who the hell knows what the truth is. Maybe we build a telescope so powerful one day that we see God's eyeball staring back at us from the other end of the universe.
But given that we don't know everything, how is it that any man made religion can claim to understand the works of God and put them down on paper? As a species we haven't figured out the complexities of dark matter, why humans need to sleep, the mating habits of great white sharks, and countless other mysteries...
But we're going to understand the creator of all of this well enough to put it in a book? Smells like a lot of bullshit.
Lord Brahma, who is really a version of Lord Vishnu, really created the universe (this universe at least) - several times - and will create it again after Lord Shiva (also a version of Vishnu) destroys it again.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
"Patel"? Fuck you. Fucking Shiva handed this guy a million dollars, told him "Sign the deal!" he wouldn't sign. And the god Vishnu too, into the bargain. Fuck you, John! You know your business, I know mine. Your business is being an asshole. I find out whose fucking cousin you are, I'm going to go to him and figure out a way to have your ass - fuck you!
The environment is inherently a political issue, always has been. Private gain based upon public resources was the conundrum of the "commons" in colonial America.
is one of the great tragedies of our generation...
I think it's political because economics gets intertwined. I think if you had a policy that a) imposed the same standards on everyone both in the US and everywhere else; b) was not re-distributive either among individuals or between countries then you could get traction here regardless of party.
I don't you really care, but I will answer your question about Moses. I can't be dogmatic here but if I had to bet my two dollars, I would say JOSHUA finished the part of the book that Moses that described Moses' death. Joshua was the next leader and was awesome in his own right. Too bad you think all of that is fairy tales though.
By the way, I can't recall any Jew coming on here adding support to my beliefs and interpretations in the First testament. They all can't be unbelievers, are they? So, if there are any Jews out here who also believe Adam was the first contemporary man who did not evolve from primordial soup, speak up.
I have no idea who is right or wrong on this issue with 100% certainty. Therefor, I'd error on the side of caution and make sure we don't put harmful chemicals into the ground & atmosphere.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
That depends. Recycling isn't expensive and yet helps the environment.
Using LED bulbs instead of incandescent actually saves me money. Same with a lot of energy efficient appliances and making sure your house is properly insulated.
And thanks to technology & engineering, more and more things are becoming cost effective. For example, natural gas is now cheaper and cleaner than oil and (I believe) becoming cost competitive with coal which is extremely "dirty".
You most certainly do NOT need God to explain the origination of life.
And God doesn't explain it. Saying "God created life" is no more elucidating than, "I don't know."
"I don't know" is the more honest answer. And just because we don't know NOW, it doesn't mean we can't know or won't know at some point in the future.
Discovering and understanding how life originated is no different from understanding the cause of sand storms or volcanic eruptions or flooding. Before humans had the knowledge and understanding of such natural processes, "God" or "the gods" were the "explanation" or, rather, the equivalent of "I don't know."
Lord Brahma, who is really a version of Lord Vishnu, really created the universe (this universe at least) - several times - and will create it again after Lord Shiva (also a version of Vishnu) destroys it again.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
"Patel"? Fuck you. Fucking Shiva handed this guy a million dollars, told him "Sign the deal!" he wouldn't sign. And the god Vishnu too, into the bargain. Fuck you, John! You know your business, I know mine. Your business is being an asshole. I find out whose fucking cousin you are, I'm going to go to him and figure out a way to have your ass - fuck you!
Yes, yes, and yes.
I almost mentioned this film in the comedy thread.
I don't have a reference but I believe it has been shown that because of leakage at the wellhead, natural gas results in nearly as much release of greenhouse gases as coal. True, it doesn't create acid rain to the extent that coal does. If, however, we could figure out how to keep cattle from farting that would be a huge advance.
I have no idea who is right or wrong on this issue with 100% certainty. Therefor, I'd error on the side of caution and make sure we don't put harmful chemicals into the ground & atmosphere.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
That depends. Recycling isn't expensive and yet helps the environment.
Using LED bulbs instead of incandescent actually saves me money. Same with a lot of energy efficient appliances and making sure your house is properly insulated.
And thanks to technology & engineering, more and more things are becoming cost effective. For example, natural gas is now cheaper and cleaner than oil and (I believe) becoming cost competitive with coal which is extremely "dirty".
Actually recycling can be expensive, but worth it IMO.
As for natural gas, yes it's great, but once again the environmental groups are trying to get fracking banned because they say it's not safe.
I have no idea who is right or wrong on this issue with 100% certainty. Therefor, I'd error on the side of caution and make sure we don't put harmful chemicals into the ground & atmosphere.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
Then you should be anti GMO because it allows farmers to spray more and more pesticides on our food and it gets in the ground, water and air.
I don't have a reference but I believe it has been shown that because of leakage at the wellhead, natural gas results in nearly as much release of greenhouse gases as coal. True, it doesn't create acid rain to the extent that coal does. If, however, we could figure out how to keep cattle from farting that would be a huge advance.
I think it varies, though I'd need to double check. I think it depends on whether they are fracking for oil (where NG happens to be a byproduct) or whether they are fracking for NG. I think in the former case, you may be correct since the well enclosures are leakier. Though some states (IIRC CO for one) are enacting tighter regulations to address some of the environmental concerns related to fracking without outright banning it.
I think if you had a policy that a) imposed the same standards on everyone both in the US and everywhere else; b) was not re-distributive either among individuals or between countries then you could get traction here regardless of party.
Admirable sentiment I guess but there is a lot of global cooperation that would have to happen before any reasonable hope of applying the policy globally. And any such cooperation is usually vigorously opposed in congress. And I can't conceive of any federal - never mind global - policy change which would not be re-distributive.
RE: RE: RE: The politicization of the environment...
I think if you had a policy that a) imposed the same standards on everyone both in the US and everywhere else; b) was not re-distributive either among individuals or between countries then you could get traction here regardless of party.
Admirable sentiment I guess but there is a lot of global cooperation that would have to happen before any reasonable hope of applying the policy globally. And any such cooperation is usually vigorously opposed in congress. And I can't conceive of any federal - never mind global - policy change which would not be re-distributive.
One place to start would be to ensure any free trade agreements require all participants to meet a certain set of minimum environmental standards.
I find that people who deny evolution do so out of fear
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
whether the person running to represent them in office is guided primarily by their faith or by science, especially as it pertains to policy matters.
If a person is strong in their beliefs, whatever they may be, then it shouldn't be a struggle for them to answer questions about it and acknowledge their stance on it.
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.
These are tools that made it easier to see what our eyes were incapable of seeing. The microscope and telescope for the brain is the belief in something bigger than yourself. Rather than disprove the belief in the vastness of infinity or the complexity of small things, it validated that there is a whole lot we can't possibly understand about us and our knowledge.
There's a world of difference between "can't possibly understand" and do not yet know. You place false limits on what is demonstrably unlimited.
RE: RE: RE: As long as you can ask a candidate.....
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Why are the questions I'm responding to reflexively liberal? And please take particular note of your use of the word "response". I rarely, if ever, start these types of threads. Yet some people do so frequently with the express purpose of stirring shit and making political points. I suppose I could ignore them, and probably should more often, but their frequency leads me in many cases to respond. And no, politics does not run my life to that extent. At home in the evening if there's a Rangers game on it gets picked over either O'Reilly or Maddow. Actually, it might be worth asking the OP if politics runs HIS life to that extent, as he is starting the threads where I respond.
Semi - The person who would be asked that question is Hillary Clinton. It's the flip side of the "gotcha" question that's the subject of this thread. Politifact rated it as "pants on fire"
Today is the 206th anniversary of Charles Darwins birth, a day now celebrated by some as Darwin Day. Darwin, of course, is best known for his theory of evolution through natural selection. When Darwins work was first made public in 1859, it shocked Britains religious establishment. And while today it is accepted by virtually all scientists, evolutionary theory is still rejected by many Americans, often because it conflicts with their religious beliefs about divine creation.
While not an official holiday, Darwin Day has been adopted by scientific and humanist groups to promote everything from scientific literacy to secularism. This year, more than 100 events have been planned worldwide, many of them anchored by scientific talks or symposia. Others, such as a production of Charles Darwin, Vampire Slayer in California, are a little less serious.
Here are five facts about the publics views on evolution as well as other aspects of the debate in the U.S. and elsewhere:
it unfortunately is political. And the Republican candidate is forced into a lose-lose situation. Offend a very important part of your hardcore base or look like a fool to people on the fence. If that candidate says "Yes, I believe in evolution", we'd probably get a hardcore religious 3rd party that pretty much ensures the Dems win the election.
It "should" be fair and I'd love to see them make the Republican candidate squirm. But I can see why it shouldn't be asked even if it's a common sense question.
Isn't that the point? That hardcore base needs to be informed that their position is indefensible. Toadying to them by by polititions who do, or at least should, know better only validates ignorance of the fact that science and religion function in different realms to answer different questions. Literal interpretaion of the bible is a byproduct of the reformation when a substitute for the authority of the clergy was needed, and so the authority of the bible was substituted. The clergy, in the recent past, have done more than enough to undermine their authority by themselves. Hasn't the time long past when the bible ought to be appreciated for its insight and beauty and ability to address concerns beyond the reach of science.
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
RE: I find that people who deny evolution do so out of fear
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
I don't have a reference but I believe it has been shown that because of leakage at the wellhead, natural gas results in nearly as much release of greenhouse gases as coal. True, it doesn't create acid rain to the extent that coal does. If, however, we could figure out how to keep cattle from farting that would be a huge advance.
Go vegan and reduce the number of cows kept for meat.
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Nice to know america has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
I thought cows are vegan, so they are just the middlemen. Anyway, if you, me and everyone else didn't have teeth designed for eating meat, I might consider vegan. Since the opposite is true, I'll continue to eat meat as I was designed to do.
I notice that lower line is gaining on the other two. A few politicians with backbone and it might gain plurality or maybe even majority in a few years.
RE: RE: I find that people who deny evolution do so out of fear
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
And I thought people who need to believe in god and bible do so only to avoid eternal damnation in an afterlife. Go figure.
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Nice to know america has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
Spock, I don't know what to say to you. If you think a magical omnipotent being is more likely than a "primordial soup" containing all the basic chemical componants of life including amino acids to generate some primitive form of life, then there's not much sense continuing. I'm sure your faith provides a lot for you.
Dumb only because there is no chance of getting a rational answer.
Spock, do you think that the vast proportion of scientists in disciplines that directly overlap with evolutionary theory, but who agree with that theory, have more of a tendency to fear being damned than your typical fundamentalist Christian?
If so, why would that be so? More fear? More bad behavior?
I am having difficulty making the math work.
Also, have you gotten around to looking at the Talk Origins site I keep linking, as yet? If not, why would THAT be so? Are you fearful as to what you might learn?
anyone that believes an answer to this question decides how they're going to vote for the President of the United States is full of crap. There certainly are some substantive issues that may be of great importance, but I can't see evolution vs. divine creation one of them.
That reminds me of the phoney uproar at Dan Quayle for the english spelling of "potatoe". Yeah, we can't have someone that stupid a heartbeat away from the presidency... please.
Seeing as we all know this is a religious trap question at its core, then no. Should we also ask if you believe in Mohammed, if you deny Jesus is the saviour, or if you're an atheist? They are basically all the same. Also regardless of ones view, it doesn't mean they are against funding science in schools, etc. That is a huge leap to make.
Being unable to spell is of much less import than being unable (or more likely feigning inability) to reason. It is pandering, pure and simple. We could do with less pandering.
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Wow. I did NOT expect those numbers at all.
RE: RE: I find that people who deny evolution do so out of fear
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
LOL that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Or, alternatively, people believe it because it is a logical, rationale, scientific theorem, supported by the scores and scores of evidence.
Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old as well?
I notice that lower line is gaining on the other two. A few politicians with backbone and it might gain plurality or maybe even majority in a few years.
Maybe Bob, but In my opinion, I believe things will only get worse before they get better. I believe as we get closer to the return of CHRIST, don't forget, the Antichrist has to come on the scene first. The bible talks about he and the false prophet having supernatural powers that would even win over the elect if that were possible. So, I'm thinking many more will be jumping off the God bandwagon and onto the evil ones wagon.
But, I will add this, the people of faith may be smaller in numbers, but I believe their faith will grow knowing the world is decaying fast and Jesus is near his return.
People like Spock and Chef are scary. Thank god those of his ilk are become more and more of a minority of the population as we move forward in time.
hey the primordial soup and the missing link omg but the man in the sky made everything don't u guyz kno?
What fucking morons.
Thank you sonic. Coming from YOU these words mean a lot to me. (Fool)
lol. Good, I'm glad. I definitely don't want to be accepted nor feel the need to be vindicated by someone who can't understand how cellular organisms can evolve over billions of years into complex organisms, but can somehow rationalize that a mankind began when an invisible being in the sky put two people in a garden.
anyone that believes an answer to this question decides how they're going to vote for the President of the United States is full of crap. There certainly are some substantive issues that may be of great importance, but I can't see evolution vs. divine creation one of them.
That reminds me of the phoney uproar at Dan Quayle for the english spelling of "potatoe". Yeah, we can't have someone that stupid a heartbeat away from the presidency... please.
You can't see how someone eschewing scientific theory in favor of accepting a religious viewpoint, one that's based solely on faith, would prevent an individual from voting for someone as the leader of a secular nation?
I quit reading your websites years ago. We danced that number over and over.
It is now very clear and simple to me. God's word vs. Man's faulty research and conclusions. Besides, many scientists are creationists as well so I guess it is your experts vs. My experts, but I like my expert the best- God almighty.
Again, I'm not interested in converting you. You feel secure in your evolutionary beliefs that leave out God, fine by me. We both can't be right. There either is or isn't a God, and which one? I'm betting my life on the God of the holy bible, but you know, even if I'm wrong, what do I lose? Can you say the same?
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
did the person who goes by Spock choose the name Spock. I've never been a Star Trek person by any stretch, but I always thought Spock's main thing was the he was motivated by logic.
Any politician who believes in evolution but refuses to answer so because he doesn't want to upset a portion of his base is a pandering asshole who, coincidentally, lacks the moral compass that was discussed earlier, and deserves all of the public shaming he gets for trying to bring this country backwards for his own political gain.
as I was browsing Reddit before leaving the office, but it's a great breakdown of how the "primordial soup" reached the point of multi-cellular organisms. I doubt anyone who actually actively disbelieves evolution will read it, and know for a fact it won't change anyone's mind.
But if you want a glimpse into how the "soup" became cells which became animals, it's right here for you:
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Thanks for posting this Osi.
The 42% are probably like me. We all read the bible and it says how man was created, and it wasn't through evolution. In fact, woman followed quickly thereafter. If we did not believe this was the word of God but was just a fairy tale, then why even believe anything written in the book?
It's not like the bible is a cafeteria and you get to choose what you want to believe. You either believe all or none is how I see it. Now, I agree, sometimes people can misinterpret words, but when the words are as clear as they are in Genesis 3, there really is no room for misinterpretation.
Lastly, I do think the 42% will shrink and the 19% will grow in the years to come.
did the person who goes by Spock choose the name Spock. I've never been a Star Trek person by any stretch, but I always thought Spock's main thing was the he was motivated by logic.
Any politician who believes in evolution but refuses to answer so because he doesn't want to upset a portion of his base is a pandering asshole who, coincidentally, lacks the moral compass that was discussed earlier, and deserves all of the public shaming he gets for trying to bring this country backwards for his own political gain.
It is very logical to me to believe in an all knowing, all loving, all present God than not to. Does this help?
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
I think religion has definitely been a positive for humanity in the grand scheme of things. I know millions of innocent lives have been lost due to religious arguments. I know a lot of scumbags have taken advantage of religion for personal gain.
But overall I do think it's helped shape our moral compass in a positive way. I liken it to a parent. Hell and Heaven are essentially "rewards" and "punishments" that a parent hands out to a child. If you misbehave, "go to your room" or "no candy". If you behave, "here's a cookie, son". When human civilization was first getting underway, I think having a parent helped them grow.
But when kids grow up, they don't need their parents to continue holding rewards and punishments over their heads. They've learned by that point what the consequences of their actions are and why doing the right thing is the best choice.
At a certain point in human civilization, we're not going to need our parents imo. We'll still keep in mind the lessons they taught us but we won't need to rely on "no cookies" as a reason to do the right thing.
I possibly have good news for you Rob. Many Christian teachers preach what is called a rapture. This is where all the believers of CHRIST are taken out of the world just before the return of Christ to planet earth. If they are right, you may have your wish- a world with no believers. Do a short time at least.
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Thanks for posting this Osi.
The 42% are probably like me. We all read the bible and it says how man was created, and it wasn't through evolution. In fact, woman followed quickly thereafter. If we did not believe this was the word of God but was just a fairy tale, then why even believe anything written in the book?
It's not like the bible is a cafeteria and you get to choose what you want to believe. You either believe all or none is how I see it. Now, I agree, sometimes people can misinterpret words, but when the words are as clear as they are in Genesis 3, there really is no room for misinterpretation.
Lastly, I do think the 42% will shrink and the 19% will grow in the years to come.
But America isn't the only country in the world. In India, hundreds of millions of people believe that Lord Vishnu creates and destroys the universe over and over again. It's written in the Vedas. They have as much proof as you. Why are they wrong?
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
RE: RE: Hopefully the 42 percent will shrink in some
I possibly have good news for you Rob. Many Christian teachers preach what is called a rapture. This is where all the believers of CHRIST are taken out of the world just before the return of Christ to planet earth. If they are right, you may have your wish- a world with no believers. Do a short time at least.
Oh no, I may be "left behind". The horror.
If Kirk Cameron and his shitty movies are what's in store in paradise, fuck god.
yeah, Tell that to the 400 million children around the world living in extreme poverty-- or the young girls getting sold as childbrides, or the ones who are kidnapped, genitally mutilated, and slaughtered by Boko Haram in Africa-- they agree. God's got nothing but love for them.
Nice to know America has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
Mr. Spock: I happen to agree. However, an alternate is often proposed that life on Earth began as either a planned or accidental seeding. Even this seems more plausible than randomness. But it doesn't solve the real question of where life began originally.
I think many on this website have never looked into things such as irreducible complexity. I respect the opinions of those that look hard at both of the popular origins of life theories, ie: Evolution vs. ID .
I have no respect for those who blindly blast one side or the other w/o seriously considering the strong & weak points for both.
IMO, the subject is important enough that people should spend some time carefully considering the evidence for origins of life and not just parrot the popular histoire du jour.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
to use the stories from religious texts as fables to impart life lessons or to teach morality. Plenty of secular stories do the same thing. It's the picking and choosing of what is "gospel" and is factually right and should be forced upon others, and what you don't have to dogmatically believe in that drive people crazy.
yeah, Tell that to the 400 million children around the world living in extreme poverty-- or the young girls getting sold as childbrides, or the ones who are kidnapped, genitally mutilated, and slaughtered by Boko Haram in Africa-- they agree. God's got nothing but love for them.
Don't blame God for this, blame man. Read Genesis before the fall to know God's original purpose.
yeah, Tell that to the 400 million children around the world living in extreme poverty-- or the young girls getting sold as childbrides, or the ones who are kidnapped, genitally mutilated, and slaughtered by Boko Haram in Africa-- they agree. God's got nothing but love for them.
Don't blame God for this, blame man. Read Genesis before the fall to know God's original purpose.
The Hindus as an example dispute your version. Why are they wrong?
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
That's a crazy thing to say Spock. History shows that there have been thousands of horrible leaders in this world who believe in God.
That response and the response to Paul's comment makes me think you're just excusing religion for all the negative things it causes.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
Or a long-running list of Popes? Ever hear of the Children's Crusade? How about the oft-celebrated sacrament of buggery?
Can you tell us why the Hindus are wrong? Their version is very different.
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof Faith - ( New Window )
Then how does he know it's true without proof?
I don't want to speak for spock but , again it is faith, which I said before is a belief that cannot be proved.. He believes it is truth.. that is why the term "faith" was created
Can you tell us why the Hindus are wrong? Their version is very different.
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof Faith - ( New Window )
Then how does he know it's true without proof?
I don't want to speak for spock but , again it is faith, which I said before is a belief that cannot be proved.. He believes it is truth.. that is why the term "faith" was created
Then why does he believe it if he doesn't know for sure?
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
RE: RE: I find that people who deny evolution do so out of fear
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
Yes but Spock (who should be noted has gone by several handles over the years since his initial departure - was it a banning the first time Rocky?) has had a history of gleefully celebrating the imminent damnation of Jewish BBIers. In his arrogance he seems to think people have forgotten his past as one of the worst posters in BBI history - a glory which he seems intent on recapturing.
I guess I must give him credit for abandoning the whole 6000 year old earth thing he clung to for so long, going so far as to explain to us dumb BBIers that not only were dinosaurs not only younger than 6000 years old, they were currently roaming free on the Congo. It was a thread for the BBI history books.
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
Yes but Spock (who should be noted has gone by several handles over the years since his initial departure - was it a banning the first time Rocky?) has had a history of gleefully celebrating the imminent damnation of Jewish BBIers. In his arrogance he seems to think people have forgotten his past as one of the worst posters in BBI history - a glory which he seems intent on recapturing.
I guess I must give him credit for abandoning the whole 6000 year old earth thing he clung to for so long, going so far as to explain to us dumb BBIers that not only were dinosaurs not only younger than 6000 years old, they were currently roaming free on the Congo. It was a thread for the BBI history books.
Missed that, if a link is available I would love to read..
So many years ago was the air of infallibity based on his faith in god with which Spock spoke about the age of the earth....we only had science on our side, not God, so he was comfortable with his position....
Sound familiar?
Oh, and it was complete with links to "scientists" who agreed with him....
RE: RE: Wait, why were you rooting for Dallas?
Spock : 1/12/2015 6:26 am : link
PS. This is a football site so in respect to Eric's wishes I will not respond to anyone's religious comments. Like I said, I really don't care what you believe anyways.
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
That is true. After all, one of the most biblically knowledgeable people I've ever met (my sister's ex) is also among the most immoral on basic levels.
When one claims that their view of the world and how it works
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Lots of typos. Sorry, on the phone from the throne.
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Understood, I still do not know why I am being singled out here.. there is a bridge in evolution that has yet to be indentified.. Why is it nuts to understand and see that
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
You can also add to this this agendas. As agendas were formed in Medieval times as the Church was powerfull...and a form of government... the Bible was edited to fit these agendas.. The church had immense power as the Good Book was created by man, with an agenda...
is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
The first people grunted and shrieked. Yet they had words for "rib" and had time to think about evil ? Then they said it once....it was repeated accurately until writing was invented and recorded accurately.
Yet millenniums later Moses only media to write on was stone.
To me the Bible...A great accomplishment and in places sublime ( the J writer who gave us the Book of Job) does not meet the claim of every word literally because of how language then alphabet then words then media then hand replication of an agreed upon code...or language. Yet the sacred truth somehow survived all that human messiness unchanged as originally told by God himself?
To me the science that challenges fundamentalist beliefs about the Bible is not evolution....it's linguistics and cognitive science knowledge of how spoken language and then written language is slowly trial and error migrating (evolving).
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
Bill,
I know you are a very intelligent man and I'm sure you have thought and considered your questions to me and have made up your mind, but I will briefly attempt to communicate one thought to you- nothing is impossible for God. His ways are higher than our ways. If God wants to get a message to mankind to be put down in word for all to ponder, that is nothing for him. Small potatoes in my opinion. God working through man seems to be the way he likes to do things.
In addition, God's word says his word is God breathed, so maybe this means something to you, maybe not. It means enough for me, if not you, so be it. I leave you with a verse from 2 Peter 1:
19We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
That's a crazy thing to say Spock. History shows that there have been thousands of horrible leaders in this world who believe in God.
That response and the response to Paul's comment makes me think you're just excusing religion for all the negative things it causes.
I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I tend to believe true believers in CHRIST will not be promoting the killing of people for immoral or illogical reasons. And don't tell me about some pope so and so because you will never convince me all the popes were followers of Christ. Maybe in name, but not by actions. Only God knows the heart so I leave that to Him to decide.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
To all those who merely choose to slander my name and ridicule my faith- thank you for reminding me it is by GRACE that I am saved, not by my works, but my the grace of my loving and caring God of heaven.
He clearly doesn't understand what Osi said about Bill2 in the slightest. Given that, how can he profess any kind of confidence in any other sort of communication, let alone a complex set of ideas such as those presented in the Bible?
And of course, it makes sense that he gave up on the links I provided. No way he could comprehend what I linked.
If nothing else, though, his sticktoitiveness is awe-inspiring.
Hope you are well. You and I have always had civil discussions over the years.
For me, I have much more difficulty with the Bible as literal word of God than as a Creation counter to evolution.
Near as I can tell our only chance to reconcile how spoken language and then written language and then media to carry a whole cultures agreed upon code of communication ( the syntax and verb creation alone takes centuries upon centuries of imprecision much less the accumulated agreed upon words for the taxonomy) all occurred with a guaranteed word of God story from the beginning is about 5000 years of divine intervention with all involved in the oral formation and then written formation of the particular story exclusive of men to the north east west and south on every continent until it was written down in a language form, media and meaning agreed upon by writer and readers.
ok lets say that divine intervention miracles occur for these men down many generations but not all men all over the Globe...just this culture.
Then why is that story not in the Bible?
If its the word of God why not tell the creation story and the Migration/Translation/language story? Where and how did the first men get fully formed language? and if they did how come there is no mention of it?
How come all cultures and almost all tribes ever found have a Creation story? all given to them by God(s) yet this one true one has no story about why and how the story sprung true in perfect verbal language and was perfectly repeated word for word until writing came along?
Written by authors inspired by their conversations about metaphysical concerns? Or miracle of perfect recording handed down five thousand years until it was in writing.
Then can you tell me how if Mose's wrote on stone tablets midway through the Old Testament...that must have been the media writing was recorded on....so they carried around a quarry worth of stone tablets?
Now that's not an odd question...Mayan and Zapotec writing is via pictograph images used as letter of an alphabet...but they had such large quarries to tell the story that they had elaborate villages and temple sites devoted to their alphabets
We do know that linquisitic deconstruction shows there were several different centuries apart writers using changing language across the different books of the Bible.
first and most critical book in Western Civilization...we agree.
Accurate recording of whatever God "said"?...for me harder to believe than either side of an evolution debate?
RE: RE: When one claims that their view of the world and how it works
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Understood, I still do not know why I am being singled out here.. there is a bridge in evolution that has yet to be indentified.. Why is it nuts to understand and see that
Sorry. I'm not trying to attack you. Although I don't agree with you in regards to evolution (to me it appears that you're being willfully ignorant) you've shown (IMO) that disagreements about beliefs isn't something you take personally or as an insult. I mentioned you simply because you answered the question.
I'm enjoying this thread and am not trying to insult you.
Spock on the other hand- well, it's a bit of a 'Poe' with him- I can't tell if he's actually THAT much of a liar and so deluded as to think he's being sincere, or if he's just having fun poking the hornet's nest.
much less recording down millennia is mind boggling enough
Do you know how many words are lost in an Old Aramaic to English translation?
Did you know there is an island off Maryland/Virginia where the people are survivors of ship wrecks of the 17th century. They speak English of the 1700's to this day because they are so isolated (Smith Island) Linquists go there to study the differences in English as a language over 300 years.
So how is it that the Bible was set in stone as dictated to the first humans before any language? or stone. or carving. or verbs. or tense (which has to be invented and mutually agreed upon). or common nouns. or alphabet.
given the follies of men there is more reason to believe they lost half the Bible down the millennia. Maybe they lost the half with all the answers leaving us with only the half filled with musings and allegories. Maybe the science half is elsewhere buried in Egypt?
Men are foolish and flawed. How could they be trusted to accurately record and then preserve the word of God.
I don't have to believe or not believe in evolution to postulate that having faith that the word of God is 100% from the Bible...is believing in perfect performance from one heck of a lot of dopey humans. The same humans who cant get through a game thread because the language is so filled with miscommunication
an accurate translation
Bill2 : 11:10 pm : link : reply
much less recording down millennia is mind boggling enough
Do you know how many words are lost in an Old Aramaic to English translation?
The inspiration given by God resides with the original manuscripts. Any claim that any particular copies and/or translations of them goes beyond what the Scriptures claim about themselves.
If you are genuinely interested in better understanding do some study of plenary verbal inspiration
This thread reminds me of a quote I read from a man named G. W. Bromiley. I don't know anything much about the man but I took note of the quote.
If the Bible stands before us as an authoritative Word of God, a Word which itself claims authority, then it is as such that we must reckon with it, receiving that Word and the authority of that Word, or resisting it.
Basically we all do one or two things, receive it or resist it and debating it is often mostly pointless.
I'll leave you with one more thought. If man is to know God or anything other than human speculation about God, that knowledge must come from God.
The inspiration given by God resides with the original manuscripts. Any claim that any particular copies and/or translations are inspired in the same sense goes beyond what the Scriptures claim about themselves.
I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I tend to believe true believers in CHRIST will not be promoting the killing of people for immoral or illogical reasons. And don't tell me about some pope so and so because you will never convince me all the popes were followers of Christ. Maybe in name, but not by actions. Only God knows the heart so I leave that to Him to decide.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
If you don't believe all Popes were followers of God, then you are saying that Christianity can be GREATLY corrupted and perverted by men.
Bill's comment is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
My comment about Bill wasn't about trusting his word above all else. It was about his point that the Bible was written by men.
that really has the answers to the big questions, not one. Science is the vehicle by which we travel that road, and to deny science is foolish. If a god creator exists, our ability to examine the world around us is part of that creation and by extension cannot be ignored. Denying science flies into the face of our very creation if you believe in that. The Bible says we were created in God's image, and so our ability to use higher intelligence when compared to the rest of the animal world to the point where we can begin to test and understand questions bigger than ourselves, must be the design of God if you belive in him.
I'm agnostic. In my heart, I know that nobody has these answers into why we are here, humanity has dealt with that question since our inception as a thinking race. And people all along the course of history have been wresting with those questions and coming up with this or that answer.
None of those answers mean anything. We barely understand this universe, yet alone where it came from. Science will continue to unlock that, and rational people will listen to what the dedicated men and women of science tell us within reason.
I think it is important to respect faith. After all, as humans we fail all reasonable tests of epistemology for being able to know much about any possible divinity. Either way. For or Against.
Epistemology is not a hard science. It is logic. Of course logic and the limits of human language render the limits loops and proofs all at once that we are not up to the task we set for ourselves.
Over the centuries faith in a thought system tied to a moral code obviously has personal comfort for some but also has empirical evidence towards improving mankind.
Excavations of human remains all over the world indicates that before about 2000 years ago over 50% of all lives had or died of major violent bone breaking ( as in a violation during life) incidents....many many of them seeming of human infliction.
From 2000 to 1000 that number was about 20% global average.
In the last century with all its horrors that number was 2%.
There were no other major variables other than less hunting and more organized religion and education into more literate nations rather than tribes.
So we do live in a better world. Pangloss was right. ( of course now we have mental illness....or at least the arrival of medicine now inspires the identification of a need (attempt at sarcasm).
So faith is a good thing. And we have no way to dislodge it with logic.
Logic is a good thing if once reached we can hold on to its chill.
But faith has no way to subordinate logic to buttress the loneliness of being human. If we believe we face those long nights with only belief that we flawed beings hold to. If we don't we face them with defiance...or dip into faith for the moment. We all be Lear. And whatever gets us through the night.
I tend to find going beyond faith to assert science is flawed ( which it often is as it is never done) weakens the claimants insistence their faith is strong.
And I have faith and am certain that of they go offense in FA plus one safety and then draft defense ( as they need a lot of quality depth) they will be much improved.
However if they go WR in round one or sign Cobb or take a OT in round one they will be much improved.
From there they could evolve in several directi ons. Or get worse until it feels like end times. Which would mean he is coming. So I believe we will create, evolve and pray and it all will be written on the war room board. My faith in this is unshakeable and I don't care how many links Man George provides trying to show the Eagles and Cowboys have plans as well. I know that my faith is the one true faith. It is written.
Yes. We humans do insist on our ability to retroactively label certainty or heresy. Among other things we know for certain is that the minute a flawed cardinal becomes Pope he is infallible. Backwards and forwards. It is certain. We said so. Sort of like participants on a game thread.
No offense but any of asserting some things happened in logical contravention to how language develops and is translated is something God did not speak of in the Book. So the divinity thing is something some people insisted on later. In fact that would have come after the Book of Job if the Bible is to be taken literally. Job made a Deal to worship one God if that God behaved justly from then on. That was a couple of generations down the road....so we made a deal to assert this Bible was the one? I mean that's literally from the Bible
I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I tend to believe true believers in CHRIST will not be promoting the killing of people for immoral or illogical reasons. And don't tell me about some pope so and so because you will never convince me all the popes were followers of Christ. Maybe in name, but not by actions. Only God knows the heart so I leave that to Him to decide.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
If you don't believe all Popes were followers of God, then you are saying that Christianity can be GREATLY corrupted and perverted by men.
In comment 12134571
Quote:
Bill's comment is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
My comment about Bill wasn't about trusting his word above all else. It was about his point that the Bible was written by men.
There has only been one man to walk on water (sinless) that I believe. Do I put my trust in man- heck no. Even a pope. Read history and you will see my point being made. Many of those popes were definitely out of the will of God.
Why don't you get Eric to sticky my history here at BBI since you love to bring up it up time after time after time. (I know my beliefs are not popular by the masses but try your best to quote my words accurately. I simply said according to the Holy Bible, New Testament, man can only be saved through the person of one Jesus Christ and that you cannot reject his gift of salvation that he willingly handed to us when he paid the penalty for everyone's sins at Calvary. If you don't accept the gift and deny him, your sins don't go away and only a frightful judgment awaits you. This applies to everyone- Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, etc.)
Acts 4: 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Why don't you get Eric to sticky my history here at BBI since you love to bring up it up time after time after time. (I know my beliefs are not popular by the masses but try your best to quote my words accurately. I simply said according to the Holy Bible, New Testament, man can only be saved through the person of one Jesus Christ and that you cannot reject his gift of salvation that he willingly handed to us when he paid the penalty for everyone's sins at Calvary. If you don't accept the gift and deny him, your sins don't go away and only a frightful judgment awaits you. This applies to everyone- Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, etc.)
Acts 4: 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Right there is where it all falls apart for me. If I were a religious guy, this guy is not someone I would even want to follow.
RE: RE: When one claims that their view of the world and how it works
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Understood, I still do not know why I am being singled out here.. there is a bridge in evolution that has yet to be indentified.. Why is it nuts to understand and see that
The 'bridge' was 65 million years ago with the common ancestor.
you are the ambassador of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy; you are an ambassador of treating your religion "like a cafeteria," and you are the ambassador of picking and choosing when God can or does intervene. Most of all, you are the ambassador of picking the least-fitting BBI handle on this site.
including humans, has no bridges -- it's more aptly described as a continuum with multiple subtle changes in a population over vast periods of time.
Thank you Wup. One of the most frustrating arguments to encounter is the "missing link" fallacy. This argument against evolution merely serves to confirm a total ignorance of the process of evolution.
during my life I have actively sought God. I have tried a myriad of things suggested by religious friends, but simple logic always interfered. To accept the concept of God, one must ignore logic, observation, experience and knowledge gained by investigation, study, experimentation, etc. The acceptance can only be attained by convincing yourself to cast aside all those things and simply say I believe because I choose to. I have been unable to do that. To accept something as truth, I must see some demonstrable evidence and make sense of it. I have found that to be impossible for me. I cannot tell myself a stone is soft when every conceivable evidence proves to me that it is hard. If you have been able to do that, more power to you. I'm sure religion can be a great comfort and give meaning to your life.
Yes. We humans do insist on our ability to retroactively label certainty or heresy. Among other things we know for certain is that the minute a flawed cardinal becomes Pope he is infallible.
I agree with you there, and I don't put my faith in the Pope or any man made traditions. As you have discovered "religion" is not the answer.
But as I said in my first post, people either receive and accept Gods Word or the resist and regret it. Arguing or debated about it really is of little value and usually ends up mostly pointless. People are just talking past each other. Now that doesn't mean, and I am not saying two people can't have a discussion about it, but in these types of threads and in this type of format I have found that never really happens. I'll sometimes add something's just to try and clarify some things I feel warranted but other than that not too much. Nobody comes hear wanting someone else's beliefs thrust on them and although he allows us the occasional latitude to do so has asked us not to discuss religion here so I never feel too comfortable going into too much depth when it does occur.
during my life I have actively sought God. I have tried a myriad of things suggested by religious friends, but simple logic always interfered. To accept the concept of God, one must ignore logic, observation, experience and knowledge gained by investigation, study, experimentation, etc. The acceptance can only be attained by convincing yourself to cast aside all those things and simply say I believe because I choose to. I have been unable to do that. To accept something as truth, I must see some demonstrable evidence and make sense of it. I have found that to be impossible for me. I cannot tell myself a stone is soft when every conceivable evidence proves to me that it is hard. If you have been able to do that, more power to you. I'm sure religion can be a great comfort and give meaning to your life.
Mike: I new a guy in your position several years ago. He wanted God to "do something", show him any sort of sign. This guy wouldn't tell me what happened to him but I was told by his close friend he got his sign in short order. He just blew it off anyway.
If you are honestly seeking Him and your general knowledge is keeping you back, don't you agree that it is God's responsibility to make himself known to you if He does exist? If you agree, keep your eyes and ears open and when something happens, you will know...something will soon happen.
It's useful to keep epistemology (what do we really know), Faith, organized Religion that is structured by men and Inspiration (provided by books like the Bible or a sermon or confessions) separate and not conflated.
It's useful to keep epistemology (what do we really know), Faith, organized Religion that is structured by men and Inspiration (provided by books like the Bible or a sermon or confessions) separate and not conflated.
Ahh but see that is where we do differ. To me my faith is something I know to be true. Now I totally appreciate where you are coming from because obviously if someone has rejected God and has no faith in Him or the bible of course my view makes no sense and your views would be the only logical conclusion. But for those that have a genuine faith it really is as real and true to them as any other part of their life. But it is not something anyone can show you like 2+2=4 and deliver it to you as proof. You see God doesn't require anything more than simple faith. However He will not settle for anything less.
The best starting point to illustrate the flaw I see is Paul. What was real and true before and after his conversion was replaced by a different real and true. So from Paul we have an easy example of subjective real and true...which feels very real and true and universal and concrete real and true. The shadows on the cave wall if you will versus the Form itself.
Regardless of your kind and supportive responses, Bill2
there is another issue besides the lack of likelihood of accurate oral reporting over time.
Namely, the utter lack of curiosity by a large proportion of true believers to inquire into how scientific thought actually works, and why it is that tens of thousands of the greatest scientific minds in the world, on a variety of relevant disciplines, find the evidence for evolution utterly compelling. The magnitude of that strength of evidence, of course, is growing rapidly as genetic evidence is added to the discipline.
The other issue that drives me kind of batshit is the extent to which so-called leaders in the areas of creation science and intelligent design are willing to flat-out lie in order to hide gaps in their arguments. They are like Army recruiters: don't mention the bad stuff, because it might cause doubts.
Thus, we end up with beautifully rendered dioramas of men cavorting with dinosaurs, that the designers of these displays know full well didn't happen. And we get made-up theories that these people know wouldn't work that explain how the fossils get buried miles below the surface, and how the Grand Canyon developed over a short period of time. It's sad that so-called men of faith need to resort to these kinds of scams.
For all practical purposes, our own realities are all that really matter when it comes down to it. All of our choices (logical or emotional) and reactions to events (logical or emotional) will be based on our own perception of the world around us (our private realities that we rather unsuccessfully attempt to share with our neighbors).
Of course if you want to 'be all that you can be', don't join the Army- work on being open to changes in your own personal reality. Allow for the possibility (more than just lip service, but actual active challenging of your reality) that your own personal reality is wrong.
To me the biggest disappointment is why get stuck on any of this or defend the Bible or any moat whatsoever.
The morality in some parts of the Bible is the beauty. Living a well considered and moral life is very very hard. Some few guideposts and witnesses and moral teachers ( like Christ and like Paul) exist.
Why distract oneself from the pursuit of Christ like living by obsessing over man invented "theology"???
Did the writers of their always evolving cultural/ intellectual history ever intend the 21st century to be bound or were they really trying to stamp out endless heresy so their rent was the officially sanctioned channel. The exception was not Jesus who had no challenge to the state or the official religion....but Paul who was a revolutionary and wanted to develop a system that changed what people believed and how they lived. There are historians who promote the idea that Paul was a more proactive and deliberate influence on the direction of Western Civilization.
The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
You are certainly within your right to believe that God is the originator, but as a scientist, you should know better than to say you "need" God for that. There is as much evidence that God created life as there is for any other theory. In other words - none.
people are free to believe what they want, and take solace in whatever gives them comfort. It's when people start making dceisions that impact and govern others under the precipice "because an imaginary being told me so" or "because I believe it to be true" without supported, reasoned, evidence that everything falls apart.
Otherwise, what would stop another person for saying "my God tells me the exact opposite and I believe that to be true because I know it's true." It is antithetical to the founding purpose of this nation and what it stands for to say that one holds true over the other.
RE: RE: RE: RE: just as fair - and much more important IMO
HH equated evolution with climate change and stem cell research, so I lumped it in with my response to you.
I don't think HH was "equating" any such thing. He simply listed his needed qualifiers for a POTUS candidate. Don't you have minimum standards for a candidate to support?
And Hillary never "intimated" a link between vaccines and autism; she said she supported more study. And that was 7 years ago (although, after the Lancer retraction).
I believe as we get closer to the return of CHRIST, don't forget, the Antichrist has to come on the scene first. The bible talks about he and the false prophet having supernatural powers that would even win over the elect if that were possible. So, I'm thinking many more will be jumping off the God bandwagon and onto the evil ones wagon.
But, I will add this, the people of faith may be smaller in numbers, but I believe their faith will grow knowing the world is decaying fast and Jesus is near his return.
I doubt this has a chance in hell of happening, but it would make for a damn good superpower movie!
To me the biggest disappointment is why get stuck on any of this or defend the Bible or any moat whatsoever.
The morality in some parts of the Bible is the beauty. Living a well considered and moral life is very very hard. Some few guideposts and witnesses and moral teachers ( like Christ and like Paul) exist.
Why distract oneself from the pursuit of Christ like living by obsessing over man invented "theology"???
Did the writers of their always evolving cultural/ intellectual history ever intend the 21st century to be bound or were they really trying to stamp out endless heresy so their rent was the officially sanctioned channel. The exception was not Jesus who had no challenge to the state or the official religion....but Paul who was a revolutionary and wanted to develop a system that changed what people believed and how they lived. There are historians who promote the idea that Paul was a more proactive and deliberate influence on the direction of Western Civilization.
But you've been told many times before
Messiah's pointed to the door,
no one had the guts to leave the temple
I have a hard time being told I've rejected the "Word of God"
When all I have rejected is one group of people's understanding of the "Word of God."
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
RE: I have a hard time being told I've rejected the
When all I have rejected is one group of people's understanding of the "Word of God."
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
Yes but absent that interpretation the prospect of God or the concept thereof playing any sort of an organizing or social function within a community, or that it would give structure or meaning to the average person's life, is diminished. Catholicism, whatever its flaws (and I am not a Catholic so I am happy to point them out), and Judaism made, and make, religion a social and community activity to the extent that Protestantism has long struggle to do.
people who think they are devout Christians (for example--I use the religion I was raised with) limit God's abilities at every turn due to their own limited, scared views of the world.
How's this for a religion? No ONE religion is correct--they all point to the same thing.
So, can we expect a remake of Oh, God! with a somewhat different bent? (Of course, it's probably been done to death already and I've just been missing out.)
a creator (in regards to all of existence) is a reflection of our being.
We have a beginning and an end- you can argue about an eternal soul however you want- what's inadguable is that our meat has an expiration date.
Everything we observe (at least on the surface) has a beginning and an end. Hell, we love beginnings and ends so much that we artificially create arbitrary beginnings and ends to cycles.
I'd love to read Moondawg's input on this thread, BTW. His contributions on thought and philosophy are fantastic.
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. It is comprised of billions of stars. Other galaxies have trillions. We are just a part of a collection of millions of galaxies known as a supercluster called Laniakea.
Laniakea is over 500 million light years across. There are probably about 10 million superclusters.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. It is comprised of billions of stars. Other galaxies have trillions. We are just a part of a collection of millions of galaxies known as a supercluster called Laniakea.
Laniakea is over 500 million light years across. There are probably about 10 million superclusters.
Contemplate that for a few minutes.
And any intelligent life out there that does not accept Jesus is going to Hell. Spock did tell me in our discussion years back that humans born after Jesus that did not accept him were going to Hell and whether they were aware of his existence was irrelevant. I am simply extrapolating in my first statement.
RE: I have a hard time being told I've rejected the
When all I have rejected is one group of people's understanding of the "Word of God."
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
If I offended you I apologize. I do think you're putting words in my mouth and reading more into what I said than I did. Re-read the discussion and about what specifically I was discussing with Bill and I think you will see I was talking specifically about someone who openly states that he/she doesn't believe in God and believes the bible is just man made ideas full of inaccuracies. The discussion wasn't about nor was talking about the differences between my faith and yours, (or any others for that matter) nor was I questioning anyone's faith in God. If someone says they believe in God, I don't question that. I was responding to the people that were discussing how they don't and why.
during my life I have actively sought God. I have tried a myriad of things suggested by religious friends, but simple logic always interfered. To accept the concept of God, one must ignore logic, observation, experience and knowledge gained by investigation, study, experimentation, etc. The acceptance can only be attained by convincing yourself to cast aside all those things and simply say I believe because I choose to. I have been unable to do that. To accept something as truth, I must see some demonstrable evidence and make sense of it. I have found that to be impossible for me. I cannot tell myself a stone is soft when every conceivable evidence proves to me that it is hard. If you have been able to do that, more power to you. I'm sure religion can be a great comfort and give meaning to your life.
I would start simply with a short honest prayer to God and tell Him how you feel. Tell him you don't really believe in Him, but you are at least open to receive His wisdom. ASK, SEEK, AND KNOCK and he will answer.
Then, I would start by examining the life, death, and alleged resurrection of His Son, Jesus.
I will keep my thoughts simple and leave it at these two.
Let me know if I can further be of assistance. Thanks for sharing from your heart.
When all I have rejected is one group of people's understanding of the "Word of God."
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
Schnitzie, I put you right next to Bill2 as being one of the real classy people here, so I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt on my response to this post you wrote.
I believe you have stated you are JEWISH, so I will assume this to be the case. As I read the Tanakh, I don't see multiple ways to find God. It seems pretty exclusive to me- his way or no way. In fact, he rather disapproves of competition. Please site me any references for me to ponder that you believe allow for more paths to God from the Tanakh.
Now, let's talk about the claims of Christ. As you know, CHRIST was JEWISH and only came to share the good news to Jews (no other people group). That seems rather exclusive to me too. In fact, the New Testament states that it was because of the unbelief of the Jews that the door for the Gentiles was now opened.
Again, I see one path. For the record, I do not believe Christianity was meant to be a separate religion. At least I never picked that up from the words of Christ.
Lastly, I see no reason why one religion cannot be the only correct one. After all, there is only one God, so we believe.
petty, jealous, child that for some reason (he sounds very insecure) needs constant validation in the form of praise from us flawed, sinful, lesser beings.
I'm pretty sure a good portion of people that I've come to know in my life that are over the age of 10 (and some under the age of 10), act more grown up and 'godly' than the "all powerful" that some of you worship.
"I'm going to make this planet almost infinitely diverse so that each sentient being that I create has an absolutely unique life! And boy is it really gonna fuck with their minds when they find out there's only one specific way that they'll be able to advance to everlasting bliss regardless of if they were even provided the opportunity. Fuckers."
B) what I believe is that when you die you are dead
C) ones good and bad works and tons of inadvertent stuff influences those still living a little bit...A little bit.
I was intrigued by some work by Teihard de Chardin and his variation on convergent evolution. So you may find his work reconciling evolution and god and the future interesting.
I dunno...I just landed so I am driving out of Newark. There is a lot around here that is not in the Bible so I dunno.
I don't know where to start on a literal view of the Bible. For example...which God are we talking about? The one in Genesis or Job or the New Testament? Ones a powerful god one a vengeful god one a harsh god one a mysterious god and one a compassionate god. There were several writers assuming the translators did a reasonable job going from 5000BC Aramaic to 100ad Greek. Each describes God with different personnas.
Don't know who I'm talking about? Here's the link. Anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer..and what a writer!
One story in particular is the Star Thrower from his book "The Unexpected Universe". This isn't the butchered version you often see, but the original. And it's worth reading...not too long, but I think you'll see how it relates to this discussion. As Eiseley says:
Quote:
We are rag dolls made out of many ages and skins, changelings who have slept in wood nests or hissed in the uncouth guise of waddling amphibians. We have played such roles for infinitely longer ages than we have been men. Our identity is a dream. We are process, not reality, for reality is an illusion of the daylight -- the light of our particular day.
(oh, and Hi Bill! Don't discount the power of oral tradition...though I agree with your point about language... there was a time ages ago when Greeks could recite Homer or the Icelandic Skalds the Elder Edda by heart, and passed them on almost intact from generation to generation. A skill lost with the rise of the printing press, I think).
One more quote from Loren:
Quote:
"whether we speak of a God come down to earth or a man inspired toward God and betrayed upon a cross, the dream was great, and shook the world like a storm. I believe in Christ in every man who dies to contribute to a life beyond his life. I believe in Christ in all who defend the individual from the iron boot of the extending collective state .... I have been accused of woolly-mindedness for entertaining even hope for man. I can only respond that in the dim morning shadows of humanity, the inarticulate creature who first hesitantly formed the words for pity and love must have received similar guffaws around a fire. Yet some men listened, for the words survive."
petty, jealous, child that for some reason (he sounds very insecure) needs constant validation in the form of praise from us flawed, sinful, lesser beings.
I'm pretty sure a good portion of people that I've come to know in my life that are over the age of 10 (and some under the age of 10), act more grown up and 'godly' than the "all powerful" that some of you worship.
"I'm going to make this planet almost infinitely diverse so that each sentient being that I create has an absolutely unique life! And boy is it really gonna fuck with their minds when they find out there's only one specific way that they'll be able to advance to everlasting bliss regardless of if they were even provided the opportunity. Fuckers."
Always good to see you. And you are right about oral tradition. How ever I see a lot of argumentation and debate with the audiences as the culture faced thought or physical change points ( think as if we were Molinowski observing culture evolving).
I will read more of the link you. And yes I agree that Christ's story is inspiring and a triumph
One of the things that intrigues me about these threads is the non evolution believers holding aloft like a trophy the missing link cul de sac. How can you bozos drive your drivel down my throat yet have nothing to say about the missing link or the overwhelming implausibility of life as a trillion to one soup to Kate Upton chain of events
Yet a bunch of guys who spent a life as one of many sects and splinters against the "official" religiousos then started writing 35 to 70 years later about a friend of theirs who was a victim of state and powers that be oppression and cruelty. Or he was the Son of God. Or he was called that to give a halo effect to the new carriers of the best religion. But no matter the implausibility of certainty I just know for sure.
But that missing link and the lack of any record that Christ wanted any church or religion... or was ever heard saying anything until written decades later. ...that missing link is not a missing link at all. It's as solid as can be in the face of certainty and overwhelming evidence????
It's funny how we all find certainty follows our belief so very fast.
that it was awesome how Spock capitalized JEWISH..
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
people who think they are devout Christians (for example--I use the religion I was raised with) limit God's abilities at every turn due to their own limited, scared views of the world.
How's this for a religion? No ONE religion is correct--they all point to the same thing.
Randy, this may sound beautiful but what basis do you have for saying this? For example, both the Holy Bible and the Koran do not espouse this thinking. Again, I see no reason why one book cannot be THE book. It makes sense to me to see the enemy of God create counterfeits to confuse the masses and keep them from knowing the truth. After all, the Evil One Is a liar and a murderer and his purpose is to get converts too.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Quite the godless person.
You don't really believe Hitler was partnering with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by killing Jews do you? Hitler was probably demon possessed and certainly doing the work of his father, Satan.
whispered in your ear which of the many claimed books of god out there was the one true version?
Or did you read them all and come to that decision on your own?
Polytheism makes no sense to me so I eliminated any religion that promotes that. So, I narrowed down my research to monotheism, which pretty much narrowed the search to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Obviously I read all three books of such.
However, I was not a believer in any one religion until age 27. It was at that time I guess you could say I had a "spiritual awakening" that transformed my way of thinking from agnostic to on fire for the Lord. It became clear to me that the God of the Holy Bible is THE one true God, and this is the one for me to follow.
that it was awesome how Spock capitalized JEWISH..
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
I think we need to score one for Spock here :)
Yes, we get that, but which one is the real version?
If I may follow up on your answer to me, you say one thing I do know is when I die I am dead. I assume you mean, you cease to exist in any shape or form.
How do you know that?
I guess you do not believe Jesus rose from the dead and do not believe he spoke other people, like Lazarus, to rise from the dead, although the Bible states such. In fact, the bible states there were hundreds of people who witnessed this happening. Are you that confident that all these people who witnessed such happening and even wrote about it are all wrong?
But, as I write this, I realize, this really is more of a faith issue. Do you believe the bible is a true account of the times back then. I can see you don't, yet I do. I guess this is where we differ. I respect your right to not believe.
Thanks for sharing.
RE: Yes, we get that, but which one is the real version?
Not sure what you are asking, but I use Bible Hub to see compare translations from the original Hebrew or Greek. I think the New King James Version is the one I seem to prefer, but I read several and go deep in the original Hebrew or Greek individual words when I feel I need to.
The old testament had to be written in old Egyptian or old Aramaic. ...Neither is close to Greek or Hebrew. Unless the dates in the Bible are not accurate and it was written later than claimed?
Separate non hostile question so I can understand: do you think the world is a certain or uncertain place? ( not a question about Divine Will)
Eyewitness testimony (second hand) that is 2,000 years old. Good enough for me.
I wrote this before, but it bears repeating. Years ago, on this site, Spock (as Rocky) as was he was condemning Jews to hell, argued the earth was thousands of years old. Had to be, it was in the bible, same "logic" he applies now. He even provided a link (such as I did) to "scientists" that supported his view.
Fast forward, he has abandoned this particular piece of the bible as being incorrect and utterly ridiculous in the face of scientific inquiry. Yet, he remains that the rest is the infallible word of his god.
Ask yourself, are you debating a reasonable human being able to see evidence on both sides, or rather a dogmatic simpleton that is so invested in his "team" that facts don't matter?
On a time synch basis the early chapters of the old testament predate alphabets. And mid old testament could be Assyrian or Phonecian early attempts at an alphabet. Even old Aramaic which came later was a family of dialects.
I dunno too many missing links for me. At best it's a theory but certainly not proven or scientifically valid.
The old testament had to be written in old Egyptian or old Aramaic. ...Neither is close to Greek or Hebrew. Unless the dates in the Bible are not accurate and it was written later than claimed?
Separate non hostile question so I can understand: do you think the world is a certain or uncertain place? ( not a question about Divine Will)
New Testament written in Greek.
Why would I not think the world we live in is certain?
Daniel and Ezra may have been written in Aramaic but Old Testament was written in Hebrew. I'm not aware it was written in Egyptian, although Moses was raised Egyptian. Not sure where you got this from.
Eyewitness testimony (second hand) that is 2,000 years old. Good enough for me.
I wrote this before, but it bears repeating. Years ago, on this site, Spock (as Rocky) as was he was condemning Jews to hell, argued the earth was thousands of years old. Had to be, it was in the bible, same "logic" he applies now. He even provided a link (such as I did) to "scientists" that supported his view.
Fast forward, he has abandoned this particular piece of the bible as being incorrect and utterly ridiculous in the face of scientific inquiry. Yet, he remains that the rest is the infallible word of his god.
Ask yourself, are you debating a reasonable human being able to see evidence on both sides, or rather a dogmatic simpleton that is so invested in his "team" that facts don't matter?
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Spock: I don't like the term, "homophobe" but as long as it's used, I feel it's OK to refer to a person like this a "Biblephobe". Same thing, different slant.
that it was awesome how Spock capitalized JEWISH..
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
I think we need to score one for Spock here :)
Not necessarily. What prompted him to capitalize Jewish so many times in the past that his tablet assumed that was the norm? There appears to be some history here.
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Quite the godless person.
You don't really believe Hitler was partnering with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by killing Jews do you? Hitler was probably demon possessed and certainly doing the work of his father, Satan.
When you say "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," it's an implicit statement that other gods exist.
We agree that the stories first appear in languages different than the witnesses and of in langauge forms not available at the time of history they describe and different books first appear describing earlier aspects of the story but in languages developed after the the books behind them in the historical sequence.
A remarkable and great collection of writings.
but far more importantly and something I have been waiting for:
You stated that you agree the world is uncertain.
So then logically you agree that certainty in the face of uncertainty is insanity.
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Spock: I don't like the term, "homophobe" but as long as it's used, I feel it's OK to refer to a person like this a "Biblephobe". Same thing, different slant.
Seems so here. I think I will give Rob a 101 course on different religious beliefs to help clear the air.
when religious people insult nonreligious people to each other or when irreligious people lampoon the pious amongst themselves. You're talking around each other, and too often it makes the religious look hypocritical and the irreligious look petty. The Bill Mahers and Richard Dawkins of the world win about as many converts as do the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world. They may bolster the "faith" of the devout believer or nonbeliever but they don't test the feelings of their opposites.
Isn't is amazing how influential Frazer's The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion has been? It's touched an amazing number of people, including Robert Graves, Yeates, Lovecraft, T.S. Eliot, Freud, Joyce, Hemmingway, D.H. Lawrence, Crowley, Erza Pound, Campbell, and so forth. I'll have to re-read my copy (it's around somewhere, been too long since I've read it!)
What's interesting here in this discussion is how Oral Tradition (in this case, a living document of the Biblical Stories) would have compared to their static snapshot in the written texts. For example, try reading the King James Bible...something that would have made perfect sense in it's linguist construction back in the year of our Lord 1611, but is difficult for the average person to read in 2015. English has changed in the last 400-500 years, as any reader of Chaucer would know!
Oral tradition would have handled this change naturally; the language would have changed, but basic truths would have remained constant (see the links below):
The Middle East (in particular, the areas that the Bible talks about), was (and still is) a cornucopia of ideas, including stories that were shared across cultures. It's no shock that the story of Gilgamesh...in this case the story that morphed into the Noah's Flood...was included in the Bible. It's only recently that society has frowned (copyright) on the sharing of ideas; for most of our history, people borrowed stories that helped make their point.
Speaking of Gilgamesh, I love to go back to Patrick Stewart's oral retelling of the story in the ST Next Generation episode "Damok". Language..how people, and perhaps in the future how humans interact with non humans...is so critical.
Jews believe: God the father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Christians (Protestant for sure): believe the same
Jews believe: their messiah has not yet come
Christians believe: he has and his name is Jesus
Jews believe: CHRIST is not the son of god as he claims to be, rather is a false prophet and Definitely not the messiah they are waiting for
Christians believe: CHRIST is the son of God and the awaited messiah the Jews were hoping for
Jews believe: salvation is by works and faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Christians believe: salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ's atonement at Calvary and the belief in the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Jews follow Moses (mainly)
Christians follow Jesus mostly
Christians are commanded by Jesus to go into the world and share the Good News that Jesus saves. To not do this In my opinion would be disobeying the Lord. So, when I share the good news as I believe and you don't agree, why can't you just say, "I don't agree with you" and move on. I'm not interested in forcing you to believe as I do. I merely want to make sure people know the truth as I believe is set forth in the Holy Bible.
For the record Rob, in a strange way I find myself "loving you" despite your relentless assault on my (good) name.
This makes me think of this scripture verse regarding not wise people:
19For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Spock's musings: it appears to me from this verse that sometimes man's intellect could be getting in the way because it doesn't sound to me like God is THAT impressed with the super intellect who doesn't know God.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." -- God
Not necessarily Big Al. Read this from the book of Romans 11:
All Israel Will Be Saved
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." -- God
(1 Samuel 15:3)
Yes, you quoted true scripture. This does sound hard to read but you and I don't know all the facts behind these words. Do you know anything about the Amalekites?
On a personal side note, I do not question anything God does or allow, it is not my place to question the Creator of the Universe. He is God and his ways are not mans and are much higher. The Book Of Job taught me this lesson. When Job was bummed out suffering in much affliction, he too questioned God, which brought about a dialogue with God that will always be etched in my brain. (God is God and man is man.)
I know he is a righteous God and I have 100% confidence in the way he does things. I know you may not, so I guess this is where we differ. So be it.
I agree and I think...I think we might agree on an important aspect of this of I can reasonably articulate how I see it.
I will approach it from a different free range sentence floating in space but not from anthropology or linguistics but the hum drum of an old business scramble by Peters and Waterman called In Search of Excellence. One of the aspects they observed about the "social systems" known as business organizations was a feature they called "simultaneously loose and tight"
I am going to re purpose that sentence fragment and apply it to communications and recorded observations and from their to some aspects of one of the topics on the thread.
Imho all FORMS of communication exchange between sender and receiver are simultaneously loose and tight. So for example a text message conveys a fragment of its possible interpretation by the reader....what was the senders and readers emotion, degree of concentration, possible meaning of words, history of past dialog and consistency and familiarity. So a simple " I will be 10 minutes late" can be a very loose communication if either has a history of unpredictability or instability. Or it could be a very tight message if punctuality and consistency and precision of both senders and receivers "world view and intent and level of expectation are roughly the same.
Now the same medium of texting should never be used to convey emotionally laden or layered thinking. "I am on the 545 pm train" is tight for a medium that's adequate for "tight" communication.
"I'm confused by Johnnys recent behavior towards me and my mother" is too loose a subject for effective communication via text.
Now let's look at Oral Tradition, morality tales, the Bible and citing the Bible for precise meaning quotations or dates or insight into ideas like evolution developed long after the senders could have even had such a word in their vocabulary.
I think oral tradition, morality tales, affiliation tales for a family or a tribe or a nation and useful myths and allegories are indeed accurately/effectively repeated down many generations. The Norse and Icelandic traditions are just one evidence of this. But I think the purpose and the point of all of those fall into the category of "loose" communication where the authority and style of the teller and desire for context of the listener is emotive or "contextual" in nature.
If Einstein s proof or a calibration of a stress testing instrument was done by oral tradition then the imprecision which could build in renders the "loose" of that medium one where doubt is reasonably valid.
So as a creation tale, as morality tale, as the first tragedy, as evolving recording of a societies contribution to what it means to live in western intellectual tradition....The translators and translations do not matter. The Bible is simultaneously loose and tight when used and drawn from. In that sense it is perfectly simultaneously loose and tight.
However when used as an authoritative traceable and validated source in a scientific theory developed 3000 years later....it is way too loose. When used as a rule for a complex moral or social situation unimaginable to its source....it's way to loose and imprecise a form of communication.
To assert a brand new boyfriend is blowing you off when he first texts he will be late would be seen as melodramatic and a moment of irrationality on the readers part unless she saw where he was or had a friend validate the train was indeed late. To assert that Christ meant or would have said is conjecture upon conjecture ascribing the Bible was far "tighter" a form of communication than it could possibly be.
The labeling of those who note the Bibles miss use are not non believers or saying anything about the book itself. They are saying it's too loose ( yet no less tight and wondeful as a source of wisdom) for the re purposing of the promotor.
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Honestly, didn't read a word of that after the first sentence - you might as well compare and contrast Star Trek vs Star Wars for all the real world relevance it has.
For the record, I find you to be a despicable, anti-Semitic, homophobic anti-science piece of shit that embodies the worst of religion.
Had you been born in Syria, your weak-mindedness and blind allegiance to the most regressive of religious dogma leaves me doubt you would be a member of ISIS.
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Honestly, didn't read a word of that after the first sentence - you might as well compare and contrast Star Trek vs Star Wars for all the real world relevance it has.
For the record, I find you to be a despicable, anti-Semitic, homophobic anti-science piece of shit that embodies the worst of religion.
Had you been born in Syria, your weak-mindedness and blind allegiance to the most regressive of religious dogma leaves me doubt you would be a member of ISIS.
After all, beheading infidels Is the will of someone's god, different circumstances, same inability to display any sort of moral compass outside of restrictive dogma. Spock's type of thinking is dangerous here, think of how much more dangerous it could be under different circumstances.
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
It's a wry secondary point about the possible purposes of the various writers that my re - purposing of the original phrase may also have an insight we should not lose track of.
As applied to the social systems of a business organization the authors described the galaxy of rules, myths, favorite stories, beliefs, written and unwritten rules as all necessary for leaders to get both compliance and motivation and self identification of members as part of a greater whole. When the full range of controls and guides and reward and punishments and ways of ostracism for those who leave and education and myths was present said social system was said to have simultaneously loose and tight control of the members in the system.
As if none of that purpose was ever on the minds of any of the writers writing to any of their audiences
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
What just confused me was your criticism of me referencing what you said over 15 years ago. However the only change I see is your references to a Bible quote rather than a willingness to say it. No difference to me.
One of the things that intrigues me about these threads is the non evolution believers holding aloft like a trophy the missing link cul de sac.
It's true the missing link "argument" has no logical force but it does have one amusing feature that I admire. Every time scientists supply a formerly missing link, they create not the more continuous chain of events you might imagine but two "new" missing links. One on each side of the new discovery. We have many more "missing links" today than we did when this spurious argument was first raised. And we'll have more tomorrow than we do today!
One of the things that intrigues me about these threads is the non evolution believers holding aloft like a trophy the missing link cul de sac.
It's true the missing link "argument" has no logical force but it does have one amusing feature that I admire. Every time scientists supply a formerly missing link, they create not the more continuous chain of events you might imagine but two "new" missing links. One on each side of the new discovery. We have many more "missing links" today than we did when this spurious argument was first raised. And we'll have more tomorrow than we do today!
Typical of Creationists to ask for a proof they will always find unprovable.
Any reading of the Bible that does not include it's uses as a social contract, binding mythology, educational guide and propaganda for the audiences of the internal ruling or external oppressors...misses how rich and sly and wise and anguished a collection of hopes and fears and anger and compassion and truth to power and control to subjects can be found if one puts oneself in the shoes of various factions and splinters of its time.
Remember it was written pre law and pre consensus views of how to govern so it has to be Edward Morrow and stop you from eating uncooked pork and protect and keep in place men widows women and children and be Federalist Paper Number 10
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
What just confused me was your criticism of me referencing what you said over 15 years ago. However the only change I see is your references to a Bible quote rather than a willingness to say it. No difference to me.
So, move on. I'm definitely a follower of the God of the Holy Bible, as our millions of others. If this bothers you, just hit the ignore button.
Of course it is fair to ask a candidate any question we the people want to ask them!
Now, regarding if and how any candidates respond:
I would seriously question a candidate who ducks the question:
In truth, many, if not the vast majority of Christians believe in scientific method as well as the faith and have no problem reconciling the two..(and not needing to argue that here, that is another trap, no thx).
For a candidate to fall into the trap of believing that a significant number of Christians would not vote for him or her due to his or her statement in favor of scientific reasoning in the question of evolution might be tantamount to his or her buying into the rhetoric of the secularists, i.e. secularists that sometimes seem to want us all to believe that Christians lack the ability or inclination for rational thought.
Which is typically not true of course.
So- my disinclination to engage in the thread....the subject ..the exact question of the thread, itself lends itself more to polarity and broad, panning diatribes one way or the other, bringing people out of the woodwork, and, in doing so, tends to support those who -want us- to believe that Christians lack rationality.
So- baiting as it were.
Which does not tend to increase the rational discussion or benefit the electoral results - in the end.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
What just confused me was your criticism of me referencing what you said over 15 years ago. However the only change I see is your references to a Bible quote rather than a willingness to say it. No difference to me.
So, move on. I'm definitely a follower of the God of the Holy Bible, as our millions of others. If this bothers you, just hit the ignore button.
Does not bother me. Just was curious if anything had changed
here is where I join you guys in thinking Spock might also
since he is referring to the pre-new covenant part of the bible and thus obviously not meant, in the Christian view (perhaps not in any view) , to be taken as -directly- instructive, rather, an example of life prior to the advent of the instructive events to follow.
or a radical athiest trying to build an argument against the faithful by setting a bad example, pretending to be one
on the other hand, I did not read the thread....so...I could be wrong.
in other words, in all the big 3 monotheistic faiths, god changes his mind on stuff, so, trying to justify old testament wars in todays context is just stupid.
''
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens. ''
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
I think putting children and infants to death is universally evil. And if I spent any time trying to rationalize a single case of it, I would consider seeing a psychotherapist.
here is where I join you guys in thinking {WHOEVER POSTED THIS] might also
idiotsavant : 2:44 pm : link : reply
be baiting or a troll,
since he is referring to the pre-new covenant part of the bible and thus obviously not meant, in the Christian view (perhaps not in any view) , to be taken as -directly- instructive, rather, an example of life prior to the advent of the instructive events to follow.
or a radical athiest trying to build an argument against the faithful by setting a bad example, pretending to be one
on the other hand, I did not read the thread....so...I could be wrong.
in other words, in all the big 3 monotheistic faiths, god changes his mind on stuff, so, trying to justify old testament wars in todays context is just stupid.
people misunderstand both the intent of their own religions and also falseley attack other religions, is taking things out of context.
Obviously, if you question the rationality of being a Christian based on old testament quotations (assuming that they are directly instructive) you miss the entire point of the faith in the first place.
the new covenant, a new relationship between god and man, after that stuff and a radical change.
those things are instructive as examples of how things were prior to the new covenant, even for a non-christian, one could assume that, when he does come, the savior would also nix that stuff.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
I think putting children and infants to death is universally evil. And if I spent any time trying to rationalize a single case of it, I would consider seeing a psychotherapist.
Ok, don't think I need a shrink, but just trying to give you a perspective you may not have considered. I'm sure God doesn't need for me to be his apologist, but being a lawyer, it is in my blood to defend His good name. Carry on.
Savant, maybe he is a troll, but his question actually seemed quite valid enough for me to ponder and supply an answer. Obviously my answer didn't satisfy and I don't even know how good it is, but I tried.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
Ummmm, then why didn't God kill Hitler or Stalin before the untold tragedy and suffering of innocents? Wait, I know ... we cannot comprehend his infinite wisdom, so there must be a very good reason why he would slaughter and entire people including women and children rather than kill Stalin and Hitler. Of course!
whatever God does is right, even if it is something any of us would be sent to hell for....oh, unless we worshiped Him, in which case everything would be ok.
false -supposition- put forward by both new agers and willfully self-deluded or confused self styled but misguided monotheist believers
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
If you consider that He does care, and therefor the decision as above "free will' is really not one he took lightly, it really IS monumental, and tragic in a sense in its scale, but, at the same time, you also get an idea of the -scale- of the Glory
whatever God does is right, even if it is something any of us would be sent to hell for....oh, unless we worshiped Him, in which case everything would be ok.
Mike, like I said, I do not hold myself out as having all the answers to these kind of questions. I just throw out my speculation, not knowing whether it is valid or not.
Our free will allows each of us to judge matters as we deem accordingly. Of course our "judgments" are based on our belief systems.
false -supposition- put forward by both new agers and willfully self-deluded or confused self styled but misguided monotheist believers
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Except that then does not explain His wish to exterminate a group of people including innocent children. And that of course is what I was replying to, Spock's justifying that act by saying they must have been evil He certainly would have been justified in wiping out evil people. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't hold water.
false -supposition- put forward by both new agers and willfully self-deluded or confused self styled but misguided monotheist believers
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Great words here savant. Thanks for them. I agree, I think many people struggle or forget to factor in how much free will God has given us here on earth. i guess people want God to intervene all the time to stop misfortune or evil from happening. He will ........someday, not just now.
has always been if someone chooses to believe, that's fine. In a way I envy them because their blind belief is an answer to everything, very comforting. But when someone tries to justify that belief with false logic I find it difficult to just let it slide, although I should. What got me into this thread in the first place was the old "missing link" fallacy. With my background in molecular biology, it was not easy to let that one slide, and as they say, in for a dime, in for a dollar :) Enjoy the peace your religion provides.
another false supposition method is the breaking down
of the anthropomorphical nature of the narrative of the bible:
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
of the anthropomorphical nature of the narrative of the bible:
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
Its just silly.
I have no idea why I continue, but here goes...
Why would one need an excuse to reject the idea of God? That's just silly.
Next, I don't reject God, He/She may exist, but I see no evidence to suggest that, never mind proof... NONE.
To blindly accept a God would require that I suspend all learning, logic and critical thinking, never mind the absolutely no evidence thing.
And this being that is put forth as an infallible perfect entity changes his mind?! C'mon man.
Now I suspect you will put forth something you see as evidence, something that is much more easily and logically explained by means other than a magical being, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience for that folly right now.
RE: another false supposition method is the breaking down
of the anthropomorphical nature of the narrative of the bible:
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
Its just silly.
I have no idea why I continue, but here goes...
Why would one need an excuse to reject the idea of God? That's just silly.
Next, I don't reject God, He/She may exist, but I see no evidence to suggest that, never mind proof... NONE.
To blindly accept a God would require that I suspend all learning, logic and critical thinking, never mind the absolutely no evidence thing.
And this being that is put forth as an infallible perfect entity changes his mind?! C'mon man.
Now I suspect you will put forth something you see as evidence, something that is much more easily and logically explained by means other than a magical being, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience for that folly right now.
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
I guess I got your posts mixed with Bungles posts. Sorry.
The existence of people like you in 2015 is truly depressing.
Wow, you don't really know me yet you say these words.
I'm tempted to tell you about all the good I have done over the years to make our community a better place, and about my spotless police record, but you know what? Why waste my time? Believe as you will with your God given free will.
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
I guess I got your posts mixed with Bungles posts. Sorry.
Spock, one last thing. I have a great deal of respect for you. The fact that you believe as you do puzzles me but if it provides something for you, then that's great. I disagree and disapprove of those who were vicious, insulting and hostile toward you even though my last post may have been somewhat insulting due apparently to a misunderstanding. You have been civil and evenhanded in your posts and have generated a lively discussion.
false -supposition- put forward by both new agers and willfully self-deluded or confused self styled but misguided monotheist believers
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Except that then does not explain His wish to exterminate a group of people including innocent children. And that of course is what I was replying to, Spock's justifying that act by saying they must have been evil He certainly would have been justified in wiping out evil people. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't hold water.
The alternative to wiping out these supposedly evil folk is simply to employ the infinite power of god to turn them into good people. Nah, easier to just slaughter the innocents so that the righteous, god-fearing killers can profit by taking over those evil peckers' land and goods. Yeah, that's the ticket.
And by the way Spock, where did god come from? Answer without the biblical mumbo-jumbo that says nothing at all.
I remember the many times over the years we have discussed spiritual matters. You were always one of the good guys, not being ugly toward me because of my faith. I even recall your life story and your struggles over the years.
I have always appreciated how open you are with your questions and the fact that you have been very cordial in discussing these matters with me. I know you are seeking the truth but have big question marks that keep you from jumping on the God bandwagon as I have done. Honestly, the lawyer in me wishes I could convince you to grab the coattails of Christ and enjoy the ride, but I know it is not that easy for you, for now at least (big grin). I'm here for you should you desire to talk or ask questions that gnaw away at you. I can't gurarantee they are the best answers but I will try my best to see they are. Cheers, and again, thanks for the kind words. As you can see, these are far and few on this thread, so they mean a lot to me.
Where did God come from? Wow, I ask you guys how can something come from nothing (which begs the need for an intelligent Design) so you ask me, where did God come from? Interesting.
My short answer is simply- He has ALWAYS BEEN. "I am that I am!"
Where did God come from? Wow, I ask you guys how can something come from nothing (which begs the need for an intelligent Design) so you ask me, where did God come from? Interesting.
My short answer is simply- He has ALWAYS BEEN. "I am that I am!"
JUMBO mumbo jumbo. You have no courage of your convictions, Spock. Pointless to waste more time on a dangerous fool. Your type of inflexibility cannot be considered a positive in any community outside of one inhabited only by others who share your affliction.
It's your kind of thinking that inevitably leads to monstrous evil. It's inevitable because you have all the rationalizations for any action already built into your false ethos.
I don't want to continue jumping on you and I do respect your choices even if I don't agree with you.
But I have a question for you about the whole "God made man in his image" aspect. Do you believe in DNA?
Because according to DNA, Humans and Chimps are roughly 97% the same.
So do you think that it's just that extra 3% that gives us that special something other than animals?
And also, why do you think God doesn't allow Chimps to go to heaven if they're 97% the same as him? They might not be a spitting image of him but 97% is pretty damn close.
One thing you said stuck out- you called me dangerous. Is it because you equate my passion for God similar to a jihad muslim's passion?
I can take your answer, so let me have it.
I actually answered this question in past discussions with you. I don't consider you nor other Christians dangerous at this point in time. However those with your beliefs were very dangerous in the past. Countless murders came out of it.
Isn't it pretty obvious how different we are even though according to your numbers we are only 3% different.
Hey Osi, if you feel inclined, where did matter come from? How did it first come into existence? Thanks.
I don't see how you could say yes to both questions.
You believe in DNA. But you don't believe in the actual data based on DNA?
And it's obvious that humans and chimps aren't identical. But isn't it also obvious that Chimps are more similar to us than they are to any other animal outside of great apes?
And to answer your question, I don't know how nothing came from something. But if the answer is God, I'd question where God came from.
I was thinking about your point on Einstein. Oral tradition would be a poor way to preserve his equations, I think we'd all agree.
But...what if you retold thought experiments in the Oral tradition fashion, perhaps to preserve his ideas and other Scientific concepts for posterity, in case of a great natural or man made disaster? Then, after several generations, wrote the current version of them down? It wouldn't take much to re-create Special Relativity from the stories.
One of the problems with the Bible, as mentioned before, is that not only were the Oral traditions transcribed much later than the actual events, the people who wrote down those stories were influenced by their times, as well as the audience they were writing for. So, the Old Testament can be brutal, with slavery, prostitution, war, beheadings, etc...those things were the normal part of everyday life back then. The same things that are now abhorrent 2,000 plus years in the future!
I did get a kick out your last paragraph.
Quote:
As applied to the social systems of a business organization the authors described the galaxy of rules, myths, favorite stories, beliefs, written and unwritten rules as all necessary for leaders to get both compliance and motivation and self identification of members as part of a greater whole. When the full range of controls and guides and reward and punishments and ways of ostracism for those who leave and education and myths was present said social system was said to have simultaneously loose and tight control of the members in the system.
As a Catholic, I think you've spot on on the 2,000 year old Roman Church! I don't think it's negative in the least...I think it would apply to any organization that lasts that long.
One thing you said stuck out- you called me dangerous. Is it because you equate my passion for God similar to a jihad muslim's passion?
I can take your answer, so let me have it.
I actually answered this question in past discussions with you. I don't consider you nor other Christians dangerous at this point in time. However those with your beliefs were very dangerous in the past. Countless murders came out of it.
And I told you I try to live the words of Christ in my daily life. He said to LOVE my neighbor, and he even said to LOVE even my enemy and turn the other cheek. He did not tell me to go out into the world and kill unbelievers.
Al, all those past pogroms against people groups, such as Jews, were wrong and I don't condone such actions at all. These Inquisitions, like the Spanish, etc were atrocious and I'm appalled by such. I don't know why you equate my thinking with THAT thinking.
I may believe if one rejects CHRIST they may lose their seat in Heaven but that has nothing to do with the way I treat people who also are created in the image of God. God tells me to love........jesus modeled for me what I must do. I'm trying....
One last thing- if you are Jewish, I am the last person you should be afraid of because born again christians "support ISRAEL" more than any other people group I know of.
These words from the bible resonate in my thinking, from Genesis chapter 12-
1The Lord had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your fathers household to the land I will show you.
2I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.a
3I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.
I will CURSE THOSE WHO CURSE YOU. Do you think I want to be cursed?
In that I don't understand and consider myself to work hard on understanding spirituality but I don't get:
You guys have missing links in your thesis
I have none when it comes to the Bible ( old new or both)
My god does not intervene to stop one iota of unimaginable evil but did intervene at all and never would and thats a good thing. But specifically and surgically did on something that does not matter ....how evolution occurred and that's a good thing.
Trust my god for he is consistent and has done good works like he wants from us.
I mean don't bother with the man drummed up theology and rhetorical flourishes out of these cul de sacs....just look at what you said....it does not even sound like a god...it sounds like convolutions of men.
Again no tone or put down...I am just sharing why that God seems like a man rigged hologram...to my way of thinking and I have done a lot on the subject
Born-again Christians support Israel for their own selfish reasons.
A pretty good summary:
[quote]In order for most of todays Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movements support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.
Every time you hear the phrase, Jesus is coming back soon, you should mentally add, and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in soon plus 84 months. Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.
This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons many, many sermons on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture. Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.
[quote]
Of course, Israelis accept the support of American Fundamentalists, because they need it. However, not for a second does any thinking Jew believe that Fundamentalists support Israel out of love for Jews. It's a marriage of convenience.
You knew that, of course. It's common among Fundamentalists to use "pretend truths" to support their positions. That's how we got men cavorting with dinosaurs--it is necessary to offset the actual information in the fossil record. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Link - ( New Window )
I will say this - while I think Spock/Rocky/Rhett/Paul is a brutal poster, I must give him credit. He got Bill Deuce to come back to us and share his PhD in wisdom, and that's good for all of us!
One last thing- if you are Jewish, I am the last person you should be afraid of because born again christians "support ISRAEL" more than any other people group I know of.
And anteaters "support ANTS" more than any other animal I know of. Without them, the anteaters would all perish. Doesn't mean the ants trust them, though.
I will say this - while I think Spock/Rocky/Rhett/Paul is a brutal poster, I must give him credit. He got Bill Deuce to come back to us and share his PhD in wisdom, and that's good for all of us!
I don't think Bill2 came out just to respond to me, but thanks for the kind words. Your first I believe to me. (You must have a fever.)
I get engaged when I am stuck at airports. Which is hard because phones are not meant for actual writing.
And apparent inconsistency just has me at Al Pacing level response. " every time I get out they pull me back in"
I don't find true believers of any kind to be rotten people. ...I am just amazed that any examination of any subject has one anything but convinced one knows so little of what really matters and finds oneself more humble than before they started their inquiry.
I dunno...The longer I live and the more I work at learning all I can the less I know.
Posting a 13 year old article from some dubious cafeteria website is not cool. Like I said, I'm sure someone believes anything, but you are trying to brand all fundamental christians with one brush.
Don't remember. Anyway, glad you are feeling better, and glad you aren't Spock.
Wasn't your suggestion but we have talked on the subject in the past. Started taking the supplement a few weeks ago and it seems to help. Just wanted to pass it along.
God no I am not Spock. Pun intended.
I could never get over how any one religion is the only true religion and those of not (fill in the blank) are damned to eternal hell.
The existence of people like you in 2015 is truly depressing.
Wow, you don't really know me yet you say these words.
I'm tempted to tell you about all the good I have done over the years to make our community a better place, and about my spotless police record, but you know what? Why waste my time? Believe as you will with your God given free will.
I didn't say you are a bad person, did i? I don't need to know more than I've read in this thread to be depressed by your existence. I don't dislike you (how could I?) but you represent a large segment of the population that is just totally against progress, growth and understanding. Every keystroke you've given this thread has burrowed you deeper into the nonsense you tell yourself. It's sad.
Posting a 13 year old article from some dubious cafeteria website is not cool. Like I said, I'm sure someone believes anything, but you are trying to brand all fundamental christians with one brush.
Very disturbing applying your own stereotypes.
Yeah, manh george! Stop using dated text with waning relevance in today's more informed society to prove your point!
Posting a 13 year old article from some dubious cafeteria website is not cool. Like I said, I'm sure someone believes anything, but you are trying to brand all fundamental christians with one brush.
Very disturbing applying your own stereotypes.
Yeah, manh george! Stop using dated text with waning relevance in today's more informed society to prove your point!
Because there are so many out there like him. Just keeping the philosophical muscles in fighting trim.
OK, manh. The world is going to hell, and it's the "faithful" ultraorthodox that are taking it there. It's like denying global warming; science has become whatever you want to make it. Keep the muscles flexed, my friend!
if they had a choice? You start pounding on a kid when he's 3 years old the kid is going to think the rest of the world believes this stuff too. It is brainwashing from one generation passed down to the next. There is no free will involved
"It's like denying global warming; science has become whatever you want to make it. Keep the muscles flexed, my friend!"
I thought global warming was old school and it's now climate change to adhere to the latest observations?
No, it's still global warming. They just needed a new name because the "Darwin was a liar" demographic thought it meant it was false every time they had to wear a jacket...
"It's like denying global warming; science has become whatever you want to make it. Keep the muscles flexed, my friend!"
I thought global warming was old school and it's now climate change to adhere to the latest observations?
No, it's still global warming. They just needed a new name because the "Darwin was a liar" demographic thought it meant it was false every time they had to wear a jacket...
Ok, makes sense. Everything gets relabled every other day. It's hard to keep up.
As long as they all fight the good fight. Whatever that is.
1) I never said ALL fundamentalist Christians believe this, but it's a commonly held belief, and you know it.
2) I am sure I could find vastly better articles, if it were worth my time. They are all over the Net. Thousands of them.
Actually I don't know it, first time I read garbage like that. There you go again, speaking for me when you are not me, which I'm sure you are glad about that. That makes us even.
RE: Why would anyone waste time debating with this guy?
This is a football board. You add absolutely nothing to any football discussion. Nothing. Ever. You're a dupe (extremely odd for such a spiritually enlightened individual as you proclaim to be - why so many identities?) who talks about religion constantly and you've shown your anti-semetic self on bbi already. So why don't you go to a religion board and discuss your beliefs with like-minded individuals? Despite the number of posts to this thread, the loss of your contributions will improve bbi exponentially. Thanks in advance and farewell.
This is a football board. You add absolutely nothing to any football discussion. Nothing. Ever. You're a dupe (extremely odd for such a spiritually enlightened individual as you proclaim to be - why so many identities?) who talks about religion constantly and you've shown your anti-semetic self on bbi already. So why don't you go to a religion board and discuss your beliefs with like-minded individuals? Despite the number of posts to this thread, the loss of your contributions will improve bbi exponentially. Thanks in advance and farewell.
Who made you Police Lord of BBI? As for not adding football contributions, you obviously do not follow my threads. Why don't you do your homework before you utter nonsense. Lastly, I was merely responding to the OP and if you noticed, everything I said here was A response to something said or asked of me. So, go back to sleep would you. Zzzzzzzzzzz
Wonderful discussion with you. I thank you. Your points about the strength of Oral Tradition spark a few more thoughts:
1) notice that you mentioned how pliable the same tropes that feel ancient and have the power of evoking earliest learning one has as a member of society and signify entrance to the common experience of one's elders and all one respects...are ...When applied as propaganda to address a specific crisis and overwhelm moderation. It's how the consent of the governed to war or immoderate response. The use of Volk and Wagnerian recreations of even more ancient mythology woven into specific recent resentments gets you a hell of a rally. Or drawing on "of the people by the people and for the people" while This Land is Your Land plays in the background can sure distract from a proposal to benefit a few privileged people.
and in the crisis a small weak people whose history and geography left them affected by the Assyrian Egyptian Babylonian and Roman aftershocks. ..drawing response by evoking the common "specialness" was needed to endure. And I think that backdrop affects many aspects of the Old Testament and the need to protect the small collections of believers and weave between the religious agents of control for the Romans and the Romans is omnipresent in the New Testament. Truth be told ...who could read at the time? The possible illiterate prospects or the literate elites who crucified all possible challenges to the ways rent flowed?
Lastly, as a Catholic applying the ways Paul advocated passing the lessons on and building coherence within his small community per Greek city strategy for civilizing the world is all built around instructions to community leaders or guidance on pastoral issues that come up in repeated ceremonies and recreation of Oral traditions and dramas. Later the indoctrination power of the Creed via repetition was a source of great differentiation uniformity and driving out splinters sects schism and competitive challenges to the ears and approvals
of the state....In trade for acting as agents of social control. Or Compare the pillar forming repetition of the mass and the Creed on central uniformity and the loose unstructured equivalent of localized experience mullah to mullah.
Good stuff John. Makes me wish camp was still in Albany!
RE: RE: Why would anyone waste time debating with this guy?
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
For the sentence structure, flaws and layout of the arguments...The small phone screen leaves me less able to edit than even my usual slapdash race past actual English
This is a football board. You add absolutely nothing to any football discussion. Nothing. Ever. You're a dupe (extremely odd for such a spiritually enlightened individual as you proclaim to be - why so many identities?) who talks about religion constantly and you've shown your anti-semetic self on bbi already. So why don't you go to a religion board and discuss your beliefs with like-minded individuals? Despite the number of posts to this thread, the loss of your contributions will improve bbi exponentially. Thanks in advance and farewell.
Who made you Police Lord of BBI? As for not adding football contributions, you obviously do not follow my threads. Why don't you do your homework before you utter nonsense. Lastly, I was merely responding to the OP and if you noticed, everything I said here was A response to something said or asked of me. So, go back to sleep would you. Zzzzzzzzzzz
I've read your football posts. They're usually horrible with no insight. You add NOTHING to bbi.
Kindly fuck off from bbi. No one besides maybe Milton wants you here.
And don't pull the martyr bullshit thinking you're some sort of soldier for Christ. You're not. You're just a weirdo who has hid behind multiple identities to troll long standing and respected Giants fans.
chris: the feeling is mutual for believers to non-believers. I suppose it will always be that way.
A good allegory would be that believers are like NY Giant fans and non-believers are most similar to Eagle fans.
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
If the shoe fits...
Pffft. More weird shit from you guys.
Yeah, the shoe fits. You make shit up and make no fuckin sense.
I would expect nothing less coming out of your foul mouth. Too bad you haven't learned how to civilly communicate in the marketplace. I'm not sure why you lack the confidence and have to resort to name calling, but I suppose your upbringing stunted your growth. I'm sure you could take night time courses to improve your lot. Good luck.
I would expect nothing less coming out of your foul mouth. Too bad you haven't learned how to civilly communicate in the marketplace. I'm not sure why you lack the confidence and have to resort to name calling, but I suppose your upbringing stunted your growth. I'm sure you could take night time courses to improve your lot. Good luck.
Haha. More passive aggressive nonsense from such an enlightened and saved man of Christ.
I can only think that B is about to be saved, he is fighting it so hard....its like when you ask your girlfriend where she was and she goes into a half hour defensive tirade when all you thought was the supermarket...which fight is the dead giveaway that you hit on something else...and true, otherwise, why all the passion?
(fighting temptation to ask if ALB stands for Albania)
And therefore a secular Sunni Muslim and someone who doesn't judge others. Unfortunately, that's all we've seen from the dupe and his pals. It's despicable. You should be ashamed. If you're for real. Which I suspect you're not. You cannot possibly be this absurd.
B- then maybe you should appreciate the Hafiz poems
Indeed. He fought religious hypocrisy with his writings. Something that your boy Spock clearly does not understand based on his history of deception and lies illustrated here on bbi.
once, a long time ago, I was known as 'freeblueove' here.
then, I had kids, and changed my email (was at work in any case, forgot my password, or something) decided a new handle was in order (alligatorpie, which was obvious to regulars)...then after the crash and during the realization (the name was a gag with my kids) that I had changed again, and the kids no longer little....idiotsavant....
people change....thankfully....and not unrelated to the conversation or the conversion
once, a long time ago, I was known as 'freeblueove' here.
then, I had kids, and changed my email (was at work in any case, forgot my password, or something) decided a new handle was in order (alligatorpie, which was obvious to regulars)...then after the crash and during the realization (the name was a gag with my kids) that I had changed again, and the kids no longer little....idiotsavant....
people change....thankfully....and not unrelated to the conversation or the conversion
Wasn't referring to you bud. I was referring to the chickenhawk who now calls himself Spock.
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
of BBI. I disagree with Spock's logic, arguments and conclusions, but he is civil and refrains from over the top personal insults. I have never been able to understand the hatred and vituperation spewed by some posters. Usually when I post a comment like that, what I get back is "he deserves it", or "you don't know his history", etc. No, that does nothing to make me understand the vile language, insults, name calling and hatred.
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
At some crappy Christian school where you probably forced the kids to learn that caveman lived with pet dinosaurs. How in the world are you capable of teaching science, when you don't even understand the most basic principles?
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
A fairy tale. It's pretty clear you don't have an understanding of the word "reality". If I wrote that how can I take seriously anyone that denies the existence of the three little pigs and their houses, I hope I would be publicly shamed.
At some crappy Christian school where you probably forced the kids to learn that caveman lived with pet dinosaurs. How in the world are you capable of teaching science, when you don't even understand the most basic principles?
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
Wow Rob, talk about intolerant and hateful!
"Some crappy Christian school........."
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
Of any school that would make you a teacher or any religion that you support.
On BBI you have been openly anti-Semitic. Anti-gay. Anti-science (did you teach the kids about the dinosaurs in the Congo?). Don't play the martyr card when someone has a memory for your words and hates you because of the hate you yourself have spewed.
It's pretty easy to see some people have issues. Usually, someone or something in their past having to do with so-called Christians upset them greatly due to a perceived hypocrisy or maybe even worse.
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
Usually, someone or something in their past having to do with so-called Christians upset them greatly due to a perceived hypocrisy or maybe even worse.
At some crappy Christian school where you probably forced the kids to learn that caveman lived with pet dinosaurs. How in the world are you capable of teaching science, when you don't even understand the most basic principles?
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not their own.
I honestly don't even know where to go with this....what the fuck?
It's pretty easy to see some people have issues. Usually, someone or something in their past having to do with so-called Christians upset them greatly due to a perceived hypocrisy or maybe even worse.
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
Uh, fucking horseshit. My issue is with the intolerance and hatred your fucking version of god brings forth...
Your true colors came out rob. You knew perfectly well what adjective to put in front of christian. Out of the mouth comes forth from the heart.
I somewhat pity you for this hatred you carry for people of the christian faith, but don't worry, I don't hold it against you. I can still find forgiveness for this act of insensitivity because as a teacher of history, I know the many pogroms against your people in the past probably still resonate in your thinking.
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
It's pretty easy to see some people have issues. Usually, someone or something in their past having to do with so-called Christians upset them greatly due to a perceived hypocrisy or maybe even worse.
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
Point noted. Thanks for the word here.
Any school that teaches intolerance and anti-science
I am with River on one aspect of this. But id like to point out that infuriating behavior is dressed in more than one guise.Spock and for that matter many of the more Bible literal and or evolution doubters are personally courteous and imho deserve exchanges in the same tone and respect.
Now, we also know it is a population that borders on troll by never giving up or acknowledging the same infuriating rhetorical loops used by a conspiracy believer. Faith and magical thinking share the same traits of rhetoric...As do trolls and the annoyingly unself aware. They may get there for any variety of reasons but it is annoying ....which is why the same posters rise to the provocation of debating. Me certainly included. All post of any of those types have a certain lack of civil intellectual conciliation yet presume to discuss serious topics which deserve our best.
So at some point all these threads break down. My concern is that if we don't resist the lack of intellectual conciliation on one side and the lack of personal conciliation on the other the topic is ruined and sometimes banned.
Seems to me that this thread ran out of steam and one last word kind of temptation is now all that's left.
I will come back later today to see how many others took offense to that insulting comment made by Rob against christians.
Let's see how accurate I am.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. You didn't take offense, but notice the words you seem to take offense to (highlighted). How do you spell hypocrite?
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
There's the Sprocky that we love to hate!
Interesting post, huh? Those darn Jews can be pretty smart, but ask them for help and you get bubkus.
all the insults aside, I would question any school that hires a non believer of proven science to teach science. What specific subject in science was being taught?
Through quotes that all Jews are condemned. You can post your bullshit that the only way to your god is through jesus, but if you don't see how that is, at its core, offensive and anti-Semitic, you are a bigger piece of shit that I gave you credit for.
all the insults aside, I would question any school that hires a non believer of proven science to teach science. What specific subject in science was being taught?
Two questions Al,
1. Al, did you find robs comment insulting?
2. If someone said, "crappy Jewish school", would you find that insulting?
Through quotes that all Jews are condemned. You can post your bullshit that the only way to your god is through jesus, but if you don't see how that is, at its core, offensive and anti-Semitic, you are a bigger piece of shit that I gave you credit for.
That's not anti-Semitic rob. I am merely quoting from a book written by Jews about a Jew. That book says how salvation is attained, and like I have stated 1000 times, it is not limited to Jewish people only.
Maybe you need to read the definition of anti-semitism is again.
all the insults aside, I would question any school that hires a non believer of proven science to teach science. What specific subject in science was being taught?
Yup, any school that would hire Rocky to teach science has to be shitty.
all the insults aside, I would question any school that hires a non believer of proven science to teach science. What specific subject in science was being taught?
Two questions Al,
1. Al, did you find robs comment insulting?
2. If someone said, "crappy Jewish school", would you find that insulting?
I prefer to stay out of this stuff, but I would tend to think that any school using a non believer in evolution to teach science is a crappy school no matter what the denomination. It might change if the science that teacher is teaching is totally independent of that type of subject.
I grant that you can't see it. Must be ready for conversion. I am right. You are lesser. And closer to evil and influenced by evil. Unlike me. I shall pray for you.
We are all way past conversation or learning. And tolerance. And civility.
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
How is it that you can so easily accept that god has no beginning or end, yet keep saying that there must be a god because science can't explain how something came from nothing?
If you believe in the conservation of energy and matter, the simplest explanation is that "the Big Bang" was simply part of a cycle and our universe has always been and always will be here.
If you're referring to 'life' using "something from nothing " is idiotic, as no one claims it's anything of the sort. There were materials and energy that combined in what we think was a unique way. Personally , I have my doubts that it is really all that unique.
Do you argue this much about how the sun was formed? How about the planets of the solar system? Has science gotten all of that wrong too?
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
How is it that you can so easily accept that god has no beginning or end, yet keep saying that there must be a god because science can't explain how something came from nothing?
If you believe in the conservation of energy and matter, the simplest explanation is that "the Big Bang" was simply part of a cycle and our universe has always been and always will be here.
If you're referring to 'life' using "something from nothing " is idiotic, as no one claims it's anything of the sort. There were materials and energy that combined in what we think was a unique way. Personally , I have my doubts that it is really all that unique.
Do you argue this much about how the sun was formed? How about the planets of the solar system? Has science gotten all of that wrong too?
I try to live a more spiritual life. I strive to improve myself and really help and care about others as much as I care about ME. I'll never find perfection but I do try to get better.
Some folks have friends that have had great success in a 12-step program. I find my goals to be very similar.
People here can make fun of my faith but I really do care about them no matter how much they may resent that. I really care about other people not just in the matter of faith but in day to day dealings.
If I post something on BBI that appears shocking, it's just an attempt to make people laugh. Life sucks without a bit of humor.
I grant that you can't see it. Must be ready for conversion. I am right. You are lesser. And closer to evil and influenced by evil. Unlike me. I shall pray for you.
We are all way past conversation or learning. And tolerance. And civility.
Thanks for sharing that, but I am not sure I can agree with your assessment here. If you follow this thread for example, you will see how people like Rob, Chris, and 20 other guys jump me personally, not limited to my post, and they do this time after time. I am usually put on the defensive to defend my position or thinking on MATTERS THEY BRING UP. What do you expect me to say?
Now, I see you called the gang out a few minutes ago for bullying, but where were you when it first began?
Also, you singled me out here, but have never singled anyone else out save your comment that rob was insulting to me. I'm not asking you to be the BBI police but people respect you and listen to you. I'm sure if you called out a few guys by name they would go back under their covers. :)
Lastly, I know you may not be able to do this, but put yourself in my shoes. Do I not have the same right as you to share my beliefs on a thread like this? look at all the derogatory comments made toward me personally for saying evolution is faulty. Eric has stated many times, attack the post, not the poster, but do you see that taking place? I don't. If this policy were followed this would be a quiet place, but men will be men. And just because my opinions are in the minority doesn't mean I will keep quiet.
Great post. Tolerance. Humility. Humor. Honest. No preaching.
One of the problems I have as a person on a journey to consider with folks entrenched in a belief system is that I try to but cannot separate tolerance for other beliefs but intolerance for personal rigidity. And I think if you believe something that is not certain then acting like you know with certainty is a personal not belief system arrogance. So somebody thinks something I do not...so what. But if engaged with a rigid arrogant person and the topic is a belief system it's real hard to keep the caveats directed at the right targets. One of the ways the arrogant and santimonius exercise arrogance is to pick topics that are sacred so debate is cloaked in hard to assail shibboleths
I know personally it's very hard to deal with a person/people who is/are very rigid in their beliefs. In the last few months I have heard so many anti-Muslim comments it's almost unreal.
Seemingly normal people advocating killing all Muslims or at least stating that opinion. I've tried to reason with them but it really doesn't do any good.
IMO, if people want to learn more you have to become open-minded, take in as much as you can and then decide for yourself. People who stick to long held prejudices can be quite dangerous as we see almost every day.
Actually not a nonanswer, just not the answer you want. A simple yes or no is often not enough to convey your thoughts. Speaking of nonanswers, what specific. science subject did you teach.
Another thought. A number here have nor been happy with my responses to you because they feel I have been too tolerant of your posts and have refrained from insults. However. this has not helped since I too have now gotten on your shit list, judging by your last post to me.
And if you debate the subject you attack me. Attack me and you attack my personal beliefs as well.
All I am doing is being a victim of unfair attacks while asserting very debate able impossible to be certain of taken on faith beliefs.
Then just keep it going by sniping at transgressions from the mountain I insist upon.
Asserting a position of faith to posters who discuss in good faith from a position of bad faith eventually breaks down. The guy who started with intention to discuss in bad faith gets to walk away with their psychologically well defended psyche intact...." THEY WERE THE ONES WHO ARE LESS". I WAS THE GOOD GUY"
What you say and what you believe and how you engage are all different.
I say good things but ignore that I engage in a bad way. The conclusion that "People resist good things" is not the honest takeaway.
and I think the poster engages in bad faith on these topics. I have no illusions that he has honest faith. And engages on other topics in good faith
I know personally it's very hard to deal with a person/people who is/are very rigid in their beliefs. In the last few months I have heard so many anti-Muslim comments it's almost unreal.
Seemingly normal people advocating killing all Muslims or at least stating that opinion. I've tried to reason with them but it really doesn't do any good.
IMO, if people want to learn more you have to become open-minded, take in as much as you can and then decide for yourself. People who stick to long held prejudices can be quite dangerous as we see almost every day.
I have not seen much of that unless you sustitute Muslims for radical Muslims.
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
Spock. Re read the post you just made. What I see is a person who has a bad habit of engaging on these topics in bad faith. Always in a pattern that engages you self image as a victim for your beliefs and never genuinely asks "why does this happen?" Or why do I do this?
All humans do things for an emotional pay off. May not be aware of it....but all do.
The "they are unfair to me" trope is only used by someone who is not engaged to learn or help or enjoy good discussion. It is a sign of someone who does not care about a serious subject by prioritizes playing out a personal drama with a personal payoff.
And Spock maybe you are singled out because others know they are attacking you. You take more work to reach because you need a lot of moats. Maybe the right formula is less Christ and more Buddha.
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
That is very different than advocating killing all Muslims.
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
That is very different than advocating killing all Muslims.
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
That is very different than advocating killing all Muslims.
That occurs with their next sentence.
I have not heard that here. I probably have heard that somewhere but rarely and only from the extreme buttons.
"Spock. Re read the post you just made. What I see is a person who has a bad habit of engaging on these topics in bad faith...."
In bad faith.....
Hmmmmm
I respect your right to perceive things and draw conclusions as you do. (I'm sure my beliefs, being directly opposed to a theory you whole heartedly embrace, has nothing to do with you making this comment.)
Society is that every opinion should be respected. The right to have an opinion and to express it should most certainly be defended at all costs.
However, some opinions are offensive, give rise to harm to various groups, abridge their rights, or even, in some case, damage the fabric of our democracy. These opinions should be marginalized and ridiculed.
If a poster here were to post racially offensive comments, he would hopefully and rightfully be shouted down. I have elected to extend the line further, and believe that the nullification of all other religions as well as the abandonment of science deserves the same response, particularly in light of posters who demand the "missing link" then won't even read why they are asking the wrong question,
A) No it does not. an assertion to deflect any intention of taking any time to absorb feedback and consider possibilities,
B) I don't wholeheartedly embrace any theory
c) Notice the arrogance and supposition
d) Notice you distract yourself from the possibility of a message and attack the motives of the messenger.
Notice that ascribing and asserting thoughts into others heads is done by people who don't see that they engage in magical thinking??
Engaging with another supposing you know why and why they think is engaging the world around you in bad faith
all...all...all tactics of arrogant, psychologically well defended, impossible to be humble, needy, unaware person engaging others in bad faith. Don't take my word for it...look it all up.
For the record: No problem with what others believe. And I hold nothing unknowable as certain. My point to you is simple and you are breaking down in front of its inexorable validity with every singe post...you are not a victim Spock. You don't engage on this topic in good faith. Never have. Therefore you set up the reactions you get. Its not a beat down....its your kabuki theatre.
Maybe a good idea to post on Giants threads and such until your journey of discovery is further on?
Any remaining posts will only reveal the extent of the problem. there is no real good last word but self imposed self discipline to walk away and dig deep as to why you engage in plays that always end in the same self messages
My bad. I thought I read here you agree and support the thinking behind evolution.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Scientific theories are not mandates that must be accepted as if given from on high. Everything in science is a tentative answer to a question that can be completely overturned tomorrow in light of new answer. So, to get behind any scientific concept "whole-heartedly" is foolish and decidedly UN-scientific.
but, to me that just tells me he's open to the possibility that some new discovery could someday overturn what we now understand RE: evolution.
There's a great deal about the diversity of life that we (as a collective) haven't come close to understanding in depth, and rather than be satisfied with the sum of the current body of knowledge, we (again, as a collective) strive to build that volume to greater depths. It's about never being satisfied that we've found THE answer, and understanding that we've found a part of the answer. Without that curiosity, we'd still be casting spells and throwing runes wondering why little Johnny has those boils on his tongue.
My bad. I thought I read here you agree and support the thinking behind evolution.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, could you tell me the time of Bill's post that says this? I went back quite a way and can't find it. I'm interested in the context of that statement. Thanks
My bad. I thought I read here you agree and support the thinking behind evolution.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, could you tell me the time of Bill's post that says this? I went back quite a way and can't find it. I'm interested in the context of that statement. Thanks
You want The time of Bills post that says he agrees with evolution.
Well......
Actually, my words above say, "I THOUGHT I read here you (meaning Bill2) supported evolution...." So maybe Bill didn't say he agrees with the theory.
If Bill doesn't agree with evolution I would love to hear him express this. I'd love to read the ensuing debate.
Unfortunately there's no context surrounding the statement to illuminate it further than a literal reading of it. I suspect however that Wuphat's supposition is pretty close to correct.
As for me, I'm prepared for science to change, modify, or discard any theory. But it does so when present with new findings that are exposed to rigorous and critical review and testing. That said, I don't expect any major changes in the theory of evolution (there have already been minor modifications) because of the absolutely incredible body of evidence confirming it.
Getting back to evolution and its merits, I realize being a lawyer and teacher doesn't give me standing to personally comment on the veracity of a scientific theory. But I'm sure 99%'of you guys are in the same boat as me. We have to read other works to process it all.
I am being told I am anti scientific by rejecting Darwinism or evolution but according to this 22 page document signed by SCIENTISTS and people of higher education, they too aren't embracing the theories of Darwin that readily.
disappointing. I expected to see a scholarly peer reviewed paper explaining evidence for disagreement with evolution. But it was just a list of "scientists" who are skeptical. BTW, I put "scientists" in quotes because I don't consider electrical engineers and the like as scientists. Many of the disciplines listed, such as geologist and engineers would not, IMO be qualified to expound on evolution theory.
That said, I would question what proportion of qualified scientists are on that list (50%, 20% 1%, .2%?), and what proportion of those are devout Christians. The bottom line is that link didn't tell me much.
50,000 PhDs awarded in the U.S. annually - with enough perserverance, I could create a list of educationally accomplished individuals that support anything - astral projection to zombies.
RE: The evolution perception might be a deal breaker
is full of people who are not biologists or people with any more relevant study in the field than your law studies.
I give you Project Steve - ( New Window )
aside from an incredible fossil record that 100% supports the theory of evolution, we see it at work all around us. You see a multitude of dog breeds that have evolved through the occurrence of desired traits that happened randomly and were selected by humans for reproduction of those traits. You see bacteria and viruses that through random mutations evolve resistance to medications. You see cattle selected to breed for high milk production or meat production. It goes on and on. The theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, by molecular genetics, and by our everyday experience. I can't imagine how much more confirmation a theory could have.
Some Ph.D.'s believe that the Holocaust did not exist.
... You see a multitude of dog breeds that have evolved through the occurrence of desired traits that happened randomly and were selected by humans for reproduction of those traits...
Mike, I believe that is natural selection as opposed to evolution. I whole-heartedly believe in natural selection too.
What I think does not matter to you. And what you think does not matter to me.
But if I assert something as fact and you challenge it I can retreat to say it's what I believe given I have no proof to disprove it. But I can't respond by saying you have no proof either therefore I am right and it's a fact. Nor can I set myself up as tight and insist you have not convinced me when what I asserted is full of logic leaps.
you have a right to believe. You don't have a right to say the other guy is wrong or lesser or close to conversion or more influenced by evil than you are.
Believing without facts is a personal choice. In person. Debating without facts is not. Now I realize some attack your thinking. And vice versa. My point was and is that we will never know either way. The primordial soup supposition...I was not there so I did not see it...is to me as statistically as likely as divine intervention to start and then again when it came to humans. Until we know otherwise it's belief. And I think all humans should be very humble open and fragile and seeking when it comes to belief...In sum all the things really worth knowing we will never know.
it's the manner not the subject. Yes others do the same to you. So what. Let them. Water off a ducks back. Seriously. Why do you as you describe always wind up in the same place?. I'm trying by several different means none of which are successful to point out that the issue is not the issues you are talking about. It's how....not what. Hope that helps.
... You see a multitude of dog breeds that have evolved through the occurrence of desired traits that happened randomly and were selected by humans for reproduction of those traits...
Mike, I believe that is natural selection as opposed to evolution. I whole-heartedly believe in natural selection too.
This a very common false distinction used by creationists in their attempts to obfuscate that which is, in its essence, very simple:
"Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Darwins grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood."
think evolution to mean how life began, and it doesn't. Evolution only deals with life's diversity after it began, and says nothing whatsoever about how life first arose. That is the study of abiogenesis, and as of yet, has no unifying theory.
RE: RE: RE: RE: The evolution perception might be a deal breaker
on this thread, I'm going to ask a silly question. Isn't "natural selection" totally circular? I.e. survival of the fittest; and we know they are the fittest because, well because they survived. What am I missing?
Survival of the fittests is really a miscontruction
It's those populations that have adapted to changes in their environment that survive. We know that species have gone extinct. They go extinct every day. Why? Because for one reason or another they've not adapted to the changes in their environments. Those that have adapted, continue on.
There's nothing circular about that.
And again, natural selection is only one facet of evolutionary theory
Sorry, to my ear, that is totally circular; they went extinct because they didn't adapt. How do we know they didn't adapt? Well because they went extinct.
That would be true if there was ONLY natural selection
Sorry, to my ear, that is totally circular; they went extinct because they didn't adapt. How do we know they didn't adapt? Well because they went extinct.
Bob- pretty sure natural selection is an observable fact of life. Most of us remember the observation in science class of the white & black moths on black and white trees. If the moths matched the tree color they tend to survive and populate. Else, they get eaten.
For sure there are other processes. The problem is, I don't see where the predictive value (as opposed to explanatory) arises. How does one determine a priori what traits get selected for and which ones don't?
It's simply a population responding to its environment through a number of processes in order to reproduce the next generation.
Over many many generations there are enough changes that the current generation looks nothing like previous ones and a new species gradually comes to be and an old one may die out or coexist separately.
That question assumes an end goal, to which there isn't one.
Now I have a question. If no end goal how come molecules-to-man? For example, when the 1st mammal graced the Earth with a functioning breast that was able to sustain it's young, what did the breast consist of or what was it capable of doing the generation before? A partially working breast? Would not changes/mutations necessary to make an eventually working breast over time have to have a "goal" of someday actually be a functional breast?
Or, did small changes happen over a long period of time by random mutations that a fully functional breast eventually formed by chance?
with all this ejakashin goin around. What happened to the good old days when you didn't have to be smart or actually learn anything to magically have the answers to all of life's questions?
with all this ejakashin goin around. What happened to the good old days when you didn't have to be smart or actually learn anything to magically have the answers to all of life's questions?
You must have missed my earlier post when I referenced History Channel's "Ancient Aliens."
comes from the Discovery Institute, those clever fellows who brought you dioramas of dinosaurs cavorting with cavemen.
Nice summary from Wiki, including a few excerpts from the Pennsylvania case that ripped the shit out of DI:
Quote:
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found:
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." [...]
This federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis," through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.
And, of course, the question as to how many scientists on that list are fundamentalist Christians is a fair one. There's this little problem with true believers called "confirmation bias."
From "Rational Wiki":
Quote:
Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (see falsifiability).
A prime example stems from the intelligent design and creationism movements. Proponents of these ideas start by assuming that an intelligent creator must have been behind life (often assuming the Christian god) and then seeking out any (and only) evidence that might back up this claim. For example, Answers in Genesis often claims that fossils in the ground are proof of a Global flood and that layering is caused by the relative abilities of animals to reach higher grounds. They quote evidence which shows that humans and primates are on top of dinosaurs in the geological record and claim that this is because we "could climb to higher points on the landscape".
However, they never address any evidence that might disconfirm this hypothesis such as why angiosperm plants and their pollen is never found below vascular fern fossils, or why we see absolute cut-offs in the fossil record rather than a statistical tendency, which the "climbing" hypothesis would suggest. (In other words how come there weren't some weak or elderly humans who died with the dinosaurs.) The fossil record is in fact best explained by common descent but this is ignored through confirmation bias by creationists.
Creationists, along a similar vein, claim that "evolutionists" are practicing confirmation bias, since they are all atheists out to distort the scientific record to make it look like God does not exist. This claim is, of course blatantly false, theistic evolution disproves it. Furthermore not all scientists are atheists, and additionally old-earth and evolutionary theories were developed by considering new observations rather than dismissing the old ones
In my experience and readings, Creation Science leaders fall into two camps: 1) Those who are so deep into confirmation bias that they don't see how wrongheaded their approach is as a form of science; and 2) The flat-out liars, who use the tendency of true believers to give in to confirmation bias in order to fill their heads with bullshit.
The leaders of Creationism, such as those at our buddy's DI, actually tend to be more in the liar camp than the true believer camp. For example, if you look at the detailed history included in the Pennsylvania trial noted above, the move from the use of the word "Creationism" to the phrase "Intelligent Design" was NOT a change in views, but an out-and-out scam intended to fool people into thinking that Creationism was about evidence and science, rather than faith.
One of the things I find most disgusting about these people is their repeated tendencies to use half-truths and flat-out lies in order to pull in the already-convinced. The question is, why would they need to do that, if their view were a valid alternative to the vast majority of scientists who believe that Darwinism is a settled theory, rather akin in the magnitude of the evidence to the theory of gravity.
Btw, the word "falsifiability" above is a key to all of this. Creationism CANNOT be science, because it cannot be falsified. There isn't any set of experiments you can do that lead to the idea that "if X is true, the theory is false." True believers aren't open to falsifiability. Link - ( New Window )
To falsify natural selection, you could show that mutations are passed down from one generation to the next, but that those mutations do not drive the changes that result in natural selection.
--Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" -- they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the absence of the others. However, these structures have been exhaustively studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated entirely plausible evolutionary pathways.
--Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth. (Note from MG: by "emerge" he did not mean "exist." Primitive mammals started about 145 million years ago, but didn't turn into complex forms until well after the KT boundary, when dinosaurs vanished.)
--Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
--Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
Scientists talk all the time about methods to falsify the theory of evolution. For example, all you would need is a single example of more advanced adaptations existing provably before more primitive adaptions in a given fossil family tree and the whole thing falls apart. Examples have seemingly been found, but not in the same family tree. What occurred, it turned out, was parallel adaptions in different family trees, which turn out to be incredibly common.
Give a paleontologist specializing in, say, salamanders, to look at an extinct species from a given geographic location (to hold the family tree consistent), and he will tell you with pretty good accuracy, its approximate age, and never be wrong. He get's there by looking for more and less primitive physiological traits. If you found an example that was tens of millions of years out of sequence, with accurate location and age testing, the whole theory would be thrown into question--falsified. So far it hasn't, and the evidence gets clearer, as noted above, when genomics is added to the mix.
My bad. I thought I read here you agree and support the thinking behind evolution.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Hilarious.
Out of all of that, you still fail to understand what he means when he types, "bad faith" and just continue on doing exactly as he described. (I'll give you a hint- it had nothing do do with anyone's support of evolution or with anyone's religion.)
Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, not the "fact of evolution." It is not proven as yet, as far as I can tell.
What is proven to an exquisite degree, and yet remains falsifiable, is macroevolution.
Quote:
"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. ... What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
As I linked before, it is explained and proved extremely well here. This should be right up your alley. Link - ( New Window )
There are a lot of very smart people who do not support macro evolution. So, let's look at one particular scientist- a world famous chemist.
Look at this guy and tell me if any of you have credentials as impressive as he does. (Mahn, RiverMike, and Wuphat, I believe you three in particular hold yourselves out to brilliant in these scientific fields, yes? )
It sounds like he also would love to talk with any who disagree with him. I'd like to know what reasons, if any, you would discount his words and not consider their merits.
I guess what I have a hard time dealing with is, for example, the dinosaurs evolved for millions of years and then, poof, they went extinct. So you can't say selective pressure produced the "fittest" dinosaurs without qualifying it by saying "the fittest until whatever caused the mass extinction arrived".
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
I guess what I have a hard time dealing with is, for example, the dinosaurs evolved for millions of years and then, poof, they went extinct. So you can't say selective pressure produced the "fittest" dinosaurs without qualifying it by saying "the fittest until whatever caused the mass extinction arrived".
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
Think about what such an exercise would entail - a complete and accurate model of an organism's environment over multiple generations.
in this scientific field?! Sorry, I don't hold myself to be brilliant at anything. My educational background is specifically in molecular cytogenetics, however most of my career has consisted of speaking to physician groups on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and the last few years preparing doctors to speak to groups of their peers. That makes me qualified to offer opinions on evolution to strangers on a football message board, nothing more.
As for the link supplied, he never once discusses specifically what it is that he doesn't understand regarding macro evolution, so even if I were qualified, I couldn't offer answers where there were no questions. Since the mechanism of macroevolution is relatively simple, I would have no idea what it is he doesn't understand unless he actually asks a question.
I guess what I have a hard time dealing with is, for example, the dinosaurs evolved for millions of years and then, poof, they went extinct. So you can't say selective pressure produced the "fittest" dinosaurs without qualifying it by saying "the fittest until whatever caused the mass extinction arrived".
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
Bob, first, they didn't just go poof, extinct, it did take awhile. Second the most currently accepted theory is that the extinction was from a cataclysmic event asteroid impact?) that changed global conditions worldwide. The time period following the event wasn't long enough for genetic adaptations and selection to them to occur before the sudden and drastic changes killed them.
Second, current theory also state that they are not extinct at all, but are with us today in what we know as birds. However, the species that we traditionally identify as dinos, did in fact die off. Other, more birdlike species were apparently well enough adapted to survive global changes. the changes.
Anytime anyone says that they are expert in any field...
They tend to fall into the trap of only looking for information to validate their "expertise." I don't see that from mahn, River Mike, or Wuphat. However, I have seen that from some key individuals on this thread...and we know who they are.
I remember when I started a thread regarding who people consider to be knowledgeable BBI posters on various topics, and one guy came into say how he was an expert on his field and proceeded to hijack the thread. That same guy is the one who now is playing the victim card and accusing others of acting the "brilliant." That's just too rich.
"Fittest" was always a misnomer. It's not what macroevolution is about. If you want more details, go to the Talkorigins link.
AS far as the disappearance of the dinosaurs, there is absolutely nothing there that is inconsistent with macroevolution. Under the history of paleontology, there have been as many as 10 mass extinctions, all of which have been pretty well linked to one of four types of events, alone or in combination:
--excess volcanic activity, causing temperature and biochemical changes;
--Some other bichemical series of events;
--Collision with a really huge asteroid that caused the equivalent of a nuclear winter--so much dust in the air that no sunlight reached the surface of the earth for an extended period of time; and/or
--A collapse in global temperatures leading to a full cover of the earth by glaciers ("snowball earth").
The dinosaur event is now thought by scientists to be connected mostly to the third, but also in part to the first at a time called the KT Boundary. The nine others killed off a varying proportion of species, and left many of the rest in bad shape in vastly different environmental conditions. A wonderful article describing the top 10 mass extinctions is linked.
All evolutionary theory predicts is that so long as some types of species survive the mass extinction, they will ultimately thrive and adapt to refill the evolutionary niches available to them. Just as in the pre-KT and post KT evironments: before you had large predatory and prey dinosaurs. Afterward you had large predatory and prey mammals--far larger than what exist today. Over time, these too became evolutionarily non-fit, especially as the earth cooled.
What living beings are "fit" during times of global collapse? Bacteria, bugs and some undersea creatures, and in the last cycle, some small underground mammals, amphibians and reptiles, among other things. They become the raw material for the next cycle.
"Fittest" was always a misnomer. It's not what macroevolution is about. If you want more details, go to the Talkorigins link.
AS far as the disappearance of the dinosaurs, there is absolutely nothing there that is inconsistent with macroevolution. Under the history of paleontology, there have been as many as 10 mass extinctions, all of which have been pretty well linked to one of four types of events, alone or in combination:
--excess volcanic activity, causing temperature and biochemical changes;
--Some other bichemical series of events;
--Collision with a really huge asteroid that caused the equivalent of a nuclear winter--so much dust in the air that no sunlight reached the surface of the earth for an extended period of time; and/or
--A collapse in global temperatures leading to a full cover of the earth by glaciers ("snowball earth").
The dinosaur event is now thought by scientists to be connected mostly to the third, but also in part to the first at a time called the KT Boundary. The nine others killed off a varying proportion of species, and left many of the rest in bad shape in vastly different environmental conditions. A wonderful article describing the top 10 mass extinctions is linked.
All evolutionary theory predicts is that so long as some types of species survive the mass extinction, they will ultimately thrive and adapt to refill the evolutionary niches available to them. Just as in the pre-KT and post KT evironments: before you had large predatory and prey dinosaurs. Afterward you had large predatory and prey mammals--far larger than what exist today. Over time, these too became evolutionarily non-fit, especially as the earth cooled.
What living beings are "fit" during times of global collapse? Bacteria, bugs and some undersea creatures, and in the last cycle, some small underground mammals, amphibians and reptiles, among other things. They become the raw material for the next cycle.
Link - ( New Window )
mg, thank you for offering a much more in depth and elucidating explanation than I had the patience for :)
which had already broken off from the dinosaur line something like 80 million years earlier. They had the post extinction fitness advantage of being small, and eating other survivors--insects and plants.
Spock, I would never hold myself out as brilliant in this field...
although I do think of myself as pretty smart and very curious, who finds the topics of paleontology and paleo anthropology fascinating. I am a curious amateur with lots of reading and analysis under my belt.
I would never debate a scientist--and especially never debate a fundamentalist Christian one who is suffering from confirmation bias, just as you are. He would dance rings around me simply by knowing more science, but that wouldn't make him correct, of course.
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
Is evolution a fair question to ask a Presidential contender?
My answer: I suppose so. And asking about extraterrestrials, taxes, a Calc II question and a recipe for fried chicken are all fair game.
Should anyone be a single issue voter? IMO, no. There are a LOT of important issues to consider before casting a vote for the least repugnant candidate.
Is evolution a fair question to ask a Presidential contender?
My answer: I suppose so. And asking about extraterrestrials, taxes, a Calc II question and a recipe for fried chicken are all fair game.
Should anyone be a single issue voter? IMO, no. There are a LOT of important issues to consider before casting a vote for the least repugnant candidate.
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
Did you read his web page? I will link it below. This dude, and I'm sure you will agree, is pretty darn brilliant in his field of chemistry. You see his resume, I'm sure. Not to many people walking on this planet can match that in his field.
So, if this guy says he cannot see macro evolution from a chemists point of view, do you not take notice of this? Why would he say this unless he really has some concerns? And arent his concerns valid?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but if this guy, as brilliant as he is, has problems and concerns with this theory, then why would anyone mock little people who are not convinced either? Tours doubts - ( New Window )
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
Al only pasted the first two paragraphs. I linked the entire interview. Please read it in its entirety.
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
Al only pasted the first two paragraphs. I linked the entire interview. Please read it in its entirety.
If you're referring to the link you provided, I did.
Did you read his web page? I will link it below. This dude, and I'm sure you will agree, is pretty darn brilliant in his field of chemistry. You see his resume, I'm sure. Not to many people walking on this planet can match that in his field.
So, if this guy says he cannot see macro evolution from a chemists point of view, do you not take notice of this? Why would he say this unless he really has some concerns? And arent his concerns valid?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but if this guy, as brilliant as he is, has problems and concerns with this theory, then why would anyone mock little people who are not convinced either? Tours doubts - ( New Window )
Spock, you ask if his concerns are valid yet he never mentioned what those concerns are except that he doesn't see how its possible. Since it seems eminently possible to me, and in fact probable, it's difficult to evaluate concerns that aren't described.
This opinion piece from Washington Post seems appropriate
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, youd think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.
Quote:
In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle, thats what science is for. Science is not a body of facts, says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasnt just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense because it sure looks like the suns going around the Earth, and you cant feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later, Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people.
Even when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions what researchers call our naive beliefs. A study by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College showed that even students with an advanced science education had a hitch in their mental gait when asked to affirm or deny that humans are descended from sea animals and that the Earth goes around the sun. Both truths are counterintuitive. The students, even those who correctly marked true, were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree-dwelling creatures (also true but easier to grasp) and whether the moon goes around the Earth (also true but intuitive).
accepting his views simply on the strength of his credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. That's the same as some posters here that try to shut off any questioning of coaching decisions by saying "who are you to question his decisions, he's the coach and obviously knows more than you do.
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
Actually, the hundreds of scientists that contributed...
to the Talk Origins link and Tour agree a lot, and disagree on only one thing. They agree that the mechanisms of macroevolution remain to be worked out.
Where they disagree is that the scientists who support the concept of macroevolution look at the VAST amount of evidence for evolution through descent with change, and the entire lack of a single piece of counter-evidence, and say "yup, this happened." They consider the size of the coincidence to be too huge, otherwise.
Tour says, "well, I can't get the mechanisms to work, so the vast amount of cladistic, genetic, fossil and biological evidence, without a single piece of counter-evidence, doesn't impress me."
Where Tour disagrees with the DI crowd is that he doesn't take the next step, to making up evidence the other way. No dinosaurs overlapping with humans. No creation of the Grand Canyon in one big flood.
This is actually worth re-posting as it goes to the style of this conv
ersation - and may offer a chance to get it away from the acrimony. in future.:
""
One of the more dangerous notions in modern
Rob in CT/NYC : 11:21 am : link : reply
Society is that every opinion should be respected. "'
(I totally agree with this part above)
""The right to have an opinion and to express it should most certainly be defended at all costs. ""
(most of us agree with this as well)
""However, some opinions are offensive, give rise to harm to various groups, abridge their rights, or even, in some case, damage the fabric of our democracy. These opinions ["should"] be marginalized and ridiculed.""
(here is where I slightly disagree ROB.
we all have the -right- to argue against anything as strongly as we want to or can, but to say " SHOULD"....well that is your opinion, suddenly you are directing society, telling all that they have a responsibility and naming yourself the one who defines what that is.....
in that way you are channeling the fundamentalists in an ironic way
you actually go on from there to suggest that 'opinions' (or do you mean certain people) 'should be' "marginalized and ridiculed" ...which seems like a bit of a bully instinct, as if you don't have enough faith in your own ideas to stand on their own without extending into the marginalization and ridicule of the perceived 'opponent'
accepting his views simply on the strength of his credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. That's the same as some posters here that try to shut off any questioning of coaching decisions by saying "who are you to question his decisions, he's the coach and obviously knows more than you do.
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
The only point I was trying to make is simply this- even the qualified experts don't agree. This is not as open and shut as many non experts on BBI would like us to believe. Yes?
Lucky for us, scientific discovery isn't predicated on
That isn't the only point you were trying to make. The main point you were trying to make is that born-again Christians
know all the important answers, and that all others, including all those really smart and important Jews, were/are doomed.
So, you thought you could "disprove" evolution as a way back there, only that didn't work out so well for you, so you pretend to have a simpler and more benign agenda.
This is why you end up in the liar, hypocrite, anti-Semite and homophobe camp, not because you doubt evolution.
accepting his views simply on the strength of his credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. That's the same as some posters here that try to shut off any questioning of coaching decisions by saying "who are you to question his decisions, he's the coach and obviously knows more than you do.
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
The only point I was trying to make is simply this- even the qualified experts don't agree. This is not as open and shut as many non experts on BBI would like us to believe. Yes?
On the point of "even qualified experts don't agree", I would say "absolutely", although I would modify it to "don't all agree". The overwhelming majority of qualified experts agree on the validity of evolution theory. Of course there's always differing opinions, mostly on details. This is standard in any scientific field and is a good thing.
[quote]This is not as open and shut as many non experts on BBI would like us to believe. Yes?{/quote]
I would agree to the extent that no scientific inquiry or theory should ever be "open and shut". However there are different degrees of certainty, evidence and confirmation. In the case of evolution these are very strong indeed.
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
BMac: early in the thread some posters stated that this was a vote or no vote single question issue for them.
those are very serious charges Mnh George made against Spock.
I would need to see an actual statement Spock made directly condeming some people or other, not a 'perceived logical trail' or some other falderole , before I then turn around and condemn him in turn.
also- if it was years ago, he may have changed, I would not fossilize him to support anyones part in the perceived conflict.
You miss the point. There is no amount of data that can be provided, however respectfully, that will ever allow for Spock to thoughtfully reconsider his position on evolution. It's a lost cause, as some very intelligent and patient posters are finding out and how I found out myself years ago.
Instead (and this would apply to positions related to conspiracy theories and holocaust denial as well), respectful engagement by reasonable people allows some degree of legitimacy to accrue to their fringe position, which is ultimately the desired goal.
Radical positions crave legitimacy and the engagement of the mainstream.
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
BMac: early in the thread some posters stated that this was a vote or no vote single question issue for them.
You really can't distinguish between intent and single-poster opinion? Opinion that may well be as misinformed as the protagonist in this discussion. Come on, you're taking a vanishingly small sample of statements made and extrapolating that to be the end-all be-all intent of the question. Not at all germane.
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
RE: RE: Ugh...this whole hacking aftermath is annoying...
So idiotsavant is alligatorpie? Relearning who everyone is again is a bit annoying.
It's hard relearning who you can safely ignore and those who bring nothing to the table.
True...but I have nothing against alligatorpie...although the new idiotsavant was sort of a jackass in his response when I asked what his previous handle was just out of curiosity.
All Jews are condemned, he has simply moved to a position he sees as being more reasonable and more consumable, which is to say that all who fail to embrace his version of Christ are condemned - it's a distinction without a difference.
Spock is also a member of the hate the sin, love the sinner crowd with respect to homosexuality. Tomato, tomato.
...I'll second Rob's comments. In fact, there's enough evidence in this thread to cast very real doubt that Spock has changed. As Emmitt Smith so succinctly put it, "the leopard doesn't change his stripes!"
All Jews are condemned, he has simply moved to a position he sees as being more reasonable and more consumable, which is to say that all who fail to embrace his version of Christ are condemned - it's a distinction without a difference.
Spock is also a member of the hate the sin, love the sinner crowd with respect to homosexuality. Tomato, tomato.
True...he went from active mode to passive mode when it comes to condemning others...so that's definitely progress, no?
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
I fail to see any reasonable reading of my post where I suggest Spock denied the Holocaust, or is a conspiracy theorist.
DID Spock deny the Holocaust or did you just add that in to smear him? That is another huge accusation or implied association, horrible, unthinkable. Please don't use such rhetoric unless he actually did that and you know for sure.
Listen, I am a believer in the scientific method.
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
Two other examples of reprehensible thinking that shouldn't be met with reasoned debate - blatant racism would be another. I never said Spock engaged in any of them - and quite frankly, you seem to be the only one that took that away from my post.
Since my post was speaking directly to fringe positions and how they should be treated by the vast majority, I wasn't left with a whole lot of mainstream ideas, by definition. Get it?
A small amount of cream cheese closely associated with a toasted bagel.
idotsavant, accusing someone of accusing Spock of denying the Holocaust, repeatedly and without evidence, is fairly insulting in and of itself. No one did that.
also- i think you are misreading history, respectfully, rob
I think you forgot your meds again tonight. Mind me asking how old you are? I'm concerned about dementia setting in.
I see you continue to throw out every card you can find- race, religion, sex, whatever. You don't have to worry- your compadres here all are behind you and support your leadership role in promoting hatred and slander.
Btw, You Are very good at that. Now, hurry off to find a mirror and tell yourself how proud you are.....you small small person.
As per usual, this where we part ways - in no way was I discussing the rise of facism, and I have spent far too much time explaining a pretty straightforward post that only you seem to have trouble getting your head around.
very different, actually, since the concept of mens rights does seem kind of silly and weak, and not all that needed.
Come to think of it that is slightly sloppy, like how rob just, got sloppy and happened to use an unfortunate and inacurate example of why and when to ridicule people, an example that, I have learned, was not an accusation.
Some people leave a greater impression than others.
In comment 12137923 Rob in CT/NYC said:
[quote] As per usual, this where we part ways - in no way was I discussing the rise of facism, and I have spent far too much time explaining a pretty straightforward post that only you seem to have trouble getting your head around. [/quote
Back when he called himself Rocky, he was much more direct in using his beliefs to insult those who believed differently, or acted in a way that his extremist fundamentalist subgroup derided.
Rob has the most detailed memory on that, but many of the rest of us recall how awful it was.
Did he change? Yeah, maybe slightly. Now he keeps his most vile and insulting comments to himself a lot of the time--but they still leak out as on this thread. The leaks in turn suggest that maybe he keeps them more to himself, in order to avoid getting his ass suspended or banned--not because he is any more tolerant than he ever was.
You staunch evolutionists just hate it when someone doesn't agree with you on this. You hate it so much you resort to the need to slander, mock, belittle, bring up things in the past that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and you spew hatred.
Why isn't it okay to agree to disagree? Obviously Neither of us will relent, so why not just move on?
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
I believe in and take joy in the scientific method and believe in evolution.
it was about Rob not using the science and instead in his own words using ridicule against Spock.
get over it boys.
and read.the.threads.
Because, as I wrote in the same post that you somehow managed to completely misunderstand, there is no amount of science that will change Spock's mind. Do you get it, yet?
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
Wuph stated that I had ranted on mens rights, when it was actually fathers rights, very different, mens rights is a joke.
a silly mistake, but convenient in the millue here.
Rob used the holocaust as an excuse to ridicule Spocks regarding evolution.
perhaps the wrong example, but, again, convenient to the mission at hand.
Don't jump on such a low bandwagon.
No bandwagon jumping here. Your intransigence in insisting that Rob declared Spock a Holocaust Denier smacks of trollism. I can see no other conceivable reason for you to continue to grind away at a patently false statement.
now he is calling me demented--literally, not figuratively. Same pattern.
By the way, I also find it remarkable/astonishing/not believable that he claims not to know that a basic tenet of fundmentalist Christian support for Israel has to do with the Rapture. The general concept is Dispensationalism. (link)
Spock claims to study his religion in detail, and he never heard of the link between the support of many (not all) fundamentalists for Israel and the role Jews will play in creating the conditions necessary for the Rapture? Really? That is extraordinarily difficult to believe, and if so, suggests that he is even more ignorant than he has displayed on BBI over the years.
Sorry, I just don't buy that he never heard of this. It was a basic tenet of Jerry Falwell's beliefs, for example. (link)
I'm not saying Spock believes it. However, to suggest that there is no self-interest in the support of many fundamentalists for Israel is remarkable.
Here's a useful test: Do you think those same Dispensationalist fundamentalists love Jews sufficiently to permit their daughters to marry one? Link - ( New Window )
I asked had he done so and iinsisted that the example is a method of association, that he is trying to equate Spocks ideas regarding evolution...with holocaust denial - ing.
and, that, in his own words "ridicule should be used" on such people
whereas, the science sophisticates had had a nice thread going, and the ridicule smelled of hate, not discourse.
RE: RE: I believe in a fairy tale, What do you mean rob?
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
Uh, the Garden of Eden and the whole rib thing? Serpent, apple...the Creation Myth...would you prefer myth instead of fairy tale.
You are spewing so much hatred tonight doing your best to play the same record you play over and over and over again. I'm assuming you may not be aware that you are saying the same things over and over and over again. Are you?
You remind me of both my father in law and father as they got older. They got very irritable spewed hatred much like what you are doing. I was just concerned.
You are spewing so much hatred tonight doing your best to play the same record you play over and over and over again. I'm assuming you may not be aware that you are saying the same things over and over and over again. Are you?
You remind me of both my father in law and father as they got older. They got very irritable spewed hatred much like what you are doing. I was just concerned.
RE: RE: RE: I believe in a fairy tale, What do you mean rob?
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
Uh, the Garden of Eden and the whole rib thing? Serpent, apple...the Creation Myth...would you prefer myth instead of fairy tale.
So, because I believe in that as written that makes me some kind of cooks looney, yes?
Please tell me why you can't just say, " Spock, I respect your right to believe the holy bible as you see fit and interpret it literally as you see fit. I don't see it that way, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree."
You are a liar, and you especially lie about your own historical comments about Jews. I admit, I hate that. I don't hate you, but I admit I have utterly no respect for you or your mind. Lack of respect can be worse than hate, so I understand why you are slipping back into trolling.
Do you still claim that you never heard of the link between love for Israel and Dispensationalism/The Rapture?
I asked had he done so and iinsisted that the example is a method of association, that he is trying to equate Spocks ideas regarding evolution...with holocaust denial - ing.
and, that, in his own words "ridicule should be used" on such people
whereas, the science sophisticates had had a nice thread going, and the ridicule smelled of hate, not discourse.
I believe you'll find a fair number of people on this thread who will agree with my take and disagree with yours. You very plainly made the accusation and then stuck with it until forced to use sophistry to try to back out of the hole you were digging.
Please tell me why you can't just say, " Spock, I respect your right to believe the holy bible as you see fit and interpret it literally as you see fit. I don't see it that way, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree."
Comments like these are why earlier in the thread I said your existence is depressing. You deny science and spread ignorance (the type of ignorance that is dangerous if the wrong people accept it), and then except people to respectfully disagree.
It doesn't work that way. If you share foolishness on a public forum, you deserve whatever comes your way. If anything, I'd say the second half of this thread has been far too kind to you.
As part of his defense against his condemnation of Jews, Spock has given sufficient information to infer that he belongs to a church with a dispensational bent.
Please tell me why you can't just say, " Spock, I respect your right to believe the holy bible as you see fit and interpret it literally as you see fit. I don't see it that way, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree."
Comments like these are why earlier in the thread I said your existence is depressing. You deny science and spread ignorance (the type of ignorance that is dangerous if the wrong people accept it), and then except people to respectfully disagree.
It doesn't work that way. If you share foolishness on a public forum, you deserve whatever comes your way. If anything, I'd say the second half of this thread has been far too kind to you.
This
Now I need a shower...I just agreed with Fekker...;)
You are a liar, and you especially lie about your own historical comments about Jews. I admit, I hate that. I don't hate you, but I admit I have utterly no respect for you or your mind. Lack of respect can be worse than hate, so I understand why you are slipping back into trolling.
Do you still claim that you never heard of the link between love for Israel and Dispensationalism/The Rapture?
I shouldn't answer you here because you wouldn't believe me anyhow, and in fact, I already answered it. But I will repeat what I said, I was surprised by that link you shared yesterday regarding christians supporting Jews so they won't get harmed or something thereabouts. First time reading that garbage.
1) Some of it, you will just have to take our word for. It's a very long and sordid history.
2) On the other hand, if you look back much earlier in THIS thread, you will find more of his comments about only born again Christians being savable, and other religions being just wrong. .
It's there. I just have no interest in tracking it down. If anyone else wants to, be my guest. But, it simply isn't believable that he found wisdom and kindness over the course of a single thread.
You have every right to interpret the Bible as you see fit, but when yours and like-minded interpretations begin to corrupt the education process in this country, your right to be a loon becomes a bigger problem.
As part of his defense against his condemnation of Jews, Spock has given sufficient information to infer that he belongs to a church with a dispensational bent.
I think you guys know I attend a Synogogue on Sabbath Day. It is a Messianic congregation where Jews who believe in Jesus and Christians worship together. In fact, I take a lot of flack from christians for not supporting Sunday as the Lords Day. The 4th commandment says Saturday, and the only reason I could see as to why it was changed to Sunday was anti-Semitic, so I could not go along with that.
You entered a scientific debate without any interest in debating the science, nor any interest in reading links that might better inform you on such.
For example, next time this topic appears, I have no doubt that you will ask after the missing link, despite several posters efforts to educate you on the subject.
I never for a minute thought you did. The vast majority of so-called Messianic Jews do, however, and it is not credible that Spock worships with a band of them and never heard of the concept of Dispensationalism.
How is that possible? Even those who don't believe in it are in constant debate about the concept with other so-called Messianic Jews who do.
Maybe some good came out of this after all. Maybe Spock learned about the self-interested nature of many of his co-believers for the first time. I don't believe that, but maybe.
Are dispensational. I have no choice to believe what you say, but I am astonished that you have never heard of the concept. It's embraced by perhaps 40 million Christians in the U.S.
Are dispensational. I have no choice to believe what you say, but I am astonished that you have never heard of the concept. It's embraced by perhaps 40 million Christians in the U.S.
I never said I never heard of dispensationalist. I said I never heard of that article Mahn linked basically connecting Jews prosperity to christians health.
Do you understand that the way you were programmed to believe and have faith automatically disengages you from any debate where the truth is sought out?
The very essence of faith is holding certain things to be true in the absence of proof. So right off the bat, before a single word is exchanged, you are relegating yourself to a position that is simultaneously both indefensible and undefeatable because you are preemptively removing rationale or thought from the equation.
You incorrectly place the burden of proof on those in favor of evolution (ugh, even typing it up like that, as if it's even up for debate, is nauseating). Still, despite you and those like you stacking the deck against intelligent discourse, you still blindly deny the incredible amounts of proof that already exists (more is certainly on the way as we continue to progress).
With all that in mind, how can you possibly accuse anyone else of being closed-minded? Your position inherently requires a lack of thought. Does the fact that you reference your "beliefs" and "faith" when engaging on matters that are ultimately rooted in truth and not belief mean anything to you at all? Do you.. do you really not get it?
Dispensationalists are not Jew haters. The Christian group that I would be concerned about would be those who advocate Replacement Theology. These guys deny God's promises are specifically meant for abraham and his people (Jews) and ultimately ISRAEL and say the church has replaced ISRAEL and thus will receive these promises God made to abraham. I'm strongly against this because I know God is not a liar and will fulfill his majestic promises he made to ISRAEL in Genesis. As you know, I usually take God literally in his word.
How the fuck would you know if they're Jew haters or not?
Honestly, I have read many articles years ago in particular from both camps to make me realize I can't figure this out based on those discrepancies and inconsistencies.
So, I go back to the basics that work for me- I believe in God's word. If God's word is clear to me, that settles it. The Adam and Eve story seems pretty accurate to me, especially seeing Jesus site Adam in his words (confirmation).
Then why are you at all interested in this topic? If the case is closed, why ask questions?
I think you just defined trolling.
Don't I have a right to voice my opinions just as you do? When I see a thread like this and many people mocking christians or religious people because they don't accept evolution, I feel the need to balance out the discussion and keep the bullies from bullying other opinions.
I laughed my ass off at the google link thing. THX
As for the belief, I would roughly tend to believe that when it comes to faith, complexity often hides some sort of bullshit, or something done by people, as opposed to by the divine, so no thanks to dispensationalism.
Its like math. It may seem complex, but the true math may be simplified down to a very short formula, by someone much smarter than me.
Then why are you at all interested in this topic? If the case is closed, why ask questions?
I think you just defined trolling.
Don't I have a right to voice my opinions just as you do? When I see a thread like this and many people mocking christians or religious people because they don't accept evolution, I feel the need to balance out the discussion and keep the bullies from bullying other opinions.
You are free to do as you wish - but when you come to a discussion rooted in science with non-science, misstatements, no facts and a statement like "case closed", you should manage your expectations with respect to the tone and tenor of the responses you get.
He's been trained to accept one particular set of information as ultimate truth, which nothing could ever trump or prove incorrect. Good for him if this is how he wants to live his life, but it's wholly unacceptable to have a President or public school systems that parrot such purely anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reality agendas.
all of whom believe in God but not in Christ as the Messiah, dispise Philo-Semites such as Jews For Jesus, Messianic Jews and others who love Jews not as Jews, but for their own ends. In a wonderful commentary on this, linked:
Quote:
Elsewhere, in an essay at the orthodox Christian magazine First Things, Joe Carter examined our philo-Semitism and concluded we evangelicals have a special affection for our Jewish neighbor in part because we know that God had a special affection for them too. The sentiment, while kind, should be familiar: Jews are likable because of their role in Christian theology.
When evangelicals speak about Jews this way, they shouldnt be surprised if their love goes unrequited. At its core, philo-Semitism has much in common with anti-Semitism. Both approaches view Jewishness as an abstract monolith, and both endow Jews with particular historical roles roles, it seems, that are rarely of the Jews own choosing.
So, as noted, Philo-Semites love Jews not as Jews, but as part of Gods plan. But as I asked before, would they let their daughter marry one?
Then there is Spock's initial claim that he knew nothing about dispensationalism, which he rapidly denied once he outed himself as a practicing Messianic Jew, who could not conceivably be ignorant of these concepts, as Rob and I noted.
Quote:
RE: Two things, Spock.
Spock : 2/14/2015 8:44 pm : link : reply
In comment 12136631 manh george said:
Quote:
1) I never said ALL fundamentalist Christians believe this, but it's a commonly held belief, and you know it.
2) I am sure I could find vastly better articles, if it were worth my time. They are all over the Net. Thousands of them.
Actually I don't know it, first time I read garbage like that. There you go again, speaking for me when you are not me, which I'm sure you are glad about that. That makes us even.
Quote:
RE: Many, if not most Messianic Jews
Spock : 2/15/2015 10:55 pm : link : reply
In comment 12138006 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
Are dispensational. I have no choice to believe what you say, but I am astonished that you have never heard of the concept. It's embraced by perhaps 40 million Christians in the U.S.
I never said I never heard of dispensationalist. I said I never heard of that article Mahn linked basically connecting Jews prosperity to christians health.
Which the article doesn't do, of course. The hypocrisy just drips...
The interesting parts of this article are as follows:
Quote:
In recent years, a New Age pagan spin has been applied to the ancient Norse tales, and it has taken hold of the imaginations of many new found followers who consider these stories as metaphors for life. Hilmar rn Hilmarsson, high priest of satrarflagi, explains,We see the stories as poetic metaphors and a manifestation of the forces of nature and human psychology.
Don't think it will be as expensive as the "temple" they're building in Minnesota to the football team!
Oh, and to complete the miller, the third season of History Channel's Vikings starts 2-19. Can't wait!
Buddha was an Indian guy not Chinese
Jesus was a Middle Eastern guy not White
The face of Western thought and the face of Eastern thought. And neither of those faces looked anything like the actual faces of those figures. Because marketing.
Religion is a product and demographics were a big deal even back then.
Why do people say "bye" to a thread and come back a few minutes later?
Good question Ronnie. I've done the very same thing myself. There is an irresistible urge to see what is said after you bow out. Then you see a comment that absolutely screams for a response :)
took a nasty turn late last night. Interestingly I was reading an article in the Times yesterday dealing with the subject of nastiness on the internet where we can't see faces.
Quote:
In a world without faces, compassion is a practice that requires discipline, even imagination. Social media seems so easy; the whole point of its pleasure is its sense of casual familiarity. But we need a new art of conversation for the new conversations we are having and the first rule of that art must be to remember that we are talking to human beings: Never say anything online that you wouldnt say to somebodys face. But also: Dont listen to what people wouldnt say to your face.
The neurological research demonstrates that empathy, far from being an artificial construct of civilization, is integral to our biology. And when biological intersubjectivity disappears, when the face is removed from life, empathy and compassion can no longer be taken for granted.
I am certainly guilty of this. In fact a few years ago I noticed myself becoming nastier than I wanted to accept, so I took a break from BBI for several months. Internet nastiness - ( New Window )
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Possibly covered the climate changes leading to the Flood.
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Possibly covered the climate changes leading to the Flood.
More likely Astrology and the evils of the Ouija Board.
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Lol Al, why should I now want to tell you or any of you guys anything about my life? It's not like I'm among friends here.
What did you do for a living before you retired?
After taking a day off to clear my head, it still seems clear to me, the voices who speak here bully people to believe as they do. They say they have all the answers and this topic is black and white, open and shut.
What a joke!
I provided a document signed by a ton of credible scientists, including the eminent Dr. Tour, who say they are not convinced, and you guys all dismiss their claims like they mean nothing. To me, this is arrogance and intolerance personified.
Sure you can agree to disagree, but to come on here as a non expert, merely a guy who reads books, and to say the guys who are really qualified, like Dr. Tour and others like him, their opinion and words mean nothing is COMICAL.
Oh, but the way, ever hear of a Nobel Lauriate named Richard Smalley? Well, he was once a staunch evolutionist, but guess what? He abandoned ship and became a voice in the scientific community for ID.
Does his voice/opinion mean nothing too?
So this begs me to ask this question- who in the hell is rob from NYC, Wuphat, Mahn george, etc? Who are you guys that I should consider your opinions higher than Tour or Smalley? What are your credentials again? Smalley - ( New Window )
1) I have given you access to a massive amount of material, Don't listen to me; consider the material.
2) The vast, vast majority of scientists in the fields closest to evolutionary theory disagree with the few that you cite. Your insistence on relying on that tiny minority, is simply one level of selection bias relying on another level of selection bias.
3) When you show me peer reviewed articles from your buddies, with real data to back up their claims, I will consider your buddies' viewpoint. Until then no need to waste my time.
4) I never desired that you agree with me or the others here. I desire you to think, and to open yourself up to how science actually works. Ain't gonna happen.
I never said you have to accept my experts as gospel
Just to admit this topic is debatable and not as open and shut as you seem to think it is. If it was that open and shut, why would these very smart scientists not be convinced? I mean Tour invited anyone to have lunch to discuss this and no one took him up on the offer. And he even said if you speak up against evolution the scientific community frowns upon that. Sounds like bullying to me.
Who gives a shit about credentials? It's so weird this reliance on
"credentials" from ID proponents. That would really mostly be important for folks who are most comfortable gathering truth from an authority who would hand it down to them and tell them what to believe.
Fair or unfair, one of the first recent questions on this topic came from a British TV interviewer to Scott Walker. He punted on that as well as all questions on foreign policy. The interviewer then noted that ANY British political candidate would expect these types of questions, and be expected to answer them
So, fair or unfair, the issue is simply that, if you are going to put yourself out there as a presidential candidate, you have to expect to be bombarded with questions for which the answers might be difficult or awkward for your base. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen, or at least Europe.
as gospel. I am suggesting, however for them to really be considered experts, we need them to actually partake in actual scientific processes, including peer reviewed experiments and reports, and expose their ideas and theories to potential falsification. None of them have, so what they are providing is faith, not science.
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Lol Al, why should I now want to tell you or any of you guys anything about my life? It's not like I'm among friends here.
What did you do for a living before you retired?
After taking a day off to clear my head, it still seems clear to me, the voices who speak here bully people to believe as they do. They say they have all the answers and this topic is black and white, open and shut.
What a joke!
I provided a document signed by a ton of credible scientists, including the eminent Dr. Tour, who say they are not convinced, and you guys all dismiss their claims like they mean nothing. To me, this is arrogance and intolerance personified.
Sure you can agree to disagree, but to come on here as a non expert, merely a guy who reads books, and to say the guys who are really qualified, like Dr. Tour and others like him, their opinion and words mean nothing is COMICAL.
Oh, but the way, ever hear of a Nobel Lauriate named Richard Smalley? Well, he was once a staunch evolutionist, but guess what? He abandoned ship and became a voice in the scientific community for ID.
Does his voice/opinion mean nothing too?
So this begs me to ask this question- who in the hell is rob from NYC, Wuphat, Mahn george, etc? Who are you guys that I should consider your opinions higher than Tour or Smalley? What are your credentials again? Smalley - ( New Window )
You already did tell us about your life. You said you taught science. Just asking for clarification of information you voluntarily gave.
"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
[url=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html[/url]
This is Fog a Mirror: the Tenets of, and Exactly what "Actual Real Science" is and does. Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century....
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...
"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical sciencethe evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009
"Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry". If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.
Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place".
Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.
Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."
Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?
Say Goodbye to: Step 1 Observe a Phenomenon, Step 3 Hypothesis , Step 4 (TEST/Experiment).
By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacies) and "Just So" Stories
So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).
Then we have....
Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
Appears to echo Professor Mayr's summation. How can you form a "valid" Hypothesis if you can't predict anything??
You have only 2 Choices as to "How" we are here: "Nature" randomness or Intelligent Design "GOD".
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.
To refute....
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
2. DNA "CODE"/Software---------Design(Intelligence)----------Designer!
a. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
b. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words....How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
I'm going to have to reread that post again, but for all these evolution loving brainiacs here who love to debate science, this sounds like science to me.
I have been trying to tell you there are two sides to this coin. i can post 1000 articles as to why the theory of macro evolution is malarkey, but you guys won't listen, so maybe ENOCH here will "convince" these guys they are backing the wrong horse on this issue. I wonder if anyone will even rebut his post. He sounds like he knows some science, unlike the so called experts here who read a few books yet have never even looked in a microscope.
Now who are the presidential candidates running in 2016 who are staunch evolutionists?
It is actually incorrect that hypotheses/theories have to be tested in real time. If a theory withstands literally hundreds of thousands or millions of observations as to how it would work, based upon the fossil record and observable patterns in genetics, then yeah, that is what scientists call tests.
Predict an outcome, and see how the fossils and genetics comport with that outcome. Find a bona fide example that contradicts the outcome, and the theory has been falsified. These types of sets of observations have then been turned into thousands peer reviewed studies. For some strange reason, tens of thousands of scientists in related fields actually call that science. The same holds for cosmology--patterns in how galaxies and stars form have been studies in exquisite detail. There are still holes in the threories, but the holes keep shrinking
Now, try applying that method to ID, and then to peer review. Good luck with that.
I will once again link the best site that discusses this, for macroevolution, since you are new. Link - ( New Window )
Confirmation bias is so strong with ours truly here...
...is that scientific theory is NOT bound to experimentation. What it is bound to is the requirement for testability and a willingness to change according to discovered facts.
Religion is not testable, and is not open to change in any respect. It is a closed, locked idea that supports itself through circular logic (among other logical fallacies).
I'm going to have to reread that post again, but for all these evolution loving brainiacs here who love to debate science, this sounds like science to me.
Eating popcorn.
The fact that the post sounded like science to you is precisely the problem.
A final comment on Enoch's basically obfuscatory post...
...He uses Ernst Mayr, perhaps THE leading proponent of evolution (evolution as an OBSERVATIONAL science) in the 20th century, as a foil to inject his own belief structure into a pseudo-scientific screed that, surprise, uses circular logic to advance his agenda.
Spew...it's one of a handful of go to moves on the part of science deniers (along with the missing link issue and macro evolution) - it attempts to place evolution on the same plane as creation by calling it a non-science.
As others have mentioned, falsifiability is the key - on this thread alone, conditions for falsifying evolution have been provided (one by Darwin) himself.
would create a BBI account to post that particular information on this type of thread, which then, just six minutes later, piques the interest of The Illogical One?
Not nearly as random as mutation, I'm thinking...
RE: A final comment on Enoch's basically obfuscatory post...
...He uses Ernst Mayr, perhaps THE leading proponent of evolution (evolution as an OBSERVATIONAL science) in the 20th century, as a foil to inject his own belief structure into a pseudo-scientific screed that, surprise, uses circular logic to advance his agenda.
Have a shitty day, Enoch.
I prefer "Empirical" Science (even though it's redundant)...it lessens the chance of Equivocation (Fallacy).
to say the simplistic notion of "look at the complex world around us. how can this be anything other than God"
granted, a lot of the words sound good, unless you happen to know science and scientific precepts.
to me, there is nothing more paganistic than to attribute anything you don't understand to a deity. and it makes matters worse to deny science in an attempt to justify long held paganistic beliefs.
to say the simplistic notion of "look at the complex world around us. how can this be anything other than God"
granted, a lot of the words sound good, unless you happen to know science and scientific precepts.
to me, there is nothing more paganistic than to attribute anything you don't understand to a deity. and it makes matters worse to deny science in an attempt to justify long held paganistic beliefs.
This is a Strawman (Fallacy). Can you post where I made an argument concerning Complexity....?
If I did, I surely would have differentiated between: Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC), and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC).
Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes.
Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket". The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.
So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.
FSC = Intelligent Design Construct
"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."
L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.
I have a bunch of articles bookmarked to disprove evolution. This one linked seemed to make a lot of sense. Would you mind reading it and letting me know if you agree, or if not, where does it fall short in today's thinking? Thanks. Simple to complex - ( New Window )
I have a bunch of articles bookmarked to disprove evolution. This one linked seemed to make a lot of sense. Would you mind reading it and letting me know if you agree, or if not, where does it fall short in today's thinking? Thanks. Simple to complex - ( New Window )
Unfortunately, it's not uniformly achievable. However, there are ways to use available evidence to provide unbiased estimates of what you're testing, provided you have enough data.
And with millions of years, that assumption has been achieved.
Good luck on the notion that anything not experimented on randomly is not a theory, nor proof. It's simply not true.
"You have only 2 Choices as to "How" we are here: "Nature" randomness or Intelligent Design "GOD".
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?"
it's the age old 'life is so beautiful/complex it must be God' argument, with a lot of psuedo science mumbo jumbo thrown in.
while validating a "belief" as concrete is fascinating to me.
Aside from the fact that it is supposed to be faith. Aside from the fact that the bible doesn't discuss almost ANY of the science that 95% of posters here wouldn't even argue against.
This idea that some folks cannot reconcile their faith without arguing against scientific fact and scientific theory kind of speaks to their lack of faith, IMO.
Ironic.
RE: RE: Confirmation bias is so strong with ours truly here...
Eh...would it matter if I did? You're about as close minded as anyone on this board, so anything I add will just hit deaf ears. So instead I thought I would just state what I saw as an obvious confirmation bias. But just move along since you only read what you agree with.
Unfortunately, it's not uniformly achievable. However, there are ways to use available evidence to provide unbiased estimates of what you're testing, provided you have enough data.
And with millions of years, that assumption has been achieved.
Millions of Years? You're correct it's an "assumption" but more accurately it's Begging The Question (Fallacy) and is well outside "Science's" Purview.
If you disagree, then please Validate any of them....
I'd be quite interested to "see" you get beyond Step 1... then once obfuscated----(Invalidating the Scientific Inquiry), I'd like to see the Dependent/Independent/ and Control Variables of your TESTS...along with the Make/Model/Serial# of your Time Machine.
Also "Data" is what you acquire from TESTS/Experiments; not what you use to conjure a Hypothesis.
Quote:
Good luck on the notion that anything not experimented on randomly is not a theory, nor proof. It's simply not true.
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
[url=http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm[/url]
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
[url=http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html[/url]
Incorrect. So much pseudoscience in your post, it's hard where to pick a place to start...
Perhaps you'd like to pick up a statistics book, or a book on data inference? You can point me to the section where 4. is required for data inference. It's not.
Why do you think large scale datasets like PUMS, ACS, AHS, etc. exist? They were not part of any form of experiment, and yet there are still utilized for the whole scientific process.
Again, experimentation is not uniformly feasible. The absence of it does not mean that the scientific process is unachievable or has no basis. Again, that may be 17th century science without the aid of data analysis techniques, but it hasn't applied for at least 70 years.
So much time spent yelling out fallacies (shitty understanding of them too), and yet a basic mis-understanding of the scientific process.
It's also obvious from your post you have no concept of the Law of Large Numbers. You can Wiki those.
Here is a link to Berkeley. That shits on the notion that you need experiments.
while validating a "belief" as concrete is fascinating to me.
Aside from the fact that it is supposed to be faith. Aside from the fact that the bible doesn't discuss almost ANY of the science that 95% of posters here wouldn't even argue against.
This idea that some folks cannot reconcile their faith without arguing against scientific fact and scientific theory kind of speaks to their lack of faith, IMO.
Ironic.
Factually Incorrect. It's actually the opposite but Thank You for your "Opinion".
Biblical "Faith" is:
(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
As opposed to: "Blind Faith"--- belief without substance or evidence; which is strictly admonished against in Scripture....
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Ergo..."Prove all things", I'm actually following the admonishment.
And btw, I love "Actual" science and have a couple of degrees in the discipline.
regards
A couple of degrees and you don't know that an experiment
Incorrect. So much pseudoscience in your post, it's hard where to pick a place to start...
You could start by supporting your Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)
Quote:
Perhaps you'd like to pick up a statistics book, or a book on data inference? You can point me to the section where 4. is required for data inference. It's not.
Why do you think large scale datasets like PUMS, ACS, AHS, etc. exist? They were not part of any form of experiment, and yet there are still utilized for the whole scientific process.
Show the Experiments! ...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
No Experiments.....No Science
Quote:
Again, experimentation is not uniformly feasible. The absence of it does not mean that the scientific process is unachievable or has no basis. Again, that may be 17th century science without the aid of data analysis techniques, but it hasn't applied for at least 70 years.
I say again: No Experiments....No Science.
Quote:
So much time spent yelling out fallacies (shitty understanding of them too), and yet a basic mis-understanding of the scientific process.
Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 2. Please support...?
Quote:
It's also obvious from your post you have no concept of the Law of Large Numbers. You can Wiki those.
"WIKI"...you do know that anyone and their sister can post, right? Correlations/Similarities isn't Science.
Science is in the Business of Observing Phenomenon in the Natural World and attempting to ascertain CAUSATION via Rigorous Hypothesis Testing.
Do you have a specific argument?
Quote:
Here is a link to Berkeley. That shits on the notion that you need experiments.
Seriously? SEE: Dr. Feynman's Assessment above.
Please tell me HOW on Earth something is "Science" without Experiments?
Rocky 'I'm a infantile child banned from BBI multiple times and was only let back during a grieving period after a beloved member died' Thompson/Spock (or do I have the wrong guy? ) found this failure Enoch2021 to come bolster his standing here.
I think you should reexamine punctuation before you tackle a big boy topic like scientific method, you embarrassment to thought.
Well, again, considering that observable evidence not acquired through experimentation, based on correct implementation of statistical techniques, can simulate the results from experimentation, that can be science.
It's apparent you have no concept of what science is. And the more dangerous part is that you are smugly clueless about it.
By the way, perhaps you haven't heard how differences-in-differences, a statistical technique, leads to a causal interpretation? Instrumental variables? Neither are an experimental technique.
You are really, really bad at science. Plus, re-read Feynman. You realize that testable does not mean experimental, right?
I never understood the Creationists false distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Link - ( New Window )
For One...it's not evolution, from the Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory":
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Secondly it's an Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
"Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
"Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"
It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeatedin short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!
Macro"-evolution or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from Micro"-evolution.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.
Before we get to "Micro" or "Macro" you need to somehow get around....
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!
To refute:
1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words...How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
Funny you call him a troll because the people like you can't debate him. He said he has a couple of degrees, I assume in science. What do you have? High school maybe.
But at least kicker is debating. Maybe Bill2 will rejoin and come to your aid.
Irony: many abused me for not being open to discussi the merits of their science, and now no one wants to discuss science with a scientist because I presume very few really know much first hand.
Oh, and why don't guys like you and Jon just go talk about Kevin Ogletree or JJP on those threads?
"Macro"-evolution or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from Micro"-evolution.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy."
Bingo!
The article I linked touched on Something similar. Here is a quote from it...
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p.264)
It seems logical to you and me (this my name), but for some reason, not to some here.
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
I never understood the Creationists false distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Link - ( New Window )
For One...it's not evolution, from the Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory":
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Secondly it's an Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
"Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
"Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"
It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeatedin short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!
Macro"-evolution or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from Micro"-evolution.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.
Before we get to "Micro" or "Macro" you need to somehow get around....
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!
To refute:
1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words...How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
regards
What is "the same type of organism" Is a wolf and dog the same type of organism. Is that a term scientists actually use?
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
Yeah. A Ph.D. in Economics with a concentration in Statistics and Data Inference.
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
Yeah. A Ph.D. in Economics with a concentration in Statistics and Data Inference.
You know, that stuff that isn't "science".
Economics is not chemistry, biology, geology, astrophysics, molecular biology, or genetics.
I would not call you to be my expert witness in a trial regarding evolution. So, who are you to be dissing a guy with two degrees I assume in science (he said in this discipline)? Answer- no one
Full Definition
1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics>
2 : economic aspect or significance <the economics of building a new stadium>
3 : economic conditions <current economics>
Swing and a miss. A lawyer takes, at face value, someone's assertion that they have 2 degrees on science? Yeah, no.
Plus, where have I dismissed his views on evolution? You seem to be a poor reader. I dismissed his idiotic assertions on what the scientific process is. Which, of course, is rather easy with any background in data analysis.
Good job, counselor.
And by the way, Spock, perhaps you don't understand
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
This always seemed very obvious to me.
Spock, by the way, funny you mention astrophysics.
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
people believe in god and people believe in science... and we are all happy. I will say though that Enochwhatever though has already had this argument before. He is basically cutting and pasting from other forums he has posted at with the exact same posts pretty much. If you are going to jump into a site and be someone "new" at least post new information and not take an old argument from somewhere else and just post it here. It basically makes you blind to what someone may be saying because you aren't even responding with a new idea... It is your same cut and paste from multiple sites.
However I will say this... Have a great day
Can we get back to more important things? Like this?
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
Is James Tour, PhD qualified enough for you? Macro evolution - ( New Window )
I'm not sure a chemist is well-versed in the field of biology, though I assume he did take some introductory courses.
Finding a handful of PhDs that subscribe to your viewpoint (or in this case, give your viewpoint a talking point that it can stretch to fit its need to print an article with an accredited name attached to it) is fine and dandy, but anyone who has studied the field will not use antiquated terms that were popularized when Ford was phasing out the Model T for the Model A.
Again - the distinction is used by those with an agenda or minimal understanding of the field.
one recruited the other. Because this is IMPORTANT. Doctor 6 degrees clearly is hard at work on meaningful stuff because he can find the time to share his wisdom here.
They're is nothing to debate Spock - your wrong, and not only are you wrong, your retardation affects children and other people's lives negatively. You should be lambasted, insulted and if you cannot be fixed, removed from the conversation. There's no room at the table of learning for your bullshit. The fact that many here have had the patience to engage you civilly is a testament to their character, and you are wholly undeserving.
Go back to your hole, wait for the end of the days, and when nothing happens upon death but rot, well you won't have any greater realization moment or 'I told you so moment' because you'll be dead.
But none of that is really relevant given that I'm jewish. For that alone, I'm going to hell according to you and your faith and there's not a damn thing I can do it about other than declare jesus my lord and savior.
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
It's not incumbent upon me to refute every fucking lie you link to, you anti-Semitic piece of shit. I could do the same thing, and link to sites that state that Jesus was buggering Mary Magdelene. thirty three years is a long time without dipping the old wick.
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
But he accomplishes his purpose of impressing those like Spock who have no clue of what he is saying. Not sure Enoch has any clue of the bits and pieces he has put together from various websites. Has he told us we what specific degrees he has?
I have to leave all this fun pretty soon, but before I leave I really am open to receive a scientific rebuttal from the point being made from this article I have posted twice. The argument being made seems conclusive enough to me, but I want to see where you think it is in error.
You guys keep telling me I'm scientifically challenged and closed minded, so here I am, opening myself up to receive your good word of instruction. (I even asked Enoch but he must have missed it too. )
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I assume now is the time I go into a long discussion of Giardia Lamblia, only for it to be refuted by a long string of well placed buzzwords and a reshuffling of the playing deck.
So I'm going Charlie Kelly here and playing a Wild Card - Nitro nailed it, its Jesus' magic pixie dust.
and part of me thinks that spock also participates in a circlejerk of dumbasses elsewhere and he called upon reinforcements here, as this crusader felt the Noblesse oblige to aid him in this worthy endeavor.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
and part of me thinks that spock also participates in a circlejerk of dumbasses elsewhere and he called upon reinforcements here, as this crusader felt the Noblesse oblige to aid him in this worthy endeavor.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
I agree that what you propose is a possibility, but it's just too coincidental that spock was getting his ass kicked and good old Enoch suddenly appeared.
So, I very strongly believe this is spock, who has a history of bannings and handle changes, randomly selecting supposed refutations from creationist sites. The fact that there is no internal organization or rigor in Enoch's posts point straight at spock's years of hypocrisy on here.
Ergo, spock and enoch are one and the same. The really sad part of all this is that supposedly spock has children (created without sex, of course) and has turned them into little morons who had no chance from the start.
A very good candidate for a child abuse charge if I ever saw one.
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
Does anyone here have a clue what this guy is babbling about?
Is there any doubt what Rocky would be doing if he lived in Pakistan? Probably still a teacher, but instead of undermining science, he would be teaching his students (like Enoch) how to conceal a bomb vest.
Hard to say which one damages humanity more in the long-term....
All you have is name calling and dragging through the mud anyone that doesn't agree with your Fairytale Ideology without @ least a semblance of a cogent well thought out argument in defense.
This isn't Rocket Science; if you can't square "Nature" writing Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes (SEE: DNA----"CODE") ....which is Ludicrous Absurdity, what's left??
(Isaiah 1:18) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
His yoke is easy and burden is light...It's Absolutely Free, Paid In Full!! His Name is Jesus Christ...and He Loves You.
how do you think it is that with thousands of peer-reviewed articles in the most prestigious science journals on the topic of evolution:
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution; and
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope. However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
the greatest beyond great defense of faith in God or Jesus or ID or The Bible or The Mass or The Afterlife or Worshipping Baal is and always will be:
Faith
"I believe in this. It works for me. I am glad you other guys found what you believe in and I hope you guys still looking find peace. What I believe works for me and allows me to live the way I want to. I think I am a better man and it helps lead a more compassionate and moral life"
Period. Full Stop.
That answer is accurate, dignified, reasonable, indefeatable, honorable, moral, strong, compassionate and tolerant of others and their beliefs.
The defense of faith is just to say "this is what works for me"
I believe because this helps me be a better man. Not because its more tested, factual, immune to less fallacies, has more or less logic leaps or missing links.
No one...no one can argue with that. Simple. Direct, Valid.
Why in the world would you go to enochville?
Makes me think you don't have faith....you want certainty. You and enoch desperately want certainty in an uncertain world.
Faith is not certainty. It has no need to care about certainty. It is humble not argumentative. Faith is a bet on you. certainty is a search because you are scared about you.
What the fuck are you doing?
You have no need to talk at all if you have faith and just say so.
You for ages want certainty. That and human is an oxymoron.
Stop talking and look in the fucking mirror. Be a fucking man. Either have the balls to say "This is what I believe. It may be flawed. It may sound stupid. It may not be right for you. That's ok. It works for me and my life and that's all that matters.
Faith is the defense of Faith. Period. Always will be true. Always.
Faith does not try to convince any one else by dint of argumentation. A man of faith shows he is a more moral man more times than his failures would have been without his faith. Usually that means a man of faith is humble and shuts the fuck up so he has every bit of energy to get closer to a 49/51 split on life.
You only have a few decades to live. Stop masturbating. Its sophomoric. Especially in public.
'Yeah I know it sounds stupid to some in this day and age but its what I believe in"
That's a guy I wouldn't mind having a drink with.
Pulling from incredibly dumb websites that advise how to defend and debate and convert? A losers game. And for heavens sake...by junior year of high school you should know that degrees and knowing what you are talking about have nothing to do with each other.
Hint: its not what citations you can pull. its about knowing what matters
please stop. you wrecked the only refuge of dignity the genuine believer has to begin with. "I BELIEVE IT" "It WORKS FOR ME" "I don't need to say one more thing."
Now for three days you have self trashed yourself. its crime to self immolate in public. give it rest. have some dignity
how do you think it is that with thousands of peer-reviewed articles in the most prestigious science journals on the topic of evolution
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
Quote:
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution;
Huh? Falsify it???...you don't have anything to falsify (SEE: detailed post on "Macro").
Quote:
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
You sure?
Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC(Functional Sequence Complexity)
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29
In other words...Show Stupid Atoms Writing Their Own Software?
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
Don't know, you tell me? My 10 year old can refute the most supreme evolutionary geneticist <---(that's actually a contradiction in Terms). Scripture tells me that satan is the "wisest" of all creations, his fingerprints are all over it.
Quote:
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
Talk Origins?
"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"." /wiki/Talk.origins
What's next, the National Enquirer?
Quote:
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope.
Need I say more?
Can you tell me the difference between a "PRE"-diction and a POST-diction?
Then this...
Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
And this...
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep TimeBeyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, pp. 116-117
Similarity doesn't = Causation! I can say with equal Scientific Vigor....Common Designer.
You also have BIG problems here...
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more"
"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."
"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".
"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric] Bapteste".
"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".
"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....
"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."
'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....
"Also, "Our analyses have shown that there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"!
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011
All of your points basically fall into a Textbook Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
Quote:
However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
You have "No Predictions" (SEE: Above) just "ad hoc" rescue devices, the poster children (PE/Convergent et al) the never ending Ptolemaic Epicycles. And "Statistics" is not "Science".
Quote:
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
Au Contraire...SEE Null Hypotheses Above.
Quote:
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
Ipse Dixit, eh?
Quote:
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
So a Judge gets to adjudicate "Scientific" Matters, eh? Who's next MADD?
Wonder if he called upon His vast experience presiding over the Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board?
Let's take a closer look...
@ the end of a Trail a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.
Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:
ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".
So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".
ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence IN TOTO.
ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".
If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!
Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)
Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish. I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it. The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest. You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
Do you deny that the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes? That the term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds?
That's what the Pennsylvania judge found. Was he lying? Do you have evidence that the phrase DIDN'T start as a scam designed to end-run the SCOTUS ruling against the teaching Creation Science?
[quote] Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
I spent over 20 years in the military sir (Recon for half of it). I've been lied to either intentionally/unintentionally by everyone from my Kindergarten Teacher, Pastors, University Professors, Military Supervisors...My BS Meter runs on Hyper-Drive 24/7, You tracking? I said NO MORE!! So then I went and found the answers for myself.
If you want to believe what other people (with initials behind their names) tell you to believe without employing your own Due Diligence then.... you get what you get.
I have these same "discussions" with many from the Hallowed Halls of Academia daily...and I get the same responses; They call me names!! Why? Because they have No Argument.
They screwed up an Educated Me lol...Biochemistry, and taught me how to research...I'm their Huckleberry!!
Quote:
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish.
Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy). It's not gibberish, it's right as rain.
Quote:
I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it.
Say What? I spent an hour answering every single remark in your post sir...you're about 3 degrees from sincerity with this.
Quote:
The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest.
Biblical Faith is defined as Substance and Evidence (SEE: Hebrews 11:1). You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith. There is No Confirmation Bias...it's the exact opposite! Everything is filtered through my own personal crucible...not much gets past the first obstacle.
Quote:
You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
They didn't teach me sir...I was way ahead of 'em. Propaganda, eh? Yea, been to that school.. got a Truckload of T-Shirts!
Not sure what being in the military for 20 years (and in recon) has anything to do with your long diatribe clearly showing your lack of understanding of what scientific method is. Good for you for serving, but what does that have to do with this conversation? So you've been lied to your entire life by others. But now you're lying to yourself that you know what you're talking about. So I guess your just traded in one shitty experience for another.
I would forth the idea that to deny science is in it's own way a way to deny god.
Whatever you may believe, one of the tenants of judeo-christian thought is that God created man in his own image.
The atheist would disagree with that, man has no connection to anything but nature ...........that our curious and intelligent nature comes from a series of evolutionary processes that allow us to think in the abstract, to give us the much higher brainpower over every other living thing on the planet, to examine and discover the world and the world through testing and come up with reasonable examinations for why the natural world works the way it works.
So back to the beginning of this post, why would such a God give us this gift to explore this creation (hyothetical) if not to understand it? If in fact we were meant to deny science, what is the point of giving us this ability? This abiilty to question and probe into the nature of Creation was given to us by this creator........was it not?
Evolution is not really an open question. Genetics, fossil records, and a whole host of scientific disciplines, serious people doing serious work, have all essentially come to the same conclusion.
In that sense, to deny reasonable science is to deny the very gift those that believe in him must by extension believe he gave us.
So, atheist and theist can argue about why these scientific facts are what they are, but facts are what they are.
I have no idea whether or not some form of God exists or not, I am confident nobody else does either.
Are we allowed to have political threads now? I hope the answer is yes b/c I enjoy these threads. Also I've been thinking about how Scott Walker is taking on the U of Wisconsin and wanted to start a thread on it.
Even the eminent Bill2 would bother to refute the link I referenced three times. Instead Bill2 tells me to just say, "I have faith and I need no more...."
Duh!!!!!
Bill2, have you read any of the crap your drinking buddies have spewed out my way? They don't want my faith as an answer.mthey want SCIENCE.
If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, read Michael Behe's books. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Hugh Ross is good too.
Have a great day, BBI haters. (You know who you are.)
I don't know the numbers, but there are very few people who actually don't believe in the science. But we rant on and on about it.
Even less who take the literal view of the early part of the bible.
As for the nuances of the intelligent design vs no design question, that can really be discussed with civility, which bar sadly seems to have not been met just above.
What is at hand here?
I am going to suggest, this fits a broader trend. I suggest one can see this trend in the national dialogue:
I.e., people go absolutely batshit crazy and want to talk for hours (or do 4,532 TV or 3,456 radio news shows on the subject) when they find people, facts and injustices etc, that seem to fit the prevalent narrative view and reinforce the rejection of the ideas that are not accepted in it. In many if not most of these instances I actually do agree with the premise of the media attention stories, as here, I do believe in the science.
That is not the point. Its that the choices of subjects and attention fit into trends.
For example, true facts about injustice in our history and current events...facts that certainly should be known about and understood, are covered again, and again, and again, in media, in the schools, on the speeches, to an absurd degree, while
Conversely, those other important facts and stories about our culture and history ..the ones that however, that don't jive with the prevalent narrative and its goal of shutting down certain millues, are flatly ignored.
So it is with this thread:
"Gee - gather round and see the freak, this proves the prevalent narrative!"
Seems to be the sentiment in many except the few dissenters.
yada yada yada, It is too bad, because, because - without all the name calling, the other bits were interesting and informative.
and- any name callers, regardless. of . which. side . they claim, seem more like the barbarians than those they claim to stimey.
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Sir, please show some respect to a scientist with multiple degrees and 20 years in the armed services. He single handedly and successfully refuted thousands of others scientists when it comes to the scientific methodology.
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
What's funny is the lengths that folks will go and the intentional lies they will spew to get rid of what they perceive as a threat to god's unemployment fund.
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
RE: RE: Let's see. Reasons why evolution is wrong:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
Software, hardware, DNA, RNA, blah blah blah...
You use a lot of scientific words and cite a ton of sources yet say pretty much nothing of substance. Just stop.
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Thanks for your Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy). Can you show where?
Then can you tell us "Your" understanding of Science...?
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
Software, hardware, DNA, RNA, blah blah blah...
You use a lot of scientific words and cite a ton of sources yet say pretty much nothing of substance. Just stop.
Hmmm. I performed a reading level assessment on the post you replied to using SMOG Grade and Fleschh-Kincaid Index and it averaged roughly 5th Grade.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
google Enoch2021. Spock recruited from another forum, and apparently being a fucking jesus freak as well as troll is his full-time job. This is what he does...scary, but true.
Hmmm. I performed a reading level assessment on the post you replied to using SMOG Grade and Fleschh-Kincaid Index and it averaged roughly 5th Grade.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
regards
Haha...I admit that I'm probably mentally challenged to some degree. I mean, I did join the Marine Corps...so that explains it. Since you used your irrelevant military experience as something of a credential in an earlier post, what do I get as my prize for doing the same? I mean, I was in the military, so I must have a valid point, no?
But it's rather sad that you come here to back up your boy Spock when you're not even a fan of the Giants. And in doing so, you've done a banged up job of providing nothing of substance beyond trying to obscure the weakness in your (and Spock's) argument through use of long diatribes. It's a known tactic used by those, who can't clearly and concisely articulate their points.
google Enoch2021. Spock recruited from another forum, and apparently being a fucking jesus freak as well as troll is his full-time job. This is what he does...scary, but true.
Nah, nothing effing weird about that. Not at all.
And it was the suspicion behind my 2/17/2015 4:02 pm post.
He doesn't even understand the Feynman quote that purports to highlight his "knowledge" (fallacy) of the scientific method (fallacy). One that doesn't say what he thinks it says.
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
So, you aren't a fan--at least you don't sound like one. You are a troll. Fuck off?
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
rob reporting on the least surprising information of the thread
if this Enoch2012 is the same Enoch2012 on YouTube that I just googled, he is a fucking Sandy Hook Truther.
In response to some dumb bitch making comments about how Sandy Hook was/may have been a false flag event, this jackass commented:
Quote:
Enoch2021 commented on a video 2 years ago
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
Hmmm. I performed a reading level assessment on the post you replied to using SMOG Grade and Fleschh-Kincaid Index and it averaged roughly 5th Grade.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
regards
Haha...I admit that I'm probably mentally challenged to some degree. I mean, I did join the Marine Corps...so that explains it. Since you used your irrelevant military experience as something of a credential in an earlier post, what do I get as my prize for doing the same? I mean, I was in the military, so I must have a valid point, no?
But it's rather sad that you come here to back up your boy Spock when you're not even a fan of the Giants. And in doing so, you've done a banged up job of providing nothing of substance beyond trying to obscure the weakness in your (and Spock's) argument through use of long diatribes. It's a known tactic used by those, who can't clearly and concisely articulate their points.
It is known as gobblygook whic is defined as language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
Just when I thought this thread was petering out...
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
google Enoch2021. Spock recruited from another forum, and apparently being a fucking jesus freak as well as troll is his full-time job. This is what he does...scary, but true.
You mean you typed my handle into google and tracked me down !! Astonishing. Scotland Yard should be calling any minute.
Does the mere fact that I don't change my handle tell you anything?
Spock's a good man and spent some months on the receiving end of what you just been through. Tactically, a wise move...wouldn't you say?
So now that your done super sleuthing the inconsequential irrelevant background noise....much like being overly preoccupied with where the bear came from while getting mauled.... Type in: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software" and see what it says, report back with the answer.
regards
RE: RE: Let's see. Reasons why evolution is wrong:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
If you actually want to engage in debate, you should at the very least do as you ask of others first. Specifically you haven't addressed kicker's posts to you which refute all of your creepy pasta that you've been posting. Your breach of ediquitte by not responding to him point by point is like jumping straight from "Dog dare" to "Triple dog dare" which at the very least is disappointing and leads me to believe that any points that you can't refute you'll either ignore completely or attempt to misdirect with more pseudoscience.
So, no. It isn't my turn. It's still yours.
I do admire your skills when it comes to debating this topic, tho. Although I find them to be intentionally disingenuous, it's obvious you've had plenty of practice masking your untruths in such a way as to appear as "solid science" to most lay people. Funny that once you run across someone that recognizes it for the bullshit it is and refutes it with logic and evidence that you stop interacting with that person and ignore the evidence. Does that make you feel like you "won"? Or are you motivated more by the praise you receive from others when you "win"?
made the science work? And we don't understand much of science?
But yelling at science to provide proof while you stand behind a "God" figure is questionable on a good day.
He is right though... Evolution has not be proven and you can't prove it in this argument. However while he keeps spouting Evolution is not a science because it can't be proven is wrong. It is a scientific theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[6]"
Thus the scientific theory of evolution is absolutely science, but not proven science. You are confusing the two. What you can prove is almost all the stories in the bible are made up. It is funny because as the church and bibles hold strong that everything happened as written in the bible... Some like Enoch and Spock like to branch out and say... Oh wait the world is millions of years old and the reason things were brought forth were because God programmed the DNA on each and every living being. That things don't mutate and evolve on their own. What is there proof of that? DNA is dumb atoms so some man up in the sky obviously wrote the code.
Let's take a virus for example. Virus change and mutate as they are exposed to different elements right. That is why somethings that kill virus will no longer be affective because the Virus adapts and changes. How can that be when the Virus is dumb? Obviously according to you God is up there writing the software?
google Enoch2021. Spock recruited from another forum, and apparently being a fucking jesus freak as well as troll is his full-time job. This is what he does...scary, but true.
You mean you typed my handle into google and tracked me down !! Astonishing. Scotland Yard should be calling any minute.
Does the mere fact that I don't change my handle tell you anything?
Spock's a good man and spent some months on the receiving end of what you just been through. Tactically, a wise move...wouldn't you say?
So now that your done super sleuthing the inconsequential irrelevant background noise....much like being overly preoccupied with where the bear came from while getting mauled.... Type in: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software" and see what it says, report back with the answer.
regards
You grossly overestimate your own abilities. Maybe on Christian sites with a degraded level of intelligence due to inbreeding do you warrant any consideration - here, in case you haven't noticed, you are being laughed at for your posts, and now the fact that you are a truther reveals all we need to know about your "thinking".
Maybe fuck off and take Spock with you back to what I can only assume is Christian Mingle?
RE: RE: RE: Let's see. Reasons why evolution is wrong:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
If you actually want to engage in debate, you should at the very least do as you ask of others first. Specifically you haven't addressed kicker's posts to you which refute all of your creepy pasta that you've been posting. Your breach of ediquitte by not responding to him point by point is like jumping straight from "Dog dare" to "Triple dog dare" which at the very least is disappointing and leads me to believe that any points that you can't refute you'll either ignore completely or attempt to misdirect with more pseudoscience.
So, no. It isn't my turn. It's still yours.
I do admire your skills when it comes to debating this topic, tho. Although I find them to be intentionally disingenuous, it's obvious you've had plenty of practice masking your untruths in such a way as to appear as "solid science" to most lay people. Funny that once you run across someone that recognizes it for the bullshit it is and refutes it with logic and evidence that you stop interacting with that person and ignore the evidence. Does that make you feel like you "won"? Or are you motivated more by the praise you receive from others when you "win"?
He moved on without answering me when I asked him to define a term he used "same kind of organism". He has a problem when anyone takes him off his script.
He moved on without answering me when I asked him to define a term he used "same kind of organism". He has a problem when anyone takes him off his script.
Exactly.. I pointed this out yesterday. He is just cutting an pasting from an old argument he has had many times before. He isn't actually answering anyone's questions. He is just putting the next post up for people to see.
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
From Spock to Enoch2021 asking for his help on BBI:
Quote:
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
ps. Point me to the best scientific anti evolution website you know. It has to be written by qualified scientists. Thanks.
Enoch2021's reply to confirm that he joined and will team up with Spock:
Quote:
Just Joined :)
Don't really know of any single website that is "anti evolution".....you have AIG and CMI that have Credentialed Scientists.
Just email me when they start the shenanigans and we'll get to cases :thumbsup:
Spock giving Enoch2021 a handjob as his appreciation:
Quote:
Oh, brother, I can't wait. You are the type of bulldog that God made just for websites like that. I can't wait for round 2. (I can't begin them because we are not supposed to talk religion or politics, but people do anyhow, especially during the football offseason.)
But here is a copy of the address of the thread I participated in. Enjoy the read. Of course, I am Spock.
http://corner.bigblu...2&thread=510213
It may be possible to add a comment, I'm not sure. You can try.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
Wow... Let me help you here... I am not a "NY Jew" ... You sir are a complete dick
The "science" being spouted isn't actually science; you're still a bigot; and you're being supported by one of the worst scum on the planet, a Sandy Hook truther.
an old teacher of mine taught me that if you start with a false premise, and disguise it fairly well, you can prove almost anything.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
Thanks for your measured and well thought out response.
Technically, I'm not discussing "Religion".
Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through practices, ceremonies, rituals, et al. A Preposterous Presupposition IMHO.
Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" person to ever walk the earth; Ergo, Christianity is not a "religion".
Quote:
I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
comprehension skill, I'm still stuck on why Enoch2021 felt the need to tell us that he served 20 years with 10 of that in recon. Was it to somehow gain instant bona fides?
You are the type of bulldog that God made just for websites like that.
God makes people to defend him on internet websites. But fuck those starving kids.
Actually, that does sound in-line with his historical arrogance.
You would think rather than making someone a bulldog for football websites like this, God would just you know prove he exists to all this discussions would all be relevant. I mean it is said on the 7th day God rested right... Well apparently God has been resting for millions of years. I guess Dinosaurs where trial and error and once he made 2 humans that some how made the whole world he was like my job is done... No need to go back there.
Over the years I have tried to have cordial conversations with Rocky/Spock. I really did think he was not a bad person but just had strong through wrongful religious views. I was wrong and apologize to BBI for believing this. It is obvious now to me that he is an antisemitic piece of shit.
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Saving one lost soul at a time, huh? Very noble of you.
comprehension skill, I'm still stuck on why Enoch2021 felt the need to tell us that he served 20 years with 10 of that in recon. Was it to somehow gain instant bona fides?
It is treally possible to be a dumb ASIAN military guy? It's like an enigma wrapped in a paradox and shrouded in a conundrum
I am not interested in voting for someone who can't use their brain enough to find a non-mutually exclusive interpretation of both sides...e.g. Evolution is a fact, but God had a hand in it...and the literal interpretation of the Bible is not even close to a fact.
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
I wonder how many times and in how many forums Enoch2021
I am not interested in voting for someone who can't use their brain enough to find a non-mutually exclusive interpretation of both sides...e.g. Evolution is a fact, but God had a hand in it...and the literal interpretation of the Bible is not even close to a fact.
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
Same with politics. Everything the Democrats do is destroying our country... No everything the Republicans do is destroying our country... No actually this stupid fighting between each other instead of finding a way to work together without holding everything one party says to be true is destroying our country. How about we just get rid of parties and vote on pure issues where Democrats and Republicans a like aren't forced to back issues of their parties. Where we can work together to make this place better rather than this mess we have now. Try and work to better this country instead of fight all the time.
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless
Zero coverts
Hundreds who think that hypocrites and liars give Christianity a bad name.
What we should have SAVED is all that wasted time.
Wonder if he has the honesty to use the term NY Jews here that he uses when he thinks the NY Jews are not around. Is it possible he has made his last appearance on BBI now that he has ended any possible doubts of what he is? No I believe he will be back. People like him have no shame.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
What a cunt.
ISIS cuold have written something similar. They have in fact. What a cunt.
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Saving one lost soul at a time, huh? Very noble of you.
Worse than useless, actually. Tragic would be the proper term.
an old teacher of mine taught me that if you start with a false premise, and disguise it fairly well, you can prove almost anything.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
Speaking of starting with "false premises".....
Quote:
He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science.
I started with "PROVING" that evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory". Which nobody to this point has even attempted to refute....because it's irrefutable.
So how is it false....?
And can you name "all the world's great scientists" that I have indicted?
Quote:
he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute
Scripts, eh? From known Liars? And you can support these Baseless rants? Define Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)?
Quote:
which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
I don't think the folks @ the Discovery Institute are Young Earth Creationists...the figure heads still stick to the "Billions of Years" Mantra.
Are you a STD (Soft Tissue Denier)?
Are you aware that there have been Hundreds of Documented Cases of SOFT TISSUE in fossils "Dated" from 80 Million Years to the current Record Holder: 550 Million Years?!! ...
550 Million Year old Russian "Beard Worm" Soft Tissue...
The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.
Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224239, 2014
This is quit interesting...
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
Can you explain these...
There are only 4 possible conclusions that can be drawn based on the above evidence (I have Thousands more):
1. Humans Lived with Dinos.
2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)
3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
Thanks for your measured and well thought out response.
Technically, I'm not discussing "Religion".
Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through practices, ceremonies, rituals, et al. A Preposterous Presupposition IMHO.
Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" person to ever walk the earth; Ergo, Christianity is not a "religion".
Quote:
I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Well here is on man's opinion. Christianity is a missionary faith and the verse most quoted to reinforce that is the bible that is often referred to as "The Great Commission": "Go therefore and make disciple of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.. Matthew 28:19
So after much study here is my understanding. The Greek verb translated as "Go" is actually not a command but a present participle(going). I interpret it to mean more "as I go through my life". So then it falls more on me and how I conduct myself, treat people etc and to do so in a way that honors Christ and may open communication to where talking about my faith is discussed because someone may ask or have a genuine interest and not me running up to strangers and forcing myself on them. Basically Christians because of their love of Christ should desire to live in a way that helps spread His message instead of simply setting aside a few hours scheduled to do so like one other thing on their to do list.
This doesn't mean I don't respect certain individuals who feel called to spend a life in the mission field trying to help others and spread the gospel. One of them most sincere compassionate Godly men I have ever met is a missionary to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He and his wife had a true love for the people there and dedicated their entire lives to helping them. They never had children because their lives were often in danger and they felt committed to stay there. He is in his eighties now, she has passed away but they have been inspiring for me to get to know if only briefly.
I guess what I am saying is there are those who truly have the heart of a missionary and commit to it. However I think most Christians should strive to the best of their abilities live their lives for Christ as they go through their daily lives and let God work on peoples hearts rather than forcing anything on them.
Personally I try my best to live in a way that honors God yet I am far from perfect and certainly make my share of mistakes and too often fall short but I try and live faithfully.
And part of that life for almost twenty years now has been posting on this forum. I hope that amongst the thousands of sports, food, movies and countless of other topics I have respected others beliefs yet still represented my faith in a way that those that know me at least understand it a little better even if they don't agree with it and if as a result anyone has ever maybe sought to learn more for themselves terrific, but I don't need to know that. I don't have to win an argument nor do I desire to keep any type of notches in my belt for that type of thing, I'll give the glory to God.
I am not interested in voting for someone who can't use their brain enough to find a non-mutually exclusive interpretation of both sides...e.g. Evolution is a fact, but God had a hand in it...and the literal interpretation of the Bible is not even close to a fact.
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
Same with politics. Everything the Democrats do is destroying our country... No everything the Republicans do is destroying our country... No actually this stupid fighting between each other instead of finding a way to work together without holding everything one party says to be true is destroying our country. How about we just get rid of parties and vote on pure issues where Democrats and Republicans a like aren't forced to back issues of their parties. Where we can work together to make this place better rather than this mess we have now. Try and work to better this country instead of fight all the time.
yeah, it's like it's more important to try and convince people that the other side is the entire problem, instead of actually working on the issue. It's the natural evolution of the culturally-ingrained system I guess, but sweet, buttery jesus, can't we have some pragmatism and commons sense anymore ? It's very disheartening.
an old teacher of mine taught me that if you start with a false premise, and disguise it fairly well, you can prove almost anything.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
Speaking of starting with "false premises".....
Quote:
He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science.
I started with "PROVING" that evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory". Which nobody to this point has even attempted to refute....because it's irrefutable.
So how is it false....?
And can you name "all the world's great scientists" that I have indicted?
Quote:
he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute
Scripts, eh? From known Liars? And you can support these Baseless rants? Define Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)?
Quote:
which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
I don't think the folks @ the Discovery Institute are Young Earth Creationists...the figure heads still stick to the "Billions of Years" Mantra.
Are you a STD (Soft Tissue Denier)?
Are you aware that there have been Hundreds of Documented Cases of SOFT TISSUE in fossils "Dated" from 80 Million Years to the current Record Holder: 550 Million Years?!! ...
550 Million Year old Russian "Beard Worm" Soft Tissue...
The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.
Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224239, 2014
This is quit interesting...
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
Can you explain these...
There are only 4 possible conclusions that can be drawn based on the above evidence (I have Thousands more):
1. Humans Lived with Dinos.
2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)
3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."
4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".
Go ahead....?
regards
What is "the same kind of organism" Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism? Is that a term scientists actually use
for an answer, Sprocky. I know you are busy calling Dell to find out how people could have gotten into your computer to find your conversations with that Enoch cunt...
RE: People that seriously believe that dinos coexisted with humans
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
He's more like the dog chasing a car. When he catches it, and discovers that it doesn't exist outside his imagination, he sits down, scratches his fleas, and licks his ass.
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
now that the actual thinking people here know who you are, what you are, and how you ended up here, you shouldn't expect actual answers to your pretend science.
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Thanks for your Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy). Can you show where?
Then can you tell us "Your" understanding of Science...?
Thanks
I sure could. I could do both those things. But you're not looking for an explanation of science or how it works when a hypothesis isn't directly testable. You are ascribing a definition of science of your own creation and then using it to attack evolution. You're looking for any holes you can use to make room for God and a way to signify that there's a possibility that the stuff you have been taught isn't bullshit. So that would be a waste of my time.
I'm sorry that your beliefs aren't supported by evidence in any way. But it's not my job to extract your head from your ass.
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
It is impossible to actually have a conversation or debate with someone who never actually responds to what you say but just repeatedly posts gobbledygook.
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
The difference is you are have pre-written your response without focusing on what is said. You aren't having a discussion you are just inserting the next cut and paste. The funny thing is as you continue to ignore people that show how wrong you are in regards to science is you actually think you are making a difference. Your argument may work on a radical site or a christian site, but you come to a football speaking crazy and expect people to just see the light. The problem is you aren't even listening to people thus what you wrote many months ago is going on deaf ears. Enjoy though and sorry you same... Like exactly the same word for word... argument didn't work here
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Appears so.
Quote:
Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism?
Yea.
Wait I thought they were all just dumb atoms? How can they react to things if they don't have someone programing the software?
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Appears so.
Quote:
Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism?
Yea.
gards
What is "the same kind of organism" Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism? Is that a term scientists actually use?
I did not ask for a definition of organism. Try some reading comprehension and define the phrase that you used
Guys, (including Big Al) you are giving Enoch just what he wants...
In comment 12141612 Amtoft said:
In comment 12141572 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12141483 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
Quote:
The difference is you are have pre-written your response without focusing on what is said.
For instance...?
So if I already prepared/saved many points on a particular topic... for let's say: the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, and the subject comes up...I should disregard what I've already written and "Recreate the Wheel" and type it all over again...just so it's not "copy and pasted"?
Define Resource and Time Management?
Quote:
You aren't having a discussion you are just inserting the next cut and paste. The funny thing is as you continue to ignore people that show how wrong you are in regards to science
Really? Please show one case "Specifically"....?
Are you referring to the name calling?
Quote:
speaking crazy
For instance....?
Quote:
The problem is you aren't even listening to people thus what you wrote many months ago is going on deaf ears.
How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of
Quote:
Enjoy though and sorry you same... Like exactly the same word for word... argument didn't work here
Wouldn't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with this waste of space, lying hypocrite of a person that clings so mightily to magic (evidently based on his tin foil theories) being the answer to everything.
Jeez, Spock. Great job introducing this piece of work to the site. He's really someone to hitch your wagon to. Just do me a favor and if you ever meet him in real life, don't drink anything that he offers you.
I took the time last night to read up on all of these articles enoch was posting. It's too bad nobody cares enough to take him "seriously" to respond to his posts point by point.
The article he quoted from New Science that emphatically stated that Darwin was wrong did NOT even state that Darwin was wrong about evolution, but rather that the concept of an evolution "tree" was incorrect - that it was closer to an evolution "web".
His entire premise is flawed anyway. He keeps going back to the bullshit semantical argument that something isn't technically "science" if it can't be experimented on. Guess there's large portions of astronomy that aren't "science" if that's the case...
There's nothing wrong, per se, of having cut and paste talking points.
he keeps banging on this drum that RNA couldn't have possibly formed by itself or self replicated. There is a ton of scientific theory of the fundamental properties of the DNA/RNA/Protein world, and how "life" evolved from this world.
I literally fucking remembered learning it in 9th grade science class (had a great teacher), so when I researched the topic a little more, I wasn't surprised to find a ton of studies backing this concept up.
but since Enoch2021 has no intention of participating in BBI dynamics beyond being spock's spiritual scientist guide, I recommend banning him.
If he would answer questions posed to him and actually have a conversation, then I can see the value of having him here. But if all he is going to do is copy and paste gobbledygook in an attempt to hoodwink some moron (ala spock) to believe in his craziness, then what use is he?
In comment 12141612 Amtoft said:
In comment 12141572 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12141483 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
Quote:
The difference is you are have pre-written your response without focusing on what is said.
For instance...?
So if I already prepared/saved many points on a particular topic... for let's say: the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, and the subject comes up...I should disregard what I've already written and "Recreate the Wheel" and type it all over again...just so it's not "copy and pasted"?
Define Resource and Time Management?
Quote:
You aren't having a discussion you are just inserting the next cut and paste. The funny thing is as you continue to ignore people that show how wrong you are in regards to science
Really? Please show one case "Specifically"....?
Are you referring to the name calling?
Quote:
speaking crazy
For instance....?
Quote:
The problem is you aren't even listening to people thus what you wrote many months ago is going on deaf ears.
How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of
Quote:
Enjoy though and sorry you same... Like exactly the same word for word... argument didn't work here
Is English your first language?
Oh fun you finally responded to what I wrote. I had previously written about your saying evolution wasn't science with no response. Like many others have done you have ignored them.
My favorite part of this...
"How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of"
Ummm you wrote this on another site that is time stamped. You do realize that right? This isn't me using some kind of mind powers. This is me seeing you post the same exact thing from months ago.
Not responding to stuff... How about when someone says you say atoms are dumb and that they can't just program themselves, but then say "Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal." ... I am sorry but can organisms react, reproduce, grow, etc without someone programing it? See once you answer that that things can change or evolve without some higher power programmer keying in all the data you can see where there is an issue with your comments. You are being very obtuse.
As for Crazy talk that isn't really an insult to me. It is commenting on the manner in which you speak. An insult would be like you're a jerk.
Evolution hasn't been proven. I get that, but to say it has no science is wrong. While it hasn't been proven it also hasn't been proven to be in correct, but the bible on the other hand has been prove to be false (fallacy) ...
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
Evolution hasn't been proven. I get that, but to say it has no science is wrong. While it hasn't been proven it also hasn't been proven to be in correct, but the bible on the other hand has been prove to be false (fallacy) ...
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
You don't?
It's in that book in which it is written that god says that the book is god's word. So there ya go. Confirmation that not only does god exist, but his words are in the bible. It says so in the bible.
Duh. I don't see what's so hard for you fools to grasp.
Evolution hasn't been proven. I get that, but to say it has no science is wrong. While it hasn't been proven it also hasn't been proven to be in correct, but the bible on the other hand has been prove to be false (fallacy) ...
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
You don't?
It's in that book in which it is written that god says that the book is god's word. So there ya go. Confirmation that not only does god exist, but his words are in the bible. It says so in the bible.
Duh. I don't see what's so hard for you fools to grasp.
And 'round and 'round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.
I took the time last night to read up on all of these articles enoch was posting. It's too bad nobody cares enough to take him "seriously" to respond to his posts point by point.
Funny how that seems to happen. I guess the name calling took precedence.
Quote:
The article he quoted from New Science that emphatically stated that Darwin was wrong did NOT even state that Darwin was wrong about evolution, but rather that the concept of an evolution "tree" was incorrect - that it was closer to an evolution "web".
Well there are many "stories" (and epicycles) to Darwin's Fairytale with the Tree of Life being One...So I just chopped that down.
Go back and review the post regarding the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes where I take the "web" as they say, and chop that down.
Quote:
His entire premise is flawed anyway. He keeps going back to the bullshit semantical argument that something isn't technically "science" if it can't be experimented on.
Semantic Argument...How So? Ya see sir, to be "Something" that something has to have the Characteristics of that "Something"...so it can "BE IT", Make sense?
See a Banana grows on trees, can be green/yellow, is chalk full of K+ and a mixture of complex and simple carbohydrates, and a Good Source of B6. If you freeze those Bananas it destroys the B6. That's what makes Bananas...."Bananas".
It's how we differentiate between Tumbleweeds and Texas Toast.
To be "Science"...it must Display certain Characteristics and follow it's Method, like the Scientific Method:
Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned throughEXPERIMENTS and observation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
See the Consistency? EXPERIMENT is the Quintessential Attribute of and what makes Science, "Science". Without it...it's not Science.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to ZERO EXPERIMENTS?
Quote:
Guess there's large portions of astronomy that aren't "science" if that's the case...
You said it, and it's more like all of it!! You're getting the hang of it...
Cosmology may look like a science, but it isnt a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable EXPERIMENTS, and you cant do that in cosmology.
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 31718481850, 2007.
People have already told you that Test/Experiment are not the decider of whether something is science or not, you blithering fool.
Keep beating that drum. By the way you keep beating the same drum, I can see that you're probably not very good at convincing people, who aren't blithering fools like yourself.
So those are God's words. OK. They were transcribed by man
passed down from generation to generation until they could write it all down verbatim. OK My question is did God proofread it and edit it to makes sure they got all down as he wanted it written?
So those are God's words. OK. They were transcribed by man
passed down from generation to generation until they could write it all down verbatim. OK My question is did God proofread it and edit it to makes sure they got all down as he wanted it written?
Of course he did.
Excepting the parts that I don't like.
That thing about polyester really pisses me off. Luckily, that was a man-made mistake.
the mistakes, misquotes, words taken out of context?
Nope. Us enlightened folks can show you the way, though.
Send me 10% of your pay and we'll call it even.
I also have a money back eternal salvation guarantee: If you don't go to heaven, I'll pay back all of the money. Just let me know (and provide two forms of ID and a notarized death certificate.)
So far I'm batting 1.000- no complaints.
So sad to see Cam slumming with the likes of Headhunter
I don't care that you're being berated for being a moron. I just wanted to turn you back into a dancing monkey with incorrect arguments, and it looks like I've succeeded.
Anyway:
1) No, you didn't chop shit down. You cherry picked a statement from an article to give a false impression of what the actual thesis of the article was, then presented it as fact by resting on the "laurels" of the publication - when in fact, the publication didn't even suggest what you implied it did.
Quoting an article that says Darwin's tree is wrong, to try and prove evolution is flawed - while the article is simply saying that a web is more of an apt comparison than a tree.
What's funny is now you're disagreeing with the premise of the article YOU YOURSELF QUOTED AS EVIDENCE! So you took a line from an article that disagreed with your entire premise to try and portray something different than the article intended. Cherry picking.
Anyway, in terms of the semantics - clearly you're either fucking retarded or absurdly deluded, but most likely both. What kind of idiot posts literal definitions from a dictionary when someone is telling them they have a semantical argument that has no bearing on the actual content being "debated"?
Again, you took up a paragraph and big red lettering to prove me correct that your argument is entirely based on semantics, and simply doesn't go any further then WELL IF ITS SCIENCE HOW COME WE CAN'T DO AN EXPERIMENT HUH???
Now you're trying to argue with me the astronomy is not science. So what is it, genius? And here's the real question: regardless of what you call astronomy, are the conclusions drawn from astronomy accurate?
Because if the answer is yes (hint: it is), then it proves that whether or not you call evolution "science", the marriage of observed data when combined with the analysis of the models and data sets shows that this is how live formed and evolved throughout the history of the Earth.
Your argument is that of a petulant little child: "well you can't experiment on it, and technically you have to experiment on something to call it science so nu uhhh it isn't science".
And then you double down on this by saying "well you can't experiment on parts of astronomy so that's not science either, nu uhhhh".
I mean shit, we can't experiment Einstein's conclusions on gravity. So what's next, that's not science?
Here's an obvious response to your retarded arguments: whether or not you call it "science", theres a plethora of evidence that shows that this is the mechanism by which life progressed and evolved throughout Earth's history.
You are literally saying nothing other than "you can't experiment on it so it's not science", ignoring the fact that the length of time to observe the entire process is the very reason that we cannot run what you would consider a satisfactory experiment. Your conclusion is that if we cannot run a perfect experiment (even if the limiting factor is just part of the fundamental properties of what is trying to be explained), it's not science.
It's an idiotic argument and you deserve to be ridiculed, along with others of your ilk (lol ilk).
Can you show me the experiment that proves that the Bible is real? You know, since you need PERFECT FUCKIN EXPERIMENTS MANNN to actually believe things, but steadfastly and dogmatically believe in the word of the bible.
Also would love to hear your thoughts on Noah's Ark and Sandy Hook out of morbid curiosity. Just want to see how truly stupid you are.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Blinders on full effect here...
Oh fun you finally responded to what I wrote. I had previously written about your saying evolution wasn't science with no response. Like many others have done you have ignored them.
Well maybe if you read my first post in which I systematically "Step By Step" Illustrated the point. Nobody on this thread has challenged a single aspect. If I missed one...please repost it.
Quote:
My favorite part of this...
"How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of"
Ummm you wrote this on another site that is time stamped. You do realize that right? This isn't me using some kind of mind powers. This is me seeing you post the same exact thing from months ago.
Yea. Is it possible I could have written it before the Time Stamp, let's say YEARS before it?
Quote:
Not responding to stuff... How about when someone says you say atoms are dumb and that they can't just program themselves, but then say "Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal." ... I am sorry but can organisms react, reproduce, grow, etc without someone programing it?
Nope. They all have DNA, Correct? DNA is a CODE...CODE only comes from a Programmer. Follow?
Replicating and Passing the "CODE" on doesn't Preclude the Fact that it was PROGRAMMED in the First Place.
Quote:
See once you answer that that things can change or evolve without some higher power programmer keying in all the data you can see where there is an issue with your comments. You are being very obtuse.
Obtuse?? Do all living things have DNA? Is DNA a "CODE"? "Variation" is built into the "CODE".
because he doesn't have an answer. This is why people say they can't have a conversation with you. You can only cut and paste from a prior discussion, but if you can't already wrote something out you can't respond to what people write you. You just find some random post from someone and post the same repeated information.
Do you consider what Stephan Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson, and their buddies do science? Much (not all, but much) of the work of Richard Feinman, too, who you seem to like to quote every so often, falls in the same camp.
They don't use any experiments, either. Simply observations that confirm or deny their theoretic work, just the same as evolutionary biologists and the like.
DNA writes itself over and over all the fucking time. This process is exactly why we can't have just one flu vaccine and be fucking done with it. The damn thing changes all the time precisely because it it sloppy in reproducing itself.
Well maybe if you read my first post in which I systematically "Step By Step" Illustrated the point. Nobody on this thread has challenged a single aspect. If I missed one...please repost it.
Yea. Is it possible I could have written it before the Time Stamp, let's say YEARS before it?
Nope. They all have DNA, Correct? DNA is a CODE...CODE only comes from a Programmer. Follow?
Replicating and Passing the "CODE" on doesn't Preclude the Fact that it was PROGRAMMED in the First.
Obtuse?? Do all living things have DNA? Is DNA a "CODE"? "Variation" is built into the "CODE".
regards
My mistake you did actually respond. I apologize as you have missed so many other specifically about what scientific theory actually is.
Regarding your first response to me... you did not systematically step by step prove anything. You were challenged many times including what is and isn't a science and you missed it. Just because you type it doesn't make it true.
You second point... exactly what I said. You are taking your responses from a previous time and using it now as if you are getting the same responses which you are not. Thus pasting that old arguments is not valid in what people are saying here. I said it was written months ago and I was not wrong. Not sure why you thought that makes me have mind powers or whatever you said.
DNA is not software. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. It is stored "as a" code. However DNA can and does change. Things mutate and changed over the years and when you expand that out to 100 millions of years things change greatly. You aren't saying that God created the human DNA "code" right? That he was up there going Hmmm... what should I program now... Oh right humans, but I am not going to use it until millions and millions of years after the earth is born. I mean I thought he had that all wrapped up in 6 days and was like man I need a day off. Which is it? Is the bible wrong? Just answer that one question... IS THE BIBLE WRONG?
and use RNA as their genetic material. That's just semantics, but really the existence of viruses is probably the easiest argument to be made against creationism. Why would God create something that's not sentient who's only purpose in the world is to cause illness and death to things that are sentient?
RE: Technically, most viruses (which are living things) don't have DNA
and use RNA as their genetic material. That's just semantics, but really the existence of viruses is probably the easiest argument to be made against creationism. Why would God create something that's not sentient who's only purpose in the world is to cause illness and death to things that are sentient?
...highly modified version of this thread shows up on the creationist sites? It'll be, "Hey, we went in there and showed those evolutionists where the bear shit!" "And as for those Jews, well, they know where they're going (Heil Hitler!)"
RE: Technically, most viruses (which are living things) don't have DNA
and use RNA as their genetic material. That's just semantics, but really the existence of viruses is probably the easiest argument to be made against creationism. Why would God create something that's not sentient who's only purpose in the world is to cause illness and death to things that are sentient?
So people can stand in a church and say things like, "it's all part of God's plan" and "he's in a better place" or "he's with God now".
With very plays - Enoch has hit on most of them, likely due to s long history of being a brainwashed worthless troll. For anyone interested, the commonly presented arguments are refuted in the article below. Answers to Nonsense - ( New Window )
I'm re-visiting this thread after being away from it for a couple days
And with the recent references to Jews, I figure it warrants another link to atheist (and humorist) Pat Condell's vlogs. This one is called.... What about the Jews? - ( New Window )
With very plays - Enoch has hit on most of them, likely due to s long history of being a brainwashed worthless troll. For anyone interested, the commonly presented arguments are refuted in the article below. Answers to Nonsense - ( New Window )
He will just ignore responses such as these:
Quote:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
Which is basically what kicker and others told him early on.
if heaven is the ultimate destination, why do people fight tooth & nail to put off death as long as they can? The answer is.........?
HH, I think there is a difference between trying to prove that atheists are correct, versus this idea that in order to be relgious then you can't believe in science.
Hey, new to site - Spock and Enoch invited me - the three of us Skype a couple of times a week, mostly naked, usually involving weird insertions. Not much for the whole jesus lie you simps have fallen for, but like the repressed homosexuali vibe I am picking up.
Anyway, 32, athletic, smooth, about 7", I am a bottom, but can discuss - email me!
Tend to prefer some ethnic flavor, but thinking not a lot of diversity among the scared white guy community.
Hey, new to site - Spock and Enoch invited me - the three of us Skype a couple of times a week, mostly naked, usually involving weird insertions. Not much for the whole jesus lie you simps have fallen for, but like the repressed homosexuali vibe I am picking up.
Anyway, 32, athletic, smooth, about 7", I am a bottom, but can discuss - email me!
Tend to prefer some ethnic flavor, but thinking not a lot of diversity among the scared white guy community.
#WorthyChristian - ( New Window )
Yup, as predicted. Spock is alerting the forces of light that there's evil to be stamped out on BBI.
I don't care that you're being berated for being a moron. I just wanted to turn you back into a dancing monkey with incorrect arguments, and it looks like I've succeeded.
Name calling, eh? Pull up Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques and see where your playground charades fall out...Right @ the Base; A "Tell" for No Argument ("as if" we needed them). Thanks for the Multiple Illustrations in your post
Quote:
1) No, you didn't chop shit down. You cherry picked a statement from an article to give a false impression of what the actual thesis of the article was, then presented it as fact by resting on the "laurels" of the publication - when in fact, the publication didn't even suggest what you implied it did.
Cherry Picked...What 6 Quotes? I didn't actually need it to imply anything. I dashed to pieces Darwin's "Just So" Stories with my first post...this was barely palpable background noise. It's also not the only SOURCE I posted.
Anyway...
Quote:
What's funny is now you're disagreeing with the premise of the article YOU YOURSELF QUOTED AS EVIDENCE! So you took a line from an article that disagreed with your entire premise to try and portray something different than the article intended.
What's even funnier is you thinking this is some kind of an argument
Quote:
Anyway, in terms of the semantics - clearly you're either fucking retarded or absurdly deluded, but most likely both. What kind of idiot posts literal definitions from a dictionary when someone is telling them they have a semantical argument that has no bearing on the actual content being "debated"?
Back to your "Conjured" Semantics again I see (I understand, what's left?)
Can you please elucidate the semantics here...
Experiments are an Indispensable Part of the Scientific Method.
Science is defined by it's Method. Please....?
Quote:
Again, you took up a paragraph and big red lettering to prove me correct that your argument is entirely based on semantics, and simply doesn't go any further then WELL IF ITS SCIENCE HOW COME WE CAN'T DO AN EXPERIMENT HUH???
Ya see, In Science... we Observe Phenomenon in the Natural World and the attempt to ascertain CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.
Hypothesis --------> Experiment
Hypothesis is an "If This....Then That" or "Not That" (Null's).
The "If This" (Independent Variable)..."Then That" (Dependent Variable)...it's called the Experiment.
Is there something that's particularly confusing here???
Quote:
Now you're trying to argue with me the astronomy is not science. So what is it, genius? And here's the real question: regardless of what you call astronomy, are the conclusions drawn from astronomy accurate?
How did they arrive @ their "Conclusions" ?? No Experiments-ee....No Science-ee
Quote:
Because if the answer is yes (hint: it is), then it proves that whether or not you call evolution "science", the marriage of observed data when combined with the analysis of the models and data sets shows that this is how live formed and evolved throughout the history of the Earth.
How Life formed eh? Start Here...
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
2. Show How Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...?
(Hint: it's not) Models aren't TESTS...What's your Independent Variables, the Glue or the Color of the Poster Board?
"Data" is gained FROM Experiments.
Show the "History" of the Earth...? Provide the Make/Model/Serial# of your Time Machine please...?
Quote:
I mean shit, we can't experiment Einstein's conclusions on gravity. So what's next, that's not science?
Yes we can. The general theory of relativity states that Gravity affects Time; that is, the closer you are to a Mass the more TIME will slow down. You ready....
First, what is "TIME" is it Physical or is it a "CONCEPT"? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red? So it's a "Concept". Can you bend, dilate, or warp a "Concept"? "Freedom" is a Concept can we dilate that? Sounds like a Reification (Fallacy) to me. Let's continue, a Thought Experiment to TEST the theory..
Ok, Lets use Gravitational Clocks... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were. We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top. We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster?
Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again. Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped! Because there's no Sand entering the bulb. Which "Clock" is moving slower? Define Falsified?
Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation.
They're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention". They're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.
A Football Field is 100 Yards...is the Football Field Yardsticks?
Additionally, can someone post ONE SOLUTION to any of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more Masses? I thought you had to have @ least 2 Masses for Gravity?
Define MatheMAGICS?
Quote:
You are literally saying nothing other than "you can't experiment on it so it's not science", ignoring the fact that the length of time to observe the entire process is the very reason that we cannot run what you would consider a satisfactory experiment.
Then ahhh, maybe trying to divine CAUSATION of "Unobserved Past Events" (Stories) is not "Science". I didn't invent the Scientific Method...See Francis Bacon et al.
Quote:
Your conclusion is that if we cannot run a perfect experiment (even if the limiting factor is just part of the fundamental properties of what is trying to be explained), it's not science.
My conclusion is... that if it doesn't follow the Scientific Method; perhaps, it's not Science to begin with.
Quote:
It's an idiotic argument and you deserve to be ridiculed, along with others of your ilk (lol ilk).
Sir ahhh, by proxy of your beliefs (Materialist/evolutionist)....you believe that the Universe Created Itself from Nothing and Ink/Paper/Graphite Molecules can Write Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes.
I'd have to Object Your Honor on the grounds that my accuser may be spending too much time with Grandpa's Cough Medicine.
Moreover, fyi....the Validated EXPERIMENTS of Quantum Mechanics have Literally taken the Materialist's World View to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned it Senseless.
DNA is not software. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. It is stored "as a" code.
So if DNA is not Software, please show on DNA Proper: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase....?
And if it's stored "as a" CODE...how on Earth is it not Software?
You also have some major problems here...
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
Quote:
However DNA can and does change.
Where'd you get DNA from?
Quote:
Things mutate and changed over the years and when you expand that out to 100 millions of years things change greatly.
Mutate?? Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information. About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information". It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).
DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information". In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.
evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts. hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)
Question: If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???
Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect? Yea, ok.
It's probably the reason why Drosophila, after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!! AND IT'S STILL A FLY!
Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253
"My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be selectable; 3) biological noise and survival of the luckiest overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate."
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')
And Please Validate these Fairytale Millions of Years...??
Quote:
You aren't saying that God created the human DNA "code" right?
Well if HE didn't, the Stupid Atoms did it themselves. What's your choice??
Quote:
That he was up there going Hmmm... what should I program now... Oh right humans, but I am not going to use it until millions and millions of years after the earth is born.
Begging The Question (Fallacy) "Millions of Years". SEE Above: (Validate Fairytale ect)
Quote:
Is the bible wrong? Just answer that one question... IS THE BIBLE WRONG?
Life is amazing. So complex it is ridiculous. You can be an evolutionist or ID person but if you think about the complexity it's almost overwhelming.
As I posted early in this thread, the Universe we live in is so large it's incomprehensible.
That being said, why not stop the name calling, antagonistic pictures etc. and agree to our own beliefs.
There is no reward, hope of conversion and probably no chance of investigation by people who have their minds set. Let's agree to disagree and wrap this damn thread up.
Thanks!
He's likely studying The Flinstones to follow the copypasta being spewed on this thread by his bulldog prophet.
The Great Gazoo just entered the scene and is really putting the Young Earth Theory into manageable terms - its all magic created by a supernatural being to benefit a specific man with a caveman-level intellect.
Life is amazing. So complex it is ridiculous. You can be an evolutionist or ID person but if you think about the complexity it's almost overwhelming.
As I posted early in this thread, the Universe we live in is so large it's incomprehensible.
That being said, why not stop the name calling, antagonistic pictures etc. and agree to our own beliefs.
There is no reward, hope of conversion and probably no chance of investigation by people who have their minds set. Let's agree to disagree and wrap this damn thread up.
Thanks!
Meh, a jackass Sandy Hook truther and someone who obviously has been pulling this bullshit line of argument for a long time (from his presence on other forums) isn't interested in agreeing to disagree or whatever the fuck else people want to think that this trash wants out of this discussion. And if I was a practicing Christian, I would be insulted that this asshole is on my team. Fuck this guy.
Is the bible wrong? Just answer that one question... IS THE BIBLE WRONG?
Nope. You are
Well I at least respect you for not ducking the question. I thought for sure you would bypass it. I was going to be really annoying and just keep posting it.
I am shocked that in this day and age you can believe even half of what the bible has in it. You can't speak about any kind of science and then say the bible has it right. If so please explain Noah's Arc... 2 of each species all on one boat during a world flood that killed everything not on the boat. No person in the world knowing, how many species we have, how impossible it would be to build up each species with only 2 of them afterwards. Shoot we are having trouble now with certain tigers trying to keep them around. How can you justify telling everyone here that they are wrong and that evolution is false, but then swear that you believe this story or as you like to say... Fairytale?
As for the other things you wrote... You like to use terms loosely when they suit you, but then are quick to point out in others it isn't used correctly.
Software: the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them.
DNA is not a software or code that has been programmed. To try and use this to make a point to an extent is fine. You want to say ok look here is how I want to show my argument. When someone explains why that isn't the case you keep saying God had to program all the codes and wrote the software your example loses meaning. DNA is not a programming code writing with software. There was not a programmer. Your proof of what you say is ... Well atoms are dumb so it had to be God is not actual proof. That is just you saying words. You can not prove there is a God that created heaven and earth... And like millions of other planets, stars, sun, galaxies, etc. Not sure why he did all that just for us humans. Seems like over kill if you ask me. Anyway you can prove that many of what was said in the bible is fallacy 100%. The book you swear by and use as your reasoning that evolution is not possible. If you would have said I think the bible was stories put together for people to read, enjoy, and live by then maybe you would have something. At least then you wouldn't a boat that miraculously fit every single species on it... Sorry 2 of every species on it.... Then those 2 of every species by miracle repopulated the entire earth. If God could make that happen wouldn't it have just been easier to you know... Wipe everyone out and then recreate them from scratch again... Sorry reprogram them again?
I decided to ignore this thread the last day or so I just read like from page 20 onwards.
Wow. Just speechless.
Running to a Sandy Hook Truther to defend your anti-Evolution beliefs. That's as low as it gets. Lost a lot of respect for you Spock. I was actually feeling a little bad about everyone jumping down your throat, but I'm enjoying the hell out of it now that you've associated yourself with a Sandy Hook Truther piece of human garbage like Enoch.
is I would bet dollars to Biblical scholars that Spock thinks that bye sending in a 500 pound gorilla preprogrammed ringer wingnut truther troll, he scored some points here.
The question is, with whom could he have scored those points? Not with BBI, and surely not with God, whomever and wherever she is. I actually found a picture of the truther troll, before he evolved.
Well I at least respect you for not ducking the question. I thought for sure you would bypass it. I was going to be really annoying and just keep posting it.
I don't "duck" semi-rational questions, I may miss a few due to logistics.
Quote:
I am shocked that in this day and age you can believe even half of what the bible has in it.
Sir you believe stupid atoms can create algorithmic cybernetic coding and decoding schemes or ink molecules authoring books and the Universe Creating Itself from Nothing (among other numerous basic reasoning atrocities).
Then you have the audacity to critique what others believe?
Quote:
You can't speak about any kind of science and then say the bible has it right.
How so....?
Quote:
If so please explain Noah's Arc... 2 of each species all on one boat during a world flood that killed everything not on the boat.
It's Noah's Ark, not "Arc"...he wasn't welding. He didn't take 2 of every "Species". "Species" was a term coined a couple thousand years later (Aristotle coined it I think), it's a man-made construct. It has @ least 50 different definitions just over the past 80 years and 3 currently.
The Bile uses the term "KIND"....7 pairs of clean and 2 pair of every unclean boarded the Ark
Quote:
No person in the world knowing, how many species we have, how impossible it would be to build up each species with only 2 of them afterwards.
As I said above, you have a Rubber Ruler with "Species" to begin with. Also, a Large Percentage of current "Species" are found in the OCEAN so you can subtract them. Subtract Viruses and Bacteria. Your numbers are dwindling @ light speed.
As mentioned previously, there's alot of "Variability" built into DNA to begin with. For Eukaryotes, some Genes can "CODE" for over 3,000 different Proteins (SEE: Splicing). In the Fruit Fly (Dscam), a single gene can CODE for over 38,000 different Proteins. DNA contains CODES within CODES within Millions of Sub-Folders of CODES...it's quite mind-boggling.
Quote:
As for the other things you wrote... You like to use terms loosely when they suit you, but then are quick to point out in others it isn't used correctly.
I don't think so. For Instance....?
Quote:
Software: the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them.
I didn't say "Computer" I said Software, sir. The Subject Matter Expert Dr. Craig Venter PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) said it was "Interchangeable" with Computer Software. Email and Lecture him lol.
You're using a "CODE" ----and Software (They're Mutually Inclusive) right now! It's called the English Language it's Semiotic. Does the word with the letters CAT = a Cat? lol. When you're playing with one, is "CAT" spelled out on it's fur? It's just a Pre-Arranged/Agreed Upon convention of "SYMBOLS" (Alphabet---CODE) for communication and meaning. Go to Germany and tell someone you have a "gift" for them.... and watch them run to the nearest Polizei Station or Konk you over the head...it means "POISON"; They have a different "CODE"---Software.
Same Concept with DNA...it's a Language.
Quote:
DNA is not a software or code that has been programmed.
Are you serious? You post this same nonsense again after I just drug this through the mud? Go ahead and drag yourself out of 19th Century Science and come join us.
So the Genetic CODE is not a CODE, eh? Define Obtuse...?
Here's a Test, stop by a Biochemistry Department or a Genetics Lab get everyone's attention and say this out loud with some vigor. After they stop Belly Laughing, don't be surprised when Security shows up. Go ahead and try this...report back, when you get released.
Can I offer some advice and to 99% of the folks posting. Educate yourself before speaking with authority on subjects.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--- Abraham Lincoln
Take your "God created the genetic code, and everyone fit on the Ark" idea, and do this:
Quote:
Stop by a Biochemistry Department or a Genetics Lab get everyone's attention and say this out loud with some vigor. After they stop Belly Laughing, don't be surprised when Security shows up. Go ahead and try this...report back, when you get released.
So who gets the bigger belly laughs, or the longer time in a padded cell?
He doesn't understand how the science works, therefore godidit.
There's nothing he's posted that actually refutes anything that's been demonstrated by established science, just attempts to poke holes. This is called anomaly hunting and is the hallmark of conspiracy theorist thinking.
A useful term for all the blithering shite he's posted is PRATT. Previously Refuted A Thousand Times.
luckly, there are very few -if any- people that want to rely on that sort of thing for faith.
There is no need for humans to totally reconcile belief with science, it is apples and oranges, to suggest so is another classic BBI false dichotomy:
However, I still enjoyed what you did there and laughed ought loud.
I actually think belief in the creator and science reconcile quite well as long as you recognize what Bill2 posted re:men, their bias, and translation issues over thousands of years. It's when you decide to take it literally that you have problems (and ironically, even the fundies go through all sorts o mental contortions to not have to actually follow the parts they don't like- much like the mental contortions you're reading coming from Spock and Enoch).
Anyway- I don't really care what your beliefs are as long as you're not pushing them on me, filling my kid's head's with tales of magic, trying to teach them said magic in a public classroom, or denying or infringing on the rights of others.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Blinders on full effect here...
Well I at least respect you for not ducking the question. I thought for sure you would bypass it. I was going to be really annoying and just keep posting it.
I don't "duck" semi-rational questions, I may miss a few due to logistics.
Quote:
I am shocked that in this day and age you can believe even half of what the bible has in it.
Sir you believe stupid atoms can create algorithmic cybernetic coding and decoding schemes or ink molecules authoring books and the Universe Creating Itself from Nothing (among other numerous basic reasoning atrocities).
Then you have the audacity to critique what others believe?
Quote:
You can't speak about any kind of science and then say the bible has it right.
How so....?
Quote:
If so please explain Noah's Arc... 2 of each species all on one boat during a world flood that killed everything not on the boat.
It's Noah's Ark, not "Arc"...he wasn't welding. He didn't take 2 of every "Species". "Species" was a term coined a couple thousand years later (Aristotle coined it I think), it's a man-made construct. It has @ least 50 different definitions just over the past 80 years and 3 currently.
The Bile uses the term "KIND"....7 pairs of clean and 2 pair of every unclean boarded the Ark
Quote:
No person in the world knowing, how many species we have, how impossible it would be to build up each species with only 2 of them afterwards.
As I said above, you have a Rubber Ruler with "Species" to begin with. Also, a Large Percentage of current "Species" are found in the OCEAN so you can subtract them. Subtract Viruses and Bacteria. Your numbers are dwindling @ light speed.
As mentioned previously, there's alot of "Variability" built into DNA to begin with. For Eukaryotes, some Genes can "CODE" for over 3,000 different Proteins (SEE: Splicing). In the Fruit Fly (Dscam), a single gene can CODE for over 38,000 different Proteins. DNA contains CODES within CODES within Millions of Sub-Folders of CODES...it's quite mind-boggling.
Quote:
As for the other things you wrote... You like to use terms loosely when they suit you, but then are quick to point out in others it isn't used correctly.
I don't think so. For Instance....?
Quote:
Software: the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them.
I didn't say "Computer" I said Software, sir. The Subject Matter Expert Dr. Craig Venter PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) said it was "Interchangeable" with Computer Software. Email and Lecture him lol.
You're using a "CODE" ----and Software (They're Mutually Inclusive) right now! It's called the English Language it's Semiotic. Does the word with the letters CAT = a Cat? lol. When you're playing with one, is "CAT" spelled out on it's fur? It's just a Pre-Arranged/Agreed Upon convention of "SYMBOLS" (Alphabet---CODE) for communication and meaning. Go to Germany and tell someone you have a "gift" for them.... and watch them run to the nearest Polizei Station or Konk you over the head...it means "POISON"; They have a different "CODE"---Software.
Same Concept with DNA...it's a Language.
Quote:
DNA is not a software or code that has been programmed.
Are you serious? You post this same nonsense again after I just drug this through the mud? Go ahead and drag yourself out of 19th Century Science and come join us.
So the Genetic CODE is not a CODE, eh? Define Obtuse...?
Here's a Test, stop by a Biochemistry Department or a Genetics Lab get everyone's attention and say this out loud with some vigor. After they stop Belly Laughing, don't be surprised when Security shows up. Go ahead and try this...report back, when you get released.
Can I offer some advice and to 99% of the folks posting. Educate yourself before speaking with authority on subjects.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--- Abraham Lincoln
regards
Of course you don't understand what I am saying. First I have never said I believed in evolution and definitely know the Bible in a made up fairytale. You don't know what I believe in. I believe that you can't prove there is a God and that is a fact. Things in the bible are impossible and why you think dumb atoms which isn't the only other option is a much worse option then some all power software coding programmer chilling in the sky as much more believable is beyond me. You can't dispute that you have proof God exists and I have already said you can't prove evolution. However evolution makes a lot more sense. Even you with your... Arc Ark who cares you know what I meant much like I know when you wrote "Bile" I know you meant BIBLE... Even with your Ark story you say there are lots of variables written into DNA so you can try and explain the lack of feasibility of that story. So Lions, Tigers, and Bears all just jumped on the boat and were like we cool. Then those bears for example as you put it hold many variables that allowed them to then what? Choose what kind of bear babies they could make? You can't expect people to find that a viable argument. 2 Grizzly bears are not going to make a freakin Polar bear.
When I say it isn't code I mean from the terms you are applying it with software. It isn't some software code and language isn't a code either. Not in the sense you want to use it. You can break many things down to trying and make them fit. You are trying to generic everything down because when it is complex nothing you say makes any sense. Where do you get this stuff from? If you wanted to say it is our genetic coding ok I get that. You want to say God created our genetic coding you can't prove that, but at least that would make more sense then God was a software programmer writing code. That DNA is code and God is writing the programs out for it. That is just dumb to use more than just as an example, but has been your repeated belief as fact. I mean it is good to know that you think of God as nothing more than a software coder. I am sure some programmers will find their jobs much more important around you.
The fact you want to argue with me the word species which is widely used rather than explain how you can fit all of that on a freaking boat speaks volumes. That is what you do which is deflect. Oh well take away sea animals (guess God didn't hate the sea animals), virus, etc and now it is hardly nothing. And you know a House fly can just turn into a fruit fly if it concentrates really hard! So what like 12 animals in your boat? Lets just do basic African animals where there are over 1100 mammals alone. That is just African, just mammals. Not including the thousands and thousands of other animals, insects, birds, etc. Elephants for example, Hippos, Rhinos, etc etc etc... You want to say Noah really got all those African mammals over 1100 times 2 because he brought a male and female on a wood boat he built. Now to build a boat that big just for the African animals out of wood... How many years would that take and how big would it have to be to hold the size and weight of just the African mammals do you think? Before you answer that if you are going to answer that Noah started building the boat at 480 yards old and finished at 600 years old you then believe in vampires or something. I mean that whole fairytale of this story is a joke to try and pass off as an actual possibility. It would be like me saying hey Enoch I wrote in a book I jumped 497 feet straight up in the air when I was 253 years old while juggling a Rabbit, a Walrus, and chainsaw... Sadly if that was in the bible you would be here trying to say oh yes it is true. This is just one of the extremely horrible stories that you want to pass off as possible. It isn't and it doesn't take a scientist to know that. It just takes common sense.
although, there is already plenty of bias in schools today -on other subjects- , sometimes through very selective teaching of history for example, you could call it 'bias by omission', and at times it does get to the point of rights infringements, but that is for another thread.
regarding the evolution / faith part of the discourse you could do it in "social studies" instead of science class, and as long as the educator if careful to represent that there are a variety of views, I think kids are smarter and more sceptical than we think, not worried.
+++++++++++++++++
''RE: very well done and funny cam
Cam in MO : 8:46 pm : link : reply
In comment 12142259 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
luckly, there are very few -if any- people that want to rely on that sort of thing for faith.
There is no need for humans to totally reconcile belief with science, it is apples and oranges, to suggest so is another classic BBI false dichotomy:
However, I still enjoyed what you did there and laughed ought loud.
I actually think belief in the creator and science reconcile quite well as long as you recognize what Bill2 posted re:men, their bias, and translation issues over thousands of years. It's when you decide to take it literally that you have problems (and ironically, even the fundies go through all sorts o mental contortions to not have to actually follow the parts they don't like- much like the mental contortions you're reading coming from Spock and Enoch).
Anyway- I don't really care what your beliefs are as long as you're not pushing them on me, filling my kid's head's with tales of magic, trying to teach them said magic in a public classroom, or denying or infringing on the rights of others. ''-
the analogy of genetic code to computer code, who has time for this stuff???
here is a short pull out from a faith based web site that has pages and pages on this. I have zero idea here, but even they say that the analogy has limits (referenced site below in text):
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have home addresses for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs! -
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.IoVpS05k.dpuf""
For getting him into this mess where no one is buying his shit. I'm sure it's a bit different conversing with people who aren't blithering morons unlike that dumbass website that they made their serendipitous connection.
For getting him into this mess where no one is buying his shit. I'm sure it's a bit different conversing with people who aren't blithering morons unlike that dumbass website that they made their serendipitous connection.
I think you're misreading that. He doesn't care if people buy his shit. The arrogance and narcissism mean that he knows he's right and we're just too stupid to realize it.
He simply cannot show himself here again without facing the legendary embarrassment he has brought on himself in this thread.
It's over for Spock. He'll eventually be back under a different handle, but once he's sniffed out, this thread will quickly be linked, and it will start all over again for him.
No more "my Habs" in the spring. No more "my Dodgers" talk in September and early October.
This god of theirs certainly seems ok with the free range stupid. That would allow me the slack I need to explain a past incident or two.
I can see some advantages. " it was not me...my software code made me do it. What you don't believe in SOFTWARE CODE? I don't know what to tell you. You are not looking at the right Internet forums. How else do you think the crack and the blondes got in here?"
I can't help it...it's the way the Code is written.
You think I am talking nonsense?
Well you are wrong. First you need to stop yelling about the blondes and read the Bible. Then I'll bring in the Enoch to get you to understand the rest.
Yes...that's right...it's like that acid trip when Bob keep yelling "it's like one big software program dude"
- A man in the sky who sees, hears, makes, knows everything. Created humans in own image
- Lightning hit a shit puddle at the exact right moment creating life on Earth against astronomical odds
- Aliens came down and spiked that shitpuddle to give us the fuel to create life
The 3rd one's looking pretty good right now
All I see is life-destroying alien civilizations in movies, maybe there are life-creating aliens out there who plant their seeds across the galaxies. So far from us in space and time but not in terms of genetic code.
Enoch, you seem to talk about how we needed a programmer to create that code. Well, I think an organic form like an alien being from another galaxy is a more likely "creator of the code" for Earth than an omnipresent being that controls all of us.
Also schnitz, Newtown Truthers are worse than 9/11 Truthers.
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
I got to say Intelligent Design/ Creationism has lost the Public Relations battle here. I think people who might of been on the fence read Spock & Enoch and decided no way do I want to seen like those 2. So the Christian Soldiers managed to win converts to the other side. Jesus is pissed, more lost souls
I would love to know which "college" awards degrees
such that the only thing you can parrot is "stupid atoms" and then argue about how correlation /= causation, and then state because DNA is like a code, the correlation with computer programmers to a higher power must be causation.
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
That's as close as Spock gets to a "thanks for nothing". He saw what happened and bailed on the thread....
describes himself on his profile as "Ambassador fir Christ". That does not describe a coward like him who has now run away when he has been outed for what he really is. Come back and confess your sins and try to be a good Christian.
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
Does that really come off as fiction to people?
Absolutely it does, and the funny part is that no one knows who actually wrote this excellent documented book
Moses wrote the first five books probably around 1500bc, so that puts the good book around 3500 years old, not 2000. The New Testament is about 2000 years old, but people of true faith usually believe in the veracity of both books- the first (erroneously referred to as the Old Testament) and the New Testament.
There is no evidence/none/nada of Moses writing anything in the bible. There is a claim that those are his words made by whoever wrote it, but zero proof of that
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
This is exactly what I was waiting for. Nice to see that even after a total failure, spock thinks that his/Enoch's argument was a success. That's definitely delusional.
This god of theirs certainly seems ok with the free range stupid.
OK with it? Religion encourages it. What tree did Eve's apple come from? The tree of knowledge. Think about that - our original sin was a quest for knowledge.
obviously he's going to lie low for a bit hoping that all of this blows over. He just hasn't come to the full realization that he won't survive this epic fail, and it will trail him to every single thread from here on out.
Who knows, it may end in something positive. He may just fade away or he may keep his mouth shut on his overt-religiousness. One can hope.
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
1) thanks for pointing out the clock experiments as if I didn't already learn about them in high school science class. the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity on a planetary scale (didn't even say relativity, which you brought into the discussion). So the experiments you referenced proved it on a.... "micro"level. You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated on a "micro"level and can be extrapolated to a macro level, you stupid fuck (though as it's been explained before, there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
2) you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
3) yes, you are hanging on semantics. how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
4) you really believe the ark story? what a moron. that concept of a flood is an archetype that has been used throughout countless religions and cultures, but yours is right because GAWDDD said so. plus you're actually dumb enough to still believe it.
5) stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies and the fact that you use them as if they're fool proof only highlights how delusional you are, and how far you have to contort your "arguments" to make sense.
6) by the way, the format of your posts and the RANDOM capitalization and STRANGE sentences comes off as if you're typing on shrooms. too bad you couldn't learn how to fucking put together a coherent thought or format basic text while you were busy getting your "biology" degrees.
7) how do you get a nun pregnant? a: dress her up as an altar boy.
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions? a: he's always pointing both ways.
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey? he wasn't very good, he kept getting nailed to the boards.
(to the people on BBI that are religious but whom are worthy of respecpt, such as steve in ky: I apologize in advance for those jokes, but if there's ever a time to pull them out, it would be to make enoch2201 feel uncomfortable. to balance it out, here's an indian joke:
"I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want."
Translation. They got the goods on me in my own words and there is no way I can continue to try to hide the fact anymore that I am an antisemitic bigot. I need to run away and hide rather than be a man and admit what I am. Darn it. It is checkmate.
that if someone was interested in being the best (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim) person they could be ....they would be so busy in productive debate with themselves they would have no time for bad debate with others.
I mean all of those strive at the living practice level for consistent practice of humility, tolerance, patience and compassion for others and community.
That takes a lot of hard self examination and emotional intelligence.
Which of the following concepts does not fit: humility, tolerance, compassion, community, emotional intelligence, self examination, aggressive debate using bad science?
It remains a little astonishing to me that Spock doesn't understand...
1) Adhering to a Messianic "Jewish" cult that sees no role in the world for Jews who don't convert;
2) Believing that non-converted Jews only have a role in Israel in generating the preconditions for the Rapture; and
3) Insisting that believers in God, including Jews, who do not see the light and accept Jesus as their personal savior are doomed to hell...
might be considered a little offensive. Then when he brings in his pit bull and describes BBI as being filled with "NY Jews"....game over.
Personally, I don't much give a rat's ass about Enoch, he was a hired gun who shot his load and will fade away.
But Spock, by contrast, should be permanently banned from imo. The only possible reason to keep him around is so the next time he raises his head above the fortress wall, we can shoot it off.
I hate using the gun metaphors, but they fit in this case.
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
That would assume that all posters giving Spock a hard time were Jews. I don't believe that is true.
Should posters on BBI be banned for what they say on other websites?
I personally don't want spock banned either since he provides such awesome entertainment. However, when you bring little to the table and actually bring a rampant troll to the site just to back your idiotic ass up, I think that can be construed as something worthy of banning.
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
I always love your brand of lovin', Ronald. What it lacks in girth and depth, it makes up for in being for "long time."
Should posters on BBI be banned for what they say on other websites?
I personally don't want spock banned either since he provides such awesome entertainment. However, when you bring little to the table and actually bring a rampant troll to the site just to back your idiotic ass up, I think that can be construed as something worthy of banning.
I would like back two of the posters I have most despised, Matt in Syracuse who is a total nut job and Buckyd, a serial liar and 9/11 truther. They provide entertainment plus I hate to shut anyone up no matter how much I disagree with them.
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
I can't, because even if there is such a thing, I doubt a being capable of creating billions of advanced creatures really cares about one of them making a few jokes.
That's the difference between those of us with critical thinking skills and people who think there's someone up in the sky who gives a flying fuck what we're doing every second of the day.
And this is how he spends his time. Why not just buy a gun and blow your brains out if this is the rest of your life - being a colossally ignorant douche.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Let's be honest, if he said that about almost anyone else on here, you'd probably say it crossed a line. Which is kinda my only point, to point out HH's shittiness.
Peter can be a dick to some people but he's hardly the worst offender on BBI. Being a dick is like a prerequisite to sticking around on BBI.
Wishing death on people? Maybe crossing a line a little bit?
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
Then why was it made known by Spock that you had
science degrees and this validated what you said. I would not have asked except you guys provided some information but not all. You appear to be hiding something.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Does not agree with experimentation extrapolated to no experimentation.
RE: RE: Do us a favor and go back to your enlightened
That this piece of shit truther has deluded himself into believing he is critical thinker. Young Earth Creationists may be among the most virulently stupid people on the planet - an embarrassment to the rest of society.
Spock ought to blow Eric as part of his apology for bringing him here....certainly won't be the first time Spock has had a cock in his mouth.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
And of course the obvious- how can that statement even relate to evolution in your view? You've been creepypasting for the last two days about how you can't create an experiment for evolution, therefore it's not science. But then to support that claim you post a quote saying that if a theory doesn't agree with the experiment (not even possible for evolution according to you), that the theory is not valid....
I'm not sure what hurts my brain more: the dumb shit that you post, or that you actually believe the dumb shit that you post.
Can you have a coherent conversation in your owns words without falling into the fallacy ( ad per your own post) of citing clips without context from other people whose credentials you think infer credence to your perspective?
Can you make the standard high school essay of five to seven paragraphs ( one states your thesis. Three to five support it. One summarizes it). The shorter the better. No citation or quotes. In your own words and not borrowed from any previous thing on the Internet or a text.
That should be easy and it is on every upper half college entrance application.
Rob in CT/NYC : 2:07 pm : link : reply
And this is how he spends his time. Why not just buy a gun and blow your brains out if this is the rest of your life - being a colossally ignorant douche.
people. It is like walking into a train station and finding a bar fight.
having been away, it's just; ......listen to yourselves, the bitterness and anger, holy moly.
and this is from someone (me) who does not question the science unless its refuted according to scientific method, and, to be honest not having a fucking clue about the details of all this.
aaaaand , I have to say I will probably find a cool and scientifically legit book on genetics, evolution and the origin of life to read after seeing this thread,
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Does not agree with experimentation extrapolated to no experimentation.
Absolutely Stupefying!
Real slow ok.... he said if "it" (That's the Hypothesis) doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong.
Well if you don't have an "EXPERIMENT"/TEST.... it's still a Hypothesis and will forever be one until it is TESTED!
If it can't BE TESTED as in "HYPOTHESIS TESTING" (ahh "Science") it means it's not a VALID HYPOTHESIS; Ergo.....NOT SCIENCE.
Next block of Instruction: How to make a sandwich.
but hey, I love knowing that there are at least SOME people who reject current thinking, even though, on this subject, I do not...so far...:
here are some quotes for the thread:
It's weird not to be weird.
― John Lennon
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14
Rebel children, I urge you, fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother your glory.
― Russell Brand
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
― Albert Einstein
people. It is like walking into a train station and finding a bar fight.
having been away, it's just; ......listen to yourselves, the bitterness and anger, holy moly.
and this is from someone (me) who does not question the science unless its refuted according to scientific method, and, to be honest not having a fucking clue about the details of all this.
aaaaand , I have to say I will probably find a cool and scientifically legit book on genetics, evolution and the origin of life to read after seeing this thread,
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
And of course the obvious- how can that statement even relate to evolution in your view? You've been creepypasting for the last two days about how you can't create an experiment for evolution, therefore it's not science. But then to support that claim you post a quote saying that if a theory doesn't agree with the experiment (not even possible for evolution according to you), that the theory is not valid....
I'm not sure what hurts my brain more: the dumb shit that you post, or that you actually believe the dumb shit that you post.
My word people.
Quote:
...for the last two days about how you can't create an experiment for evolution, therefore it's not science.
Well, somewhat correct. You can't get to a Hypothesis because you can't get passed the 1st Step of the Scientific Method.... You know, the thing that makes science, "Science".
Then this...
Quote:
But then to support that claim you post a quote saying that if a theory doesn't agree with the experiment (not even possible for evolution according to you), that the theory is not valid
Do you have a point here or do I need an abacus?
That's because "evolution" is not even a theory or scientific (SEE: First Post).
And that's not what Dr.Feynman said, he said if the Hypothesis doesn't AGREE with Experiment it's "Wrong".
Can you tell me how you can VALIDATE any aspect of the "theory" of evolution without a Valid Hypothesis....so you can TEST/EXPERIMENT it?
Call Berkeley
regards
It is funny that Enoch is still allowed to be here:
He admitted he wasn't a Giants fan.
He was told to come here by spock (who should also be given the heave ho for convincing a troll to come here and troll) to troll.
And he isn't here for Giants football--he's here to be an asshole troll.
When an outed Anti-Semite's recruited bulldog is a Sandy Hook truther, the conversation being in the gutter is actually a step above where those two normally reside.
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Does not agree with experimentation extrapolated to no experimentation.
Absolutely Stupefying!
Real slow ok.... he said if "it" (That's the Hypothesis) doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong.
Well if you don't have an "EXPERIMENT"/TEST.... it's still a Hypothesis and will forever be one until it is TESTED!
If it can't BE TESTED as in "HYPOTHESIS TESTING" (ahh "Science") it means it's not a VALID HYPOTHESIS; Ergo.....NOT SCIENCE.
Next block of Instruction: How to make a sandwich.
He admitted he wasn't a Giants fan.
He was told to come here by spock (who should also be given the heave ho for convincing a troll to come here and troll) to troll.
And he isn't here for Giants football--he's here to be an asshole troll.
Ahh...same old, same old at BBI.
But he's tolerated here, as in not banned, even though this is a nest of vipers. This matched against what happened to the poster who made a lighthearted joke on old Enoch's home base. I ask you, who is tolerant and who is not?
I would support another thread- JUST on the science of this...there may have been some sciency tit for tat above- (which new thread I will not post on since I know so little) that the thread OP will self delete if it goes off the rails.
rather than all the juvenile name calling
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if this is
Your idea of critical thinking, I can just imagine what kind of a shitty service member you were. Military tries hard to breed the stupid out of you, but some do fall through the cracks, and you, Enoch, fell through the crack if you made it to 20 years. I blame your commanders for failing you and the rest of us.
I would support another thread- JUST on the science of this...there may have been some sciency tit for tat above- (which new thread I will not post on since I know so little) that the thread OP will self delete if it goes off the rails.
rather than all the juvenile name calling
Eh...good on you for your moral high ground. I would suggest you depart this thread if it bothers you so much. Or do you just like to see your typing as some kind of an indication of your civility? Because honestly, no one cares.
That and the fact that he rejected wikipedia as a source earlier - I assume senility is preventing him from being logically consistent, even on just one thread.
ronnie, lest we forget that free speech in the public square
is the why of your how, please re-read this post and let me remind you to respect your elders, son.
headhunter haha, 'evolved,' I see what you did there
idiotsavant : 3:39 pm : link : reply
but hey, I love knowing that there are at least SOME people who reject current thinking, even though, on this subject, I do not...so far...:
here are some quotes for the thread:
It's weird not to be weird.
― John Lennon
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14
Rebel children, I urge you, fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother your glory.
― Russell Brand
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
― Albert Einstein
umm, the rest of the forum is getting pretty boring for those of us who don't like to bicker. can ya'll post some fun shit out there for me to look at? thanks.
Yes, it is generally open to the public, but that openness is at the whim of Eric since it's his website.
Free speech arguments are only relevant when it's a government attempting to suppress speech.
Never mind the fact that Ronnie wasn't attempting to suppress your speech at all -- merely suggesting that if you don't care for the tone of the conversation (which by suggesting that the tone is unpalpapable and that it should cease, you become a hypocrite) you need not read nor post.
Yes, it is generally open to the public, but that openness is at the whim of Eric since it's his website.
Free speech arguments are only relevant when it's a government attempting to suppress speech.
Never mind the fact that Ronnie wasn't attempting to suppress your speech at all -- merely suggesting that if you don't care for the tone of the conversation (which by suggesting that the tone is unpalpapable and that it should cease, you become a hypocrite) you need not read nor post.
In other words, point your high horse in the opposite direction and ride on.
Lets call it the so-far available most consistently sound and data filled explanation of a lot of directly observable and tangible phenomenon . Not every phenomenon. moment of life is not in evolution...its a different phenomenon
Now what?
Please now come up with with a more consistently sound and data filled explanation of a lot of directly observable and tangible phenomenon?
Enoch, here's a simple little experiment to test evolution.
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Enoch, here's a simple little experiment to test evolution.
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Repeat.
Was that so hard?
Well that's a Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming The Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
In comment 12143350 Enoch2021 said:
[] bullshit bullshit lots of words that means nothing bullshit bullshit staunch belief that noah's ark actually happened bullshit bullshit garbage trash garbage lots of words no substance misquoting people who completely disagree with what he's saying and taking their words out of context to prove a point
[/quote]
You are a fucking moron. By extension, I feel like a moron for being the only person to continue knocking down your sandcastles of bullshit. Listen, I know you've been breaking a mental sweat jumping through mental hoops and acting like a brainwashed fool, but try to follow along...
1) nice job ignoring the entire point of my first point. Einstein's theories on gravity/relativity are something you claimed were science in your previous post, because you can run an experiment on them.
Once I point out that the experiments were conducted on a smaller scale and not applicable to a planetary scale without extrapolating the results, now its not science? again, semantics - you can call it whatever the fuck you want, but if its properly explaining the mechanisms by which nature works, it's science. What you're essentially trying to say is that it's science on a small scale because it's observable, but we cannot call it science on a larger, planetary scale, because we can't just make a fucking planet and test it's gravitational pull.
2) you can keep clinging to a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers), there are situations in which it isn't applicable - such as parts of astronomy.
3) Natural selection has been replicated in instances where a population group has been isolated from another population group, then developed different characteristics over periods of time. this has already been observed.
And guess what, that's taking a MICRO level observation and applying/extrapolating it to a MACRO level. The same way the experiments with clocks in airplanes has been extrapolated to a larger level.
Also, yeah, I'm an econ major who had to sit through a ton of microeconomics and macroeconomics courses, so I'm pretty familiar with the difference between the two of them, dumbass.
4) Again, you cherry pick bullshit to try and make a point. The conference you referenced, which occurred in the 1980s, was a question of whether microevolution and macroevolution were separate entities.
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
Anyway, since you quoted Lewin, let's finish up his thought...
Code:
The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequences [sic]. Changes above the species level - involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns - are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.
By the way, Dr. Ayala, who was namedropped in your Lewin quote? He vehemently denies ever making his "generous admission".
In fact, let's see what Lewin himself thinks about creationism vs evolution, and what your FELLOW CREATIONISTS BRO think of Lewin (considering you cherry picked an argument previously to prove a point from an article that doesn't even SAY evolution didn't exist, though you implied that...)
Code:
In his capacity as Research News Editor of Science magazine, Roger Lewin again attacks creation science in his May 17, 1985, article "Evidence for Scientific Creationism?" (Lewin 1985) ...This 1985 article by Roger Lewin erroneously portrays to the scientific community that creation science is devoid of published material in the eminent scientific journals of the world.
Lewin literally ended that article saying that he wanted to do his part in providing ammunition "for those who directly confront the creationists."
Yup, that's right. The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
And let's take a look at the conference you cited...
Code:
To creationists on the outside, the debate was evidence that high-end macroevolution - not just the microevolution of finch beaksize or of insect immunity to pesticides - was suffering a theoretical crisis. to the scientists at te table however, the issue was a contest between technical disciplines. "It was centered around the question of whether there is a separate science of macroevolution" says paleontologist David Raup... Could biology study evolution at any levels apart from genes in the population? The immediate fallout of the conference was a protest over a Science magazine headline, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire". Letters to Science complained that the report was was "advocacy" for the nongeneticists, or "fossil sealots" The protests made two points: The New Synthesis had never been a single, rigid theory; and both gradualism and sudden leaps had been part of the original Darwinism, so what as the controversy? Yet the public relations damage was done. Two Illinois biologists noted wryly, "We are sure the creationists will be delighted to have an opportunity to cite Science in apparent support of their cause"
The fucking people at the conference you quoted immediately lamented that morons like you would try and cite Science as a way to fight against evolution, and the guy you quoted is starkly anti-creationism
Stop cherry picking shit out. The rest of your post is trash also. Your peanut/turtle analogy is trash and doesn't warrant an explanation.
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organisms original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.
Edwards, N.P. et al., Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1722):320918, 2011.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Mary Schweitzer PhD
"but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." ---- Scientific American, October 2012
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
"Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found."
Live Science, New Burgess Shale 'Mother Lode' of Amazingly Preserved Fossils Discovered in Canada
I've got about 80 or so more.
How old are those Dino's again...80-550 Million!! lol
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
The scientific community at large doesn't seem to believe
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
[quote]a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers)
And you still can't understand it.
Quote:
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
You're in dreamland.
Read this slowly...
"In a review of Defending Evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001), a book highly recommended by such eminent evolutionists as Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould ... [and] Eugenie C. Scott, Morris (2001) concludes that their defense of Darwinism fails because...it focuses almost exclusively on defending micro-evolution (what creationists call adaptive variation), whereas it is only macroevolution that creationists reject in the first place. Essentially only three pages of the book (pp. 117119) are devoted to defending macroevolution, and the concluding sentence of this section simply complains that it is unreasonable to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the normal procedures used in historical science research. That is true of course, but then why call it science? (p. 1)
Morris, H., How not to defend evolution. Back to Genesis 153:1, pg 1, September 2001
Can you please proffer a "Mechanism" for Macro-evolution please...? Should we wait?
Let's start off by you explaining the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes (Single Celled Organisms) with Transcription and Translation (Before you jump all incoherently into Multi-Celled Organisms) ?
Quote:
The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
Yes and...lol? I didn't quote him for his beliefs/Faith, I quoted him for his expertise on Macro to Micro. 99% of the time, I use atheists/evolutionists for support (Hostile Witnesses are the Best). Don't really care what he "BELIEVES" only what he can "PROVE". Savvy?
Quote:
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
EXACTLY, ain't it KOOL?
Thanks for Illustrating using a Hammer to put out a c4 Fire
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
is married to the idiotic idea that the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions, the need to draw such a distinction between micro and macro becomes imperative to the cause.
Is his complete lack of self-awareness. His theory of creation is "God said let there be light.". Of course, he doesn't attempt to apply any of his pseudo-scientific standards to the fucking fairy tale he has embraced as "science".
His preferred theory doesn't pass the giggle test of sane society, but he seems to have plenty of time to try and cast doubt upon the methodology, evidence and conclusions of legitimate scientists (you know, the ones he believes are the work of the devil).
RE: RE: RE: And now this tool quotes Mary Schweitzer?
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
Agreed that the optimum audience for creationism is 2nd graders.
That these young earth creationists embrace - how a book, whose contents were selected by men largely to support a political and social system in the 2nd century AD became the foundational document for leading a life 2,000 years later is an embarrassment to progress.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed
Really simple guys that others laugh at and we're being mean by laughing at him...it because he's actually an adult, who has the mental capacity of a child and a petulant idiotic child at that. Not sure which is actually sadder.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
RE: I'm not sure if I'm sad because Enoch seems like one of those
Really simple guys that others laugh at and we're being mean by laughing at him...it because he's actually an adult, who has the mental capacity of a child and a petulant idiotic child at that. Not sure which is actually sadder.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
Why would you believe he was in the military? He's full of shit on everything else he posts.
Is what Stephan Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do science, in your world view? They don't do experiments, either, for the most part. Hard to experiment on a galaxy 100 million light years away, where you are seeing what went on 100 million years ago.
Oh, I forgot, the earth is only 7,000 years old, so that's only an illusion God created to fool cosmologists.
Or do you have another theory on that? (Can't wait.)
for a Sandy Hook denier who in turn if you scratch deep enough is probably a Holacaust denier. This fucking emperor has no clothes and the whole world sees it except for him. Let him crawl back under the rock Spock found him under
The president has significant authority when it comes to education and his or her willingness to be ignorant on stuff like this is a deal-breaker for this voter.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
The other thing is whether he is honest enough to answer a tough question honestly, especially if he is campaigning in Kansas.
Looks like someone has to fight for the English language, too.
No, I don't believe that, nor is that in the spirit of why I asked the question. It has long puzzled me that someone can sell out completely to one viewpoint or another. We all know that no one viewpoint has all, or even most, of the answers to anything.
We all have our basic beliefs, and all lean in a certain direction, but to blithely accept one viewpoint seems to me to be stultifying and, ultimately, anti-intellectual. It truly puzzles me.
Not really following that logic. There are quite clearly people with at least somewhat realistic Presidential aspirations who do not believe in evolution. And I think it's important for them to acknowledge and explain such beliefs so voters can fully understand their position. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that such potential candidates do not similarly believe in Santa Claus. If I thought some might, I'd probably want that put to them to get it on the record as well.
Wasn't addressing you, dopey.
Other than that -- ask away!
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Quote:
The real reason HH wants to ask that question is to trap any Republican candidate. There is really no safe answer for him/her. Answer yes, and they alienate some of their base. Answer no, and they are of course a nut.
Other than that -- ask away!
Yes but the moronic evolution denying base is still going to vote for the republican candidate 100% of the time, with zero exception. I think a better presidential test would be to have the candidates explain what evolution is. If someone can give a generally accurate description and then explain why they think this scientific theory is inaccurate, at least there would be a shred of dignity associated with it.
Problem is the question is usually brought up during the primary when the decision for the base is between a Republican and a Republican.
If it's first brought up in the general election, any savvy politician (assuming they aren't on record already) would simply say "yes, I believe in evolution".
A more specific question might mention Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but since you have some variations of Darwin's theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, that gives a savvy pol a way to wiggle out of the question without ever quite answering it.
I would actively work to defeat anyone who refuses to answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe that life on earth evolved and is still evolving?" It's disqualifying. Too many urgent public policy issues depend on leaving aside faith-based views of the world and making decisions based on facts and evidence. People who say today they don't believe in any form of evolution are either liars or fools.
Do you believe in more govt or less govt?
Do you believe that the press should be wiretapped?
Do you believe in drone strikes against american citizens?
Do you believe in the second amendment?
Etc.....
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Running along Sir!
Do you believe in more govt or less govt?
Do you believe that the press should be wiretapped?
Do you believe in drone strikes against american citizens?
Do you believe in the second amendment?
Etc.....
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Please read more carefully. I very specifically stated that he is obviously NOT dim. I find many of njm's responses on this board to be both informative and well thought out.
Quote:
if they REALLY ducked sniper fire.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Like the OP isn't political.....
Quote:
In comment 12132560 natefit said:
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
This. I'd rather find out about their economic and foreign policies. The President can't do anything about evolution or abortion or most of these social issues. It's a huge waste of time in these debates to bring them up. The Press only does it to get soundbites and tank the R candidates.
Quote:
In comment 12132560 natefit said:
Quote:
that one would even consider to ask this question to someone in charge of our country. Shall we ask him/her if there really is a Santa Claus?
Sorry but I don't understand the point this is trying to make. Will you expand please?
Its a question that insults one's intelligence. There are serious matters to discuss. This is a waste of time.
Except that there really are adults in this country who don't believe in evolution, and this matters.
I agree that there are serious matters to discuss. Therefore, we should ask the evolution question to everyone who runs for President. If they say they don't believe in it, we can quickly move on to discussing the serious matters with those candidates who do.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
If someone says, "Yes, I believe in Evolution.", does that mean that evolution is now a religion?
Last time I looked, Evolution was a well established scientific theory that currently is the best explanation of why species develop/change/go extinct over time.
Theories in Science aren't hunches, by the way; they are the best explanations we can come up with based on observations, and are as strong as the challenges they survive from peer review. Theories in science can be altered, based on new discoveries;
So, it's a bit more complicated. I would ask a candidate "Do you believe in the Scientific Method?", myself.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
And, here we go - LOL...
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
Quote:
He's welcome to it..it won't impact my vote.
I also disagree with the idea that a belief, even a whacky one, on one piece of science reflects whether or not they reject all established science or even any other piece of science.
This could easily get extrapolated to a candidate's view on global warming and other science issues. All those issues, and a person's view on them are, imo, independent of each other. And if I disagree with a candidate on their perception of global warming, it likely would not impact on how I view that person overall and, hence, my vote.
Hillary Clinton has intimated that there is a link between vaccines and autism. Should that disqualify her from being President? Does that indicate her views on evolution or any other part of science? I don't think so.
Not weighing the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of evolution over a single book indicates a systematically poor ability to reason. That's an extremely frightening weakness for a president.
The comparison with Hillary espousing a link between vaccinations and autism is pretty poor. The Lancet only just recently retracted a study published decades ago finding a link. That wass far more evidence then there is for any alternative to evolution.
I guess you don't care that the evidence about vaccines was completely false and discredited?
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp is the closes DNA match to a Human
True, but the chimpanzee and humans are descendant from a common ancestor. Chimps did not evolve into humans.
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp to man connection is comical enough, but imo, the primordial soup to man wins first place for absurdity.
I think we should ask if a presidential candidate prefers sex between Man or Chimp or both at the same time.
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp is the closes DNA match to a Human
But since that's not the world we live in, then it's perfectly reasonable question to ask anyone who wants to hold high public office. It informs a lot of things including science and education policy as well as the politicians intellect or basic honesty.
Quote:
In comment 12132701 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp is the closes DNA match to a Human
True, but the chimpanzee and humans are descendant from a common ancestor. Chimps did not evolve into humans.
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Quote:
In comment 12132702 Chef said:
Quote:
In comment 12132701 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp is the closes DNA match to a Human
True, but the chimpanzee and humans are descendant from a common ancestor. Chimps did not evolve into humans.
And that common ancestor is the missing link I mentioned
Quote:
In comment 12132701 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp is the closes DNA match to a Human
The fossil evidence shows the common ancestor.
But since that's not the world we live in, then it's perfectly reasonable question to ask anyone who wants to hold high public office. It informs a lot of things including science and education policy as well as the politicians intellect or basic honesty.
Why would it be ridiculous?
Here here
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp to man connection is comical enough, but imo, the primordial soup to man wins first place for absurdity.
Haven't read much of the thread yet, but this.
I don't need a guy that agreed with me on everything. I need a guy that's going to be great at making the right decisions. If those decisions are faith based (unless it's a moral choice- and even then I'd rather it come from just being a good person rather than what thousands of year old book he reads ), he's not getting my votes.
I definitely don't want someone that subscribes to pseudo science.
I want someone that respects the beliefs of others even if he doesn't share them, but I absolutely do not want any policy based on those beliefs.
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
Quote:
In comment 12132710 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Man is a primate.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Quote:
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
Quote:
In comment 12132718 Chef said:
Quote:
In comment 12132710 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Man is a primate.
Al, there is no species identified to be specifically the bridge between man and primates. I would agree that it is hard to not see the incredible similarities between the two, supporting evolution but.. there again there is no species that links the two.. never...
Quote:
In comment 12132660 Spock said:
Quote:
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
Only if you are limited enough in your thinking that you require encyclopedic knowledge of the bible and an unshakable faith in God to have a basic sense of morality.
No. It doesn't speak to that at all.
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Er, man is a primate.
Quote:
In comment 12132731 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12132660 Spock said:
Quote:
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
Only if you are limited enough in your thinking that you require encyclopedic knowledge of the bible and an unshakable faith in God to have a basic sense of morality.
True
Don't the the majority of the voters feel that way? Left or right?
Quote:
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
Bill, let me help you understand what I believe is the primary reason for the fanatical craze for evolution from primordial soup to man. Many need to put their hat on something to convince themselves and others that there really is no intelligent design. So, they come up with half baked theories and trust that most people are not very inquisitive and rather gullible and also just like them, looking for any excuse to NOT believe.
so they throw this theory out there and it sells like hot cakes. I'm sure many in this camp couldn't care less about the veracity of this theory or not. It's good enough to let them live their lives as if they are in control of their lives and not some Intelligent Entity called God.
Dare they ask the pertinent question you asked-where did the primordial soup come from? Nevertheless, someone will come out with some crazy answer and the masses will all respond in one voice, "There it is......"
You're right. Fred Phelps, David Koresh, and pedophile priests would all make exceptional presidents. Good point.
Quote:
In comment 12132539 Big Al said:
Quote:
is relevant to me whether a candidate accepts established science.
Established science? Someone has proof that we developed from primordial ooze? And if we did, where did the ooze come from? Have we been able to replicate the start of our development? And I'm both a person of science and not particularly religious.
Bill, let me help you understand what I believe is the primary reason for the fanatical craze for evolution from primordial soup to man. Many need to put their hat on something to convince themselves and others that there really is no intelligent design. So, they come up with half baked theories and trust that most people are not very inquisitive and rather gullible and also just like them, looking for any excuse to NOT believe.
so they throw this theory out there and it sells like hot cakes. I'm sure many in this camp couldn't care less about the veracity of this theory or not. It's good enough to let them live their lives as if they are in control of their lives and not some Intelligent Entity called God.
Dare they ask the pertinent question you asked-where did the primordial soup come from? Nevertheless, someone will come out with some crazy answer and the masses will all respond in one voice, "There it is......"
In a just world, there would be way to arrange a steel cage match between ISIS and Spock's ilk - birds of a feather.
But yet there is no shred of evidence of a missing link between primate and Man, of Mans few hundred thousand years on this planet..
A species so common to both primates and Man that they could have actually mated, "you know evolved". Save for Neanderthal, which are still considered human.
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
Quote:
In comment 12132541 njm said:
Quote:
if they REALLY ducked sniper fire.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Like the OP isn't political.....
Non-compo, all the way. You're unable to see that your response has nothing at all to do with my questions here. You are a classic example of a non-thinking, brain-dead political who is totally consumed with your "side," seeing anything that deviates from your meager views as a personal attack.
You are beneath contempt and are an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere. Take a gas pipe and do the world a favor.
Quote:
In comment 12132710 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Hey chef, so you believe man evolved from ape.
i didn't know you were a man of faith as I am too. I guess the only difference between us is I believe in God while you believe in faulty and erroneous science. (Don't misquote me here- science is a good thing, if it is good science. Not all science is good due to biases and other reasons.)
Don't know where you got this from but I am a man of faith.. There has been no specific link between Man and Primates...
Er, man is a primate.
There will always be those that pervert and twist their chosen religions to achieve some ends or some personal gain (the whole Middle East is on fire right now because of that). There are many politicians that try to pass themselves off as people of faith, because they know how true people of faith are perceived. They are all users and not true people of faith, and that says something completely different about their character.
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
Animal and man? Believing in some primordial soup magically evolving into a single cell creature capable of reproduction is a modern day fairy tale for the foolish.
Quote:
You're right. Fred Phelps, David Koresh, and pedophile priests would all make exceptional presidents. Good point.
There will always be those that pervert and twist their chosen religions to achieve some ends or some personal gain (the whole Middle East is on fire right now because of that). There are many politicians that try to pass themselves off as people of faith, because they know how true people of faith are perceived. They are all users and not true people of faith, and that says something completely different about their character.
So now you can judge who is a true person of faith? Do you do like a Scientology scan or something? How you can sit there and say that bible knowledge speaks to character while you readily admit how many frauds there are, and how many twist religion to their own needs and wants, boggles my mind. Religious belief does not equate to morality.
Primates are an order of mammals that include very primitive animals called prosimians, as well as monkeys, apes, and humans.
Link - ( New Window )
Bahahaha.
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
I happen to agree wholeheartedly.
I also know that doesn't apply to the thinking of the majority of voters from any political ilk.
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
flip that script, change a few words and you are describing religion exactly.
You noticed that too.
Al, after I read what I wrote, I said to myself, someone here is going to be rebutting me saying, "that's pretty much what I wa going to say...." Lol
I happen to agree wholeheartedly.
I also know that doesn't apply to the thinking of the majority of voters from any political ilk.
But that is not what was being argued.
Quote:
...
Listen I get common sense and science evolution and all that but isn't this debate created from common sense and science. Neither can provide a concrete bridge between Animal and Man
Animal and man? Believing in some primordial soup magically evolving into a single cell creature capable of reproduction is a modern day fairy tale for the foolish.
Request for missing link reveals a fundamental lack of understanding - ( New Window )
In a just world, there would be way to arrange a steel cage match between ISIS and Spock's ilk - birds of a feather.
Haha! This.
What purpose does it serve to discount intelligent design? Is there a lot of money in it?
Honestly, there seems to be a lot more money for the "religious leaders" that peddle their anti-evolution bullshit as they preach to their followers about emulating Jesus and then go home to their multi-million dollar ( tax free) mansions.
So, Spock- what's the motivation behind the "evolution conspiracy"?
Quote:
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
WTF are you talking about? There is no hybrid. There is evolution.
Quote:
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
Chef, dont hold your breath waiting for the missing link.
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
my opinion: of course it's a fair question, and I really don't care about their actual views, but hearing how they respond would be cool.
Some candidates would be able to respond to an inane question like this in a way that is positive regardless of how they view the issue, others simply answer literally, and some it brings out their worst.
so, even if you don't care about their answer, you might be interested in their response.
Quote:
In comment 12132784 buford said:
Quote:
Im a primate. Youre a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a primate. Thats not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates. But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon? Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?
These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspectivehumans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals. Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago. But even before DNA analyses, scientists knew humans belong in the primate order. Carl Linnaeus classified humans with monkeys, apes and other primates in his 18th-century taxonomic system. Even the ancient Greeks recognized similarities between people and primates. Today, anthropologists recognize several physical and behavioral traits that tie humans to primates.
Link - ( New Window )
Fine and all but I am still waiting for the missing link, something science has yet to identify.. something that could actually produce hybrid offspring ( that are fertile and can reproduce ) like Donkeys cannot.
WTF are you talking about? There is no hybrid. There is evolution.
Quote:
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
Quote:
"Religious belief does not equate to morality."
I happen to agree wholeheartedly.
I also know that doesn't apply to the thinking of the majority of voters from any political ilk.
But that is not what was being argued.
NFT: evolution a fair question to ask a Presidential contender ?
Headhunter : 4:54 pm
.
I your opinion
Quote:
In comment 12132827 Chef said:
Quote:
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
What makes you think I do that anymore.. I like you.. but you are participating typical douchebaggery I have outlined.. make a point please
What makes me think you do that? Your choice of handle.
I like you too.
The point has been made multiple times, even by freaking Buford of all people, but you appear to only see what you want to see. Read the article Rob linked for starters.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12132787 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"Religious belief does not equate to morality."
I happen to agree wholeheartedly.
I also know that doesn't apply to the thinking of the majority of voters from any political ilk.
But that is not what was being argued.
NFT: evolution a fair question to ask a Presidential contender ?
Headhunter : 4:54 pm
.
I your opinion
It may have started that way, but the conversation I was involved in moved on to something else. Hey, it evolved!
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
The missing link does not invalidate the theory. In fact, it supports the theory of evolution quite well.
If you believed in other, non-scientific, theories, that are based on no science at all, you would see a huge explosion in the fossil records at delineated dates. Which, of course, don't happen.
Our education system is a fucking mess.
Quote:
In comment 12132829 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12132827 Chef said:
Quote:
Could produce billions upon billions of fertile Homosapiens...take over the planet of Earth... Genetic diversity is a must, don't need a Scientist to tell you that
I prefer to get my scientific information from food service professionals myself.
What makes you think I do that anymore.. I like you.. but you are participating typical douchebaggery I have outlined.. make a point please
What makes me think you do that? Your choice of handle.
I like you too.
The point has been made multiple times, even by freaking Buford of all people, but you appear to only see what you want to see. Read the article Rob linked for starters. Link - ( New Window )
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Quote:
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
Missing Link Fallacy - ( New Window )
Lol. Thanks for the laugh pj.
That'd make this thread perfect.
That'd make this thread perfect.
Aren't you one of the chosen people?
Going to hell anyway...
Quote:
I just want radar to come in here and pseudophilosophically defend spock and his ilk.
That'd make this thread perfect.
Aren't you one of the chosen people?
Going to hell anyway...
As long as there's scotch I'll be happy.
Oddly enough I just watched the movie son of god for shits and giggles. Holy lord.... No pun intended.
Anyway...reciting a fairy tale does little to support your position. And for a book inspired by a deity, it sure is filled with a whole lot of stupid and, in some cases, soft core porn...not that I mind.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brothers wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. [Genesis 38:8-9]
Rrrr...
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
No basis in scientific truth? Haha.
Is the Earth still the center of the universe? That was the last "big" scientific claim that religious folks railed against because there was "no basis in scientific truth."
No biggie. Your mind is made up. There is absolutely no evidence that will convince you otherwise.
Our education system is a fucking mess.
Sure as hell is.
MAGIC MAN BEAMED!
But then... it's for real for real.
Quote:
In comment 12132852 Spock said:
Quote:
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
Hey Spock, I'm gonna cut off my toe for your mortgage payment!
Makes about as much sense as the creator dying for our sins, IMO.
(stolen from somewhere- I'm not nearly original enough to have made that up myself)
Bleeding out.
Quote:
The Missing Link, no idea what he has to do with evolution though
Lol. Thanks for the laugh pj.
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
Does that really come off as fiction to people?
Quote:
In comment 12132865 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
The Missing Link, no idea what he has to do with evolution though
Lol. Thanks for the laugh pj.
define it.. we are talking about evolution.. what is it
Gradual change of an organism via mutation which over time eventually leads to a different organism?
In lay speak.
Quote:
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
understood, but there is no definitive link!
So?
That means all of the other evidence is invalid? Just this one piece invalidates the whole thing?
Which if you read one of the early links is nothing more than a red herring anyway...(just trying to understand your thought process beyond clinging to a dearly held belief)
Quote:
The Missing Link, no idea what he has to do with evolution though
Lol. Thanks for the laugh pj.
Quote:
In comment 12132875 buford said:
Quote:
my sister and her husband are both professors of physical anthropology, specializing in primates. In fact, they discovered the smallest primate, in China. Evolution is not two different species mating and creating a new one. It's one species evolving over time which eventually changes into something different. Two beings of the same species can evolve differently. Hence chimpanzees and man. There is no one 'link' It's millions of years of little changes.
understood, but there is no definitive link!
So?
That means all of the other evidence is invalid? Just this one piece invalidates the whole thing?
Which if you read one of the early links is nothing more than a red herring anyway...(just trying to understand your thought process beyond clinging to a dearly held belief)
PS However, if you love me that much, would you mind sending that mortgage payment to Salvation Army instead. They could always use it. Thanks.
I assume you know how to google topics, so if you google "Creationism" you will see a ton of research that supports creationism and refutes evolution. Good luck.
Quote:
Is a mountain of evidence across multiple disciplines, and on the other, zero evidence, and people get hung up on evolution for lack of "definitive proof".
I assume you know how to google topics, so if you google "Creationism" you will see a ton of research that supports creationism and refutes evolution. Good luck.
Define 'research'.
To Rocky, of course...
Probably the same style of "research" that supports the Ouiji Board hypothesis...
Institute for Creation Research - ( New Window )
i can tell your profession is not lawyer or teacher. You have zero skills in communication. Just curious, Are you in the concrete business?
Staff at ICR - ( New Window )
Says who?
Not me!
All you do is resort to name calling, which shows one or more of the following: lack of education, lack of self esteem, lack of conviction, or lack of God.
Which one(s)?
People with Ph.D.'s deny the Holocaust.
large cocks await your throuht....
Go fuck yourself to sleep....
Quote:
middle school scientific principles...
large cocks await your throuht....
I doubt many that rely on an ancient book to derive scientific principles will grasp it.
Quote:
god baby....and proud of not being ruled by a 2,000 year old fairy tale...
Have some respect
Your lack of respect for science offends me in similar fashion.
Quote:
In comment 12132973 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
god baby....and proud of not being ruled by a 2,000 year old fairy tale...
Have some respect
Your lack of respect for science offends me in similar fashion.
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No" Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
Well, Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"
By the way, I can't recall any Jew coming on here adding support to my beliefs and interpretations in the First testament. They all can't be unbelievers, are they? So, if there are any Jews out here who also believe Adam was the first contemporary man who did not evolve from primordial soup, speak up.
Ghost writer
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
Evolution does not remotely belong in that group.
You can see the strategy in action in the house every year when dems try to pass a resolution honoring charles darwin on his birthday. Republicans try to keep it from coming to a vote and will abstain or vote against. But most who have higher ambitions won't try anything silly like honoring ken ham or the other creationist frauds.
Quote:
moniker on BBI is ironic.
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
What set of standards has been recorded and agreed to in our case? Is adultery a crime? Is coveting thy neighbor's wife? (Holy crap I hope not!)
I am glad for whoever finds meaning in holy books. But they are not required for knowing good from bad. Period.
You can see the strategy in action in the house every year when dems try to pass a resolution honoring charles darwin on his birthday. Republicans try to keep it from coming to a vote and will abstain or vote against. But most who have higher ambitions won't try anything silly like honoring ken ham or the other creationist frauds.
No, McCain, the one who did believe in evolution, got the nomination.
I don't agree with that at all. First, it conflates climate changed with human-induced climate change. Second, there's still some questions about data manipulation that are likely the result of normalization type things but which still need to be made clear to people. Third and most importantly, both deniers and proponents are unlikely to actually know much about the underlying science; their opinion of the science veracity is heavily influenced either by their ideology or their economic viewpoint. Remove that and you would get a fairer picture about what people know or believe.
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
Quote:
Did any of them get the nomination?
No, McCain, the one who did believe in evolution, got the nomination.
I think that you would be hard pressed to say that was more than coincidental though.
Quote:
In comment 12133182 TJ said:
Quote:
Did any of them get the nomination?
No, McCain, the one who did believe in evolution, got the nomination.
I think that you would be hard pressed to say that was more than coincidental though.
agree, I was simply answering the question.
.
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
I Dont Care Whether the President Believes in Evolution and Neither Should You
How is this question related to actual federal policy?
I'm sure some science-minded libertarians and conservatives would have just preferred he gave a simple "yes" to avoid exactly this kind of story that completely ignores anything Walker may have actually said about trade. Now the story is this silly nonsense that has zero impact about any sort of pending or potential federal policy. Reuters attempts to tie it to both public opinion polls about support for the theory evolution (has anybody ever voted for a president on the basis of his opinion on the theory of evolution?) and recent controversies about science and vaccinations. At least there are genuine policies connected to vaccinations at play (which, nevertheless, have nothing to do with the president).
Link - ( New Window )
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
I thought your criteria, or at least the point of your initial post, was to determine if knowing a candidate's view on settled science was fair game?
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
Quote:
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
exactly - stupid anti-science views whether it's anti-vax, global warming deniers or anti-evolutionists are not monopolized by either political party
This agrument is not a battle between science and religion. This thred reflects another attempt to define what the human mind cannot possibly understand. I'm okay with not understanding who's right, because nobody is... It doesn't make me feel stupid, it just reminds me that there are MANY things much bigger than I can comprehend. My brain finds this facinating, my faith tells me that I will know some day.
Quote:
No. But you said none of the candidates would give a straight answer. They did give a straight answer.
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
As far as the political ramifications, if you are going to accuse the Republicans of strategically avoiding the question then you also have to accuse the Democrats and their operatives in the media of using the question strategically to cause issues with the Republican candidates.
Actually, the Catholic Church has not "sanctioned" it. The Church has no official position on it, allowing the individual to believe what they want as long as they accept that man was created by God; that is, man became man he was imbued with a soul which God breathed into him, as seen in the metaphor of Genesis.
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
Quote:
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
Just as I could not vote for a candidate who denies evolution and climate change, I could never vote for an anti vaxxer. The difference between the two is that republican science deniers have a huge influence in that party. I am not aware (but also admittedly have not searched all their statements on the issue) of the anti vaxxer position being supported by any serious national dem politician. If I'm wrong tell me who I'm missing so I can cross them off my list of rational people.
Quote:
In comment 12133196 Big Al said:
Quote:
No. But you said none of the candidates would give a straight answer. They did give a straight answer.
.
You got me.
I guess I should have said they won't give a straight answer if there is any way to avoid it. The "raise your hand if" question at the debate pretty much trapped them. I'm betting the fate of those candidates is a lesson to the current crop.
Not to Hucklebee, but he and other similar candidates have little chance anyway.
That's unfortunate to me because I really do like Huckabee. I thin khe made a really good talk show host and he;s clear. I think I would be more disappointed in him form a policy perspective than his views on evolution since I feel like he was a little too big gov't in practice when he was governor.
Quote:
In comment 12133204 Les in TO said:
Quote:
are not monopolized by any one particular political party - a lot of anti vaxxers are rich california democrats.....whereas global warming and evolution deniers are predemonantely republicans.
As I mentioned before, Hillary has made statements linking vaccines to autism and even now, one of her (and other Democratic candidates) major donors run an anti-vaxx foundation that continues to decry vaccines as a source of autism.
Just as I could not vote for a candidate who denies evolution and climate change, I could never vote for an anti vaxxer. The difference between the two is that republican science deniers have a huge influence in that party. I am not aware (but also admittedly have not searched all their statements on the issue) of the anti vaxxer position being supported by any serious national dem politician. If I'm wrong tell me who I'm missing so I can cross them off my list of rational people.
Well, to be fair to them, it's hard to tell when they make statements if they actually believe them or are just tailoring/pandering to their audience. Also, you have to decide for yourself about how much their backers' beliefs reflect their own. I also think you will be hard-pressed to find a candidate who has his views line up with yours 100% of the time, even on emotional issues.
Link - ( New Window )
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
―God Is Not Great
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.
Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be saved.
―God Is Not Great
Quote:
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
I agree with you.
Evolution and natural selection are the same thing. The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
Quote:
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
Quote:
moniker on BBI is ironic.
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
And, miraculously, countries that have grown up without significant (or any) Christian influence, such as China and India, have managed to write down these standards.
Christianity is neither a pre-requisite, nor necessary, for morals and justice, as well as societal stability.
These are tools that made it easier to see what our eyes were incapable of seeing. The microscope and telescope for the brain is the belief in something bigger than yourself. Rather than disprove the belief in the vastness of infinity or the complexity of small things, it validated that there is a whole lot we can't possibly understand about us and our knowledge.
I never expect to find a politician who agrees with me about everything and I guess if I never vote for a politician who lies to get elected I'll just have to stay home on election day ;)
Quote:
In comment 12133243 Post Time said:
Quote:
I am Catholic and I believe in evolution. What no scientist (and my two degrees are in science)has EVER plausibly been able to explain is how life originated.
I respect your opinion. My non belief in evolution is not from blindly following an ancient book. I've studied evolution quite a bit. I'm convinced that life as we know know it could not have occurred by random processes.
It take a leap of faith to believe life exists by random coincidences over a long period of time that continued to convey ever increasing information and complexity.
IMO, there is an outside force guiding what we consider life.
I also think many here have mixed up evolution with natural selection. The latter is a scientific fact.
I agree with you.
Evolution and natural selection are the same thing. The point I was trying to make was that nobody has plausibly been able to explain how life originated. You need God for that.
Well, evolution and natural selection are not exactly the same thing. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs and proceeds
Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. First, it conflates climate changed with human-induced climate change. Second, there's still some questions about data manipulation that are likely the result of normalization type things but which still need to be made clear to people. Third and most importantly, both deniers and proponents are unlikely to actually know much about the underlying science; their opinion of the science veracity is heavily influenced either by their ideology or their economic viewpoint. Remove that and you would get a fairer picture about what people know or believe.
The inclusion of stem cells in the list is flat out lazy. The discussion about embryonic or adult stem cells has never been about the science. It is purely a question of ethics.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
I apologize. I was doing the conflating there. HH equated evolution with climate change and stem cell research, so I lumped it in with my response to you.
Exactly right. The relative randomness of mutation does not mean there are no natural forces directing evolutionary direction.
I was imprecise in my language. All the National Academies of Science of all the modern nations on earth have stated repeatedly that they believe
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate" and
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions"
I did not mean to conflate. I meant to ask do any candidates think all the national academies are lying about human caused climate change. My bad.
It's true I am not a scientist. But I take an amateur interest and read as much as I am able to understand about many scientific subjects so I really do not believe my political beliefs influence my understanding of the se issues.
I don't think I mentioned stem cells.
Also, I still think that's a tricky question. The NAS, even in that statement, is more declarative about climate change than they are about human-induced climate change ("likely that..."). So, it wouldn't be a question of thinking that they are likely or not, but as to whether you believe that "likely is" is the same as "is". And the last part about actions I would dismiss out of hand myself. Again, it's not a question as to whether or not they are lying because they are not talking science at all. They are merely offering an opinion about policy which they are free to do but I am not sure that it is much different than anyone else's. In their opinion and recommendations, as it touches economic or political policy, I think that they are as influenced by personal ideology as anyone else.
Quote:
In comment 12133124 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
moniker on BBI is ironic.
Anyone who requires a book to have a moral compass, does not have a moral compass. They just have a book.
Without a set of standards being recorded and agreed to, you are left with each individual deciding what is good/bad morality. It makes for chaos.
And, miraculously, countries that have grown up without significant (or any) Christian influence, such as China and India, have managed to write down these standards.
Christianity is neither a pre-requisite, nor necessary, for morals and justice, as well as societal stability.
But those countries by and large have historically had *something*. I do agree with the thesis, even though I don't agree with the part that it need be Christianity.
Something that can't be explained right has to be because of God? really?
Quote:
if they REALLY ducked sniper fire.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Why are the questions I'm responding to reflexively liberal? And please take particular note of your use of the word "response". I rarely, if ever, start these types of threads. Yet some people do so frequently with the express purpose of stirring shit and making political points. I suppose I could ignore them, and probably should more often, but their frequency leads me in many cases to respond. And no, politics does not run my life to that extent. At home in the evening if there's a Rangers game on it gets picked over either O'Reilly or Maddow. Actually, it might be worth asking the OP if politics runs HIS life to that extent, as he is starting the threads where I respond.
Semi - The person who would be asked that question is Hillary Clinton. It's the flip side of the "gotcha" question that's the subject of this thread. Politifact rated it as "pants on fire"
Quote:
In comment 12132852 Spock said:
Quote:
Someone has to present THE OTHER SIDE. People like me who believe God inspired the writings of the book called the Holy Bible can plainly see man, as created in Genesis, did not evolve from primordial soup or ape. Thus, we choose to believe God's word rather than mans theory that seems to have no basis of scientific truth whatsoever.
as for entering this thread, you know I can't let the unbelievers have the only voice in the game, right? I know I won't convince them of the error of their ways, but they are not the reason as to why I share my beliefs. (Im sure their beliefs are as sealed as mine. )
There is no "other side" but for a fairy tale that has duped the weak- minded such as yourself.
Ok, you are entitled to label me as you perceive. Now, it's my turn.
So what are you?
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
So, why don't you believe?
I call that Foolishness. So, while you consider me weak minded, I consider you foolish.
How do you know the miracles, resurrection, etc. really happened? Aren't you just taking someone's word for it? How do you know they didn't just make it all up?
This agrument is not a battle between science and religion. This thred reflects another attempt to define what the human mind cannot possibly understand. I'm okay with not understanding who's right, because nobody is... It doesn't make me feel stupid, it just reminds me that there are MANY things much bigger than I can comprehend. My brain finds this facinating, my faith tells me that I will know some day.
I agree with most of this sentiment, although I'm not a believer.
Think of all of these things just studies of "the mechanism"- you can call it "god's mechanism" if you would like. The bible doesn't explain HOW god created everything (I mean beyond simple explanations like "dust" and whatnot). Evolution is the mechanism that was used.
I really don't see why religion and science are so incompatible in some people's eyes. Fuck, as a species one of the things we're so great at is rationalization! It's a shame when people don't use it.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was religion versus non-religion as opposed to being Christianity-specific.
Really there is no good scientific reason to doubt human caused global warming. And there is no good reason other than political allegiance to deny the usefulness of government action to help assess, prepare for, and minimize the effects.
Quote:
Of course those countries have had something.
That's the point. People are pointing to Christianity as prima facie evidence of the morals of an individual, when countless examples, across countries and time, have shown that these systems are independent of one religion.
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was religion versus non-religion as opposed to being Christianity-specific.
It's early. Could very well have come across that way with my typing.
That it is hard to know where to begin.
Random? Uh, no?
Studied evolution? Uh, no - evolution is at the intersection of multiple disciplines, thrilled to hear that you have a substantial knowledge of each of them.
Convinced? By what data?
All of this seems like a nice little pseudo-scientific bow to allow you to wrap up your beliefs that are based on "a fairy tale told me so."
Maybe that's what it means to feed your gambling habit, but random, in the social sciences, the hard sciences, and in math, means something quite significantly different.
'Yet' being the keyword. We have hundreds, thousands, millions, and even billions or years of evolution in Science left to explain a lot of those stuff.
Be patient.
But I am sure the explanation of God for everything Science can't explain is just a temporary placeholder until Science does explain it.
:o)
I think these are more important questions.
As I have noted here numerous times, the question has never been about how the initial spark of life occurred. Even if an outside being did that--call it God if you like--the question has always been whether that God then stepped back and let evolution with descent through natural selection occur as all of the available science suggests, or is an "intervener God" who guided the process.
And, if he/she/it didn't guide the process, then how would he/she/it know that an intelligent species would develop?
And if he/she/it didn't know that, when and how and why did he/she/it step back in to control the behaviors of humans?
And if he/she/it did step back in to control the behavior of humans, what evidence is there--other than unreliable eyewitness testimony--that he/she/it really needs us to go into little or big white boxes once a week to acknowledge what he/she/it already knows about itself?
An omniscient/omnipotent being really needs us to remind him/her/it of that? Why would that be? The logic associated with that says little about this being, and a great deal about the thinking of humans in the environment of knowledge from 1-500 A.D. or so, and the history of religious though.
And, as I have noted, you really haven't "studied evolution" through natural descent if you haven't gone through the logic on this site, which is complex, detailed, challenging, multidisciplinary and thorough.
Link - ( New Window )
Anyway...reciting a fairy tale does little to support your position. And for a book inspired by a deity, it sure is filled with a whole lot of stupid and, in some cases, soft core porn...not that I mind.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brothers wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. [Genesis 38:8-9]
Rrrr...
I think it was pretty classy of Onan to not bust a nut on his bro's lady. It's not always easy to remember to observe proper etiquette when one is hittin' it.
buford : 10:55 am : link : reply
is it a fair question to ask a candidate if they believe in free speech or would they want to regulate the internet
"Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand," he tweeted.
Link - ( New Window )
We made God.
Why did we make God?
We made God to serve him on this earth and be happy with him forever in heaven.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
But given that we don't know everything, how is it that any man made religion can claim to understand the works of God and put them down on paper? As a species we haven't figured out the complexities of dark matter, why humans need to sleep, the mating habits of great white sharks, and countless other mysteries...
But we're going to understand the creator of all of this well enough to put it in a book? Smells like a lot of bullshit.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
"Patel"? Fuck you. Fucking Shiva handed this guy a million dollars, told him "Sign the deal!" he wouldn't sign. And the god Vishnu too, into the bargain. Fuck you, John! You know your business, I know mine. Your business is being an asshole. I find out whose fucking cousin you are, I'm going to go to him and figure out a way to have your ass - fuck you!
I think it's political because economics gets intertwined. I think if you had a policy that a) imposed the same standards on everyone both in the US and everywhere else; b) was not re-distributive either among individuals or between countries then you could get traction here regardless of party.
By the way, I can't recall any Jew coming on here adding support to my beliefs and interpretations in the First testament. They all can't be unbelievers, are they? So, if there are any Jews out here who also believe Adam was the first contemporary man who did not evolve from primordial soup, speak up.
So you're not sure?
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
That depends. Recycling isn't expensive and yet helps the environment.
Using LED bulbs instead of incandescent actually saves me money. Same with a lot of energy efficient appliances and making sure your house is properly insulated.
And thanks to technology & engineering, more and more things are becoming cost effective. For example, natural gas is now cheaper and cleaner than oil and (I believe) becoming cost competitive with coal which is extremely "dirty".
"I don't know" is the more honest answer. And just because we don't know NOW, it doesn't mean we can't know or won't know at some point in the future.
Discovering and understanding how life originated is no different from understanding the cause of sand storms or volcanic eruptions or flooding. Before humans had the knowledge and understanding of such natural processes, "God" or "the gods" were the "explanation" or, rather, the equivalent of "I don't know."
Quote:
Lord Brahma, who is really a version of Lord Vishnu, really created the universe (this universe at least) - several times - and will create it again after Lord Shiva (also a version of Vishnu) destroys it again.
It's all written down in the Vedas, "documented better than any book of antiquity".
"Patel"? Fuck you. Fucking Shiva handed this guy a million dollars, told him "Sign the deal!" he wouldn't sign. And the god Vishnu too, into the bargain. Fuck you, John! You know your business, I know mine. Your business is being an asshole. I find out whose fucking cousin you are, I'm going to go to him and figure out a way to have your ass - fuck you!
Yes, yes, and yes.
I almost mentioned this film in the comedy thread.
Quote:
I have no idea who is right or wrong on this issue with 100% certainty. Therefor, I'd error on the side of caution and make sure we don't put harmful chemicals into the ground & atmosphere.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
That depends. Recycling isn't expensive and yet helps the environment.
Using LED bulbs instead of incandescent actually saves me money. Same with a lot of energy efficient appliances and making sure your house is properly insulated.
And thanks to technology & engineering, more and more things are becoming cost effective. For example, natural gas is now cheaper and cleaner than oil and (I believe) becoming cost competitive with coal which is extremely "dirty".
Actually recycling can be expensive, but worth it IMO.
As for natural gas, yes it's great, but once again the environmental groups are trying to get fracking banned because they say it's not safe.
It's expensive to cut down on pollution but certainly worth it. It's a noble cause to leave a minimum footprint during our lifetimes.
Then you should be anti GMO because it allows farmers to spray more and more pesticides on our food and it gets in the ground, water and air.
I think it varies, though I'd need to double check. I think it depends on whether they are fracking for oil (where NG happens to be a byproduct) or whether they are fracking for NG. I think in the former case, you may be correct since the well enclosures are leakier. Though some states (IIRC CO for one) are enacting tighter regulations to address some of the environmental concerns related to fracking without outright banning it.
Admirable sentiment I guess but there is a lot of global cooperation that would have to happen before any reasonable hope of applying the policy globally. And any such cooperation is usually vigorously opposed in congress. And I can't conceive of any federal - never mind global - policy change which would not be re-distributive.
Quote:
I think if you had a policy that a) imposed the same standards on everyone both in the US and everywhere else; b) was not re-distributive either among individuals or between countries then you could get traction here regardless of party.
Admirable sentiment I guess but there is a lot of global cooperation that would have to happen before any reasonable hope of applying the policy globally. And any such cooperation is usually vigorously opposed in congress. And I can't conceive of any federal - never mind global - policy change which would not be re-distributive.
One place to start would be to ensure any free trade agreements require all participants to meet a certain set of minimum environmental standards.
If a person is strong in their beliefs, whatever they may be, then it shouldn't be a struggle for them to answer questions about it and acknowledge their stance on it.
"Headhunter, you have started a shit-storm of Biblical proportions."
Hey, if you're a god, for damn sure you're gonna be hung like a god.
Dont look for it...you may not like what your find."
hey the primordial soup and the missing link omg but the man in the sky made everything don't u guyz kno?
What fucking morons.
Quote:
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.
These are tools that made it easier to see what our eyes were incapable of seeing. The microscope and telescope for the brain is the belief in something bigger than yourself. Rather than disprove the belief in the vastness of infinity or the complexity of small things, it validated that there is a whole lot we can't possibly understand about us and our knowledge.
There's a world of difference between "can't possibly understand" and do not yet know. You place false limits on what is demonstrably unlimited.
Quote:
In comment 12132541 njm said:
Quote:
if they REALLY ducked sniper fire.
Why is your response to these kind of questions always reflexively conservatively political? You're obviously not dim, and are very well versed in some subjects. Does politics really run your life to this extent?
Why are the questions I'm responding to reflexively liberal? And please take particular note of your use of the word "response". I rarely, if ever, start these types of threads. Yet some people do so frequently with the express purpose of stirring shit and making political points. I suppose I could ignore them, and probably should more often, but their frequency leads me in many cases to respond. And no, politics does not run my life to that extent. At home in the evening if there's a Rangers game on it gets picked over either O'Reilly or Maddow. Actually, it might be worth asking the OP if politics runs HIS life to that extent, as he is starting the threads where I respond.
Semi - The person who would be asked that question is Hillary Clinton. It's the flip side of the "gotcha" question that's the subject of this thread. Politifact rated it as "pants on fire"
That's evasive. I never did like herring.
While not an official holiday, Darwin Day has been adopted by scientific and humanist groups to promote everything from scientific literacy to secularism. This year, more than 100 events have been planned worldwide, many of them anchored by scientific talks or symposia. Others, such as a production of Charles Darwin, Vampire Slayer in California, are a little less serious.
Here are five facts about the publics views on evolution as well as other aspects of the debate in the U.S. and elsewhere:
Link - ( New Window )
If you use the word "ilk" in a serious way, it's a mortal lock you're saying something douchey.
He's not wrong, and you did ask.
Ilk has always been a conversational hand grenade!
The root cause was drinking much milk.
He preferred talking evolution
To discussing prostitution
Not a jerk, if you can stand that ilk,
Quote:
Am I the only one that picked up on this?
If you use the word "ilk" in a serious way, it's a mortal lock you're saying something douchey.
probably true. hey at least i'm not ending my emails with "cheers".
still one of my favorite threads on BBI: "ending an email with 'cheers'... acceptable if foreign, or completely douchey?"
It "should" be fair and I'd love to see them make the Republican candidate squirm. But I can see why it shouldn't be asked even if it's a common sense question.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
hey the primordial soup and the missing link omg but the man in the sky made everything don't u guyz kno?
What fucking morons.
Thank you sonic. Coming from YOU these words mean a lot to me. (Fool)
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Nice to know america has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
Quote:
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
And I thought people who need to believe in god and bible do so only to avoid eternal damnation in an afterlife. Go figure.
god should have just saved himself a lot of time and just created internet porn right on the spot.
Quote:
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Nice to know america has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
Spock, I don't know what to say to you. If you think a magical omnipotent being is more likely than a "primordial soup" containing all the basic chemical componants of life including amino acids to generate some primitive form of life, then there's not much sense continuing. I'm sure your faith provides a lot for you.
Spock, do you think that the vast proportion of scientists in disciplines that directly overlap with evolutionary theory, but who agree with that theory, have more of a tendency to fear being damned than your typical fundamentalist Christian?
If so, why would that be so? More fear? More bad behavior?
I am having difficulty making the math work.
Also, have you gotten around to looking at the Talk Origins site I keep linking, as yet? If not, why would THAT be so? Are you fearful as to what you might learn?
That reminds me of the phoney uproar at Dan Quayle for the english spelling of "potatoe". Yeah, we can't have someone that stupid a heartbeat away from the presidency... please.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Wow. I did NOT expect those numbers at all.
Quote:
of what it might mean for the rest of their beliefs. As such, it seems like an very important question regarding how a presidential contender makes decisions.
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
LOL that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Or, alternatively, people believe it because it is a logical, rationale, scientific theorem, supported by the scores and scores of evidence.
Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old as well?
Maybe Bob, but In my opinion, I believe things will only get worse before they get better. I believe as we get closer to the return of CHRIST, don't forget, the Antichrist has to come on the scene first. The bible talks about he and the false prophet having supernatural powers that would even win over the elect if that were possible. So, I'm thinking many more will be jumping off the God bandwagon and onto the evil ones wagon.
But, I will add this, the people of faith may be smaller in numbers, but I believe their faith will grow knowing the world is decaying fast and Jesus is near his return.
Quote:
People like Spock and Chef are scary. Thank god those of his ilk are become more and more of a minority of the population as we move forward in time.
hey the primordial soup and the missing link omg but the man in the sky made everything don't u guyz kno?
What fucking morons.
Thank you sonic. Coming from YOU these words mean a lot to me. (Fool)
lol. Good, I'm glad. I definitely don't want to be accepted nor feel the need to be vindicated by someone who can't understand how cellular organisms can evolve over billions of years into complex organisms, but can somehow rationalize that a mankind began when an invisible being in the sky put two people in a garden.
That reminds me of the phoney uproar at Dan Quayle for the english spelling of "potatoe". Yeah, we can't have someone that stupid a heartbeat away from the presidency... please.
You can't see how someone eschewing scientific theory in favor of accepting a religious viewpoint, one that's based solely on faith, would prevent an individual from voting for someone as the leader of a secular nation?
It is now very clear and simple to me. God's word vs. Man's faulty research and conclusions. Besides, many scientists are creationists as well so I guess it is your experts vs. My experts, but I like my expert the best- God almighty.
Again, I'm not interested in converting you. You feel secure in your evolutionary beliefs that leave out God, fine by me. We both can't be right. There either is or isn't a God, and which one? I'm betting my life on the God of the holy bible, but you know, even if I'm wrong, what do I lose? Can you say the same?
Look up Rob.......it's not to late to repent and believe.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Any politician who believes in evolution but refuses to answer so because he doesn't want to upset a portion of his base is a pandering asshole who, coincidentally, lacks the moral compass that was discussed earlier, and deserves all of the public shaming he gets for trying to bring this country backwards for his own political gain.
But if you want a glimpse into how the "soup" became cells which became animals, it's right here for you:
response to "has an evolution simulator ever been built?" on reddit, from someone who just can't fathom how evolution ever reached the point of multi celled organisms. - ( New Window )
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Thanks for posting this Osi.
The 42% are probably like me. We all read the bible and it says how man was created, and it wasn't through evolution. In fact, woman followed quickly thereafter. If we did not believe this was the word of God but was just a fairy tale, then why even believe anything written in the book?
It's not like the bible is a cafeteria and you get to choose what you want to believe. You either believe all or none is how I see it. Now, I agree, sometimes people can misinterpret words, but when the words are as clear as they are in Genesis 3, there really is no room for misinterpretation.
Lastly, I do think the 42% will shrink and the 19% will grow in the years to come.
Any politician who believes in evolution but refuses to answer so because he doesn't want to upset a portion of his base is a pandering asshole who, coincidentally, lacks the moral compass that was discussed earlier, and deserves all of the public shaming he gets for trying to bring this country backwards for his own political gain.
It is very logical to me to believe in an all knowing, all loving, all present God than not to. Does this help?
Spock : 6:22 pm : link : reply
I have no reason to not believe the earth being 4.5 billions old. I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs on this one.
Cue the circus music please.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
But overall I do think it's helped shape our moral compass in a positive way. I liken it to a parent. Hell and Heaven are essentially "rewards" and "punishments" that a parent hands out to a child. If you misbehave, "go to your room" or "no candy". If you behave, "here's a cookie, son". When human civilization was first getting underway, I think having a parent helped them grow.
But when kids grow up, they don't need their parents to continue holding rewards and punishments over their heads. They've learned by that point what the consequences of their actions are and why doing the right thing is the best choice.
At a certain point in human civilization, we're not going to need our parents imo. We'll still keep in mind the lessons they taught us but we won't need to rely on "no cookies" as a reason to do the right thing.
I possibly have good news for you Rob. Many Christian teachers preach what is called a rapture. This is where all the believers of CHRIST are taken out of the world just before the return of Christ to planet earth. If they are right, you may have your wish- a world with no believers. Do a short time at least.
Quote:
believes Evolution is false and needs to be taught they're wrong. A significant portion of this country still thinks pure Creation is why man is on earth.
GALLUP POLL
The question is just far more controversial to answer for the Rep. candidate than it is the Dem. candidate. And that's really why I think it's a little unfair.
Thanks for posting this Osi.
The 42% are probably like me. We all read the bible and it says how man was created, and it wasn't through evolution. In fact, woman followed quickly thereafter. If we did not believe this was the word of God but was just a fairy tale, then why even believe anything written in the book?
It's not like the bible is a cafeteria and you get to choose what you want to believe. You either believe all or none is how I see it. Now, I agree, sometimes people can misinterpret words, but when the words are as clear as they are in Genesis 3, there really is no room for misinterpretation.
Lastly, I do think the 42% will shrink and the 19% will grow in the years to come.
But America isn't the only country in the world. In India, hundreds of millions of people believe that Lord Vishnu creates and destroys the universe over and over again. It's written in the Vedas. They have as much proof as you. Why are they wrong?
Quote:
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Quote:
Unpleasant way - like chronic dysentery?
I possibly have good news for you Rob. Many Christian teachers preach what is called a rapture. This is where all the believers of CHRIST are taken out of the world just before the return of Christ to planet earth. If they are right, you may have your wish- a world with no believers. Do a short time at least.
Oh no, I may be "left behind". The horror.
If Kirk Cameron and his shitty movies are what's in store in paradise, fuck god.
Nice to know America has more common sense than some here on BBI. (Believing in primordial soup to man In my opinion takes more faith than a belief in God.)
Mr. Spock: I happen to agree. However, an alternate is often proposed that life on Earth began as either a planned or accidental seeding. Even this seems more plausible than randomness. But it doesn't solve the real question of where life began originally.
I think many on this website have never looked into things such as irreducible complexity. I respect the opinions of those that look hard at both of the popular origins of life theories, ie: Evolution vs. ID .
I have no respect for those who blindly blast one side or the other w/o seriously considering the strong & weak points for both.
IMO, the subject is important enough that people should spend some time carefully considering the evidence for origins of life and not just parrot the popular histoire du jour.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
Don't blame God for this, blame man. Read Genesis before the fall to know God's original purpose.
Quote:
yeah, Tell that to the 400 million children around the world living in extreme poverty-- or the young girls getting sold as childbrides, or the ones who are kidnapped, genitally mutilated, and slaughtered by Boko Haram in Africa-- they agree. God's got nothing but love for them.
Don't blame God for this, blame man. Read Genesis before the fall to know God's original purpose.
The Hindus as an example dispute your version. Why are they wrong?
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
That's a crazy thing to say Spock. History shows that there have been thousands of horrible leaders in this world who believe in God.
That response and the response to Paul's comment makes me think you're just excusing religion for all the negative things it causes.
That's a special kind of special to make that claim.
Instead, I'll just repost Shep's comment, as it shows sums up Spock's belief system, perfectly. Again... "Spock." What a name.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
Or a long-running list of Popes? Ever hear of the Children's Crusade? How about the oft-celebrated sacrament of buggery?
Where did god come from?
Good times!
Good times!
God called Saul? Is that why Saul split for Omaha?
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof
Faith - ( New Window )
Quote:
Can you tell us why the Hindus are wrong? Their version is very different.
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof Faith - ( New Window )
Then how does he know it's true without proof?
Quote:
In comment 12134281 RB^2 said:
Quote:
Can you tell us why the Hindus are wrong? Their version is very different.
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof Faith - ( New Window )
Then how does he know it's true without proof?
Quote:
In comment 12134296 Chef said:
Quote:
In comment 12134281 RB^2 said:
Quote:
Can you tell us why the Hindus are wrong? Their version is very different.
probably because of his faith, which is a belief not based on proof Faith - ( New Window )
Then how does he know it's true without proof?
I don't want to speak for spock but , again it is faith, which I said before is a belief that cannot be proved.. He believes it is truth.. that is why the term "faith" was created
Then why does he believe it if he doesn't know for sure?
Quote:
Sonic
Spock : 6:22 pm : link : reply
I have no reason to not believe the earth being 4.5 billions old. I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs on this one.
Quote:
It's not like the bible is a cafeteria and you get to choose what you want to believe. You either believe all or none is how I see it.
Cue the circus music please.
Terrible job here Spock...
Quote:
In comment 12134236 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Funny, I thought people who NEED evolution believe this out of fear of a just God judging their lives for their sins.
If God is really that petty I take back anything nice I've ever said about him. But I don't think he is. Only humans can be that small-minded.
Quote:
In comment 12134250 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12134236 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
Yes but Spock (who should be noted has gone by several handles over the years since his initial departure - was it a banning the first time Rocky?) has had a history of gleefully celebrating the imminent damnation of Jewish BBIers. In his arrogance he seems to think people have forgotten his past as one of the worst posters in BBI history - a glory which he seems intent on recapturing.
I guess I must give him credit for abandoning the whole 6000 year old earth thing he clung to for so long, going so far as to explain to us dumb BBIers that not only were dinosaurs not only younger than 6000 years old, they were currently roaming free on the Congo. It was a thread for the BBI history books.
Quote:
In comment 12134256 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
In comment 12134250 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12134236 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
By being a religious fanatic whose world view is more closely aligned with ISIS than with decent society. You lose by depriving children of an education based on some of the greatest achievements of mankind, preferring instead a fairy tale. You lose by depriving others (Jews and homosexuals, in your case) of the ability to lead lives free of bigotry and hatred.
In short, you lose by spending your life acting like a piece of shit because some dusty book sold you a bill of goods that your feeble mind couldn't shake off with its limited capacity.
Rob, it sounds like you want everyone to believe as you do. Wow, talk about arrogant and intolerant. As for depriving the Jews, where did that come from? my savior was born JEWISH and everyone who wrote the book I love and cherish was JEWISH. (All my doctors are JEWISH too.) lastly, the Jews are important to God and thus to me, and he will deliver on his many promises he made to abraham in the book of Genesis.
Longest ever version of "but some of my best friends are Jewish".
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
Yes but Spock (who should be noted has gone by several handles over the years since his initial departure - was it a banning the first time Rocky?) has had a history of gleefully celebrating the imminent damnation of Jewish BBIers. In his arrogance he seems to think people have forgotten his past as one of the worst posters in BBI history - a glory which he seems intent on recapturing.
I guess I must give him credit for abandoning the whole 6000 year old earth thing he clung to for so long, going so far as to explain to us dumb BBIers that not only were dinosaurs not only younger than 6000 years old, they were currently roaming free on the Congo. It was a thread for the BBI history books.
Sound familiar?
Oh, and it was complete with links to "scientists" who agreed with him....
Yes, this is a thing - ( New Window )
Spock : 1/12/2015 6:26 am : link
PS. This is a football site so in respect to Eric's wishes I will not respond to anyone's religious comments. Like I said, I really don't care what you believe anyways.
hey the primordial soup and the missing link omg but the man in the sky made everything don't u guyz kno?
What fucking morons.
Is Randy involved in this somehow?
Quote:
In comment 12132660 Spock said:
Quote:
I don't really consider this issue when determining who I believe will be the better president, but it does tell me something about their knowledge of the Bible and their faith in God.
Vital skill set for the presidency there...
Could be if you believe a president should have a basic sense of morality.
That is true. After all, one of the most biblically knowledgeable people I've ever met (my sister's ex) is also among the most immoral on basic levels.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
I think you just like head.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
God's word is certain.
And men are flawed.
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
God's word is certain.
And men are flawed.
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
Yet millenniums later Moses only media to write on was stone.
To me the Bible...A great accomplishment and in places sublime ( the J writer who gave us the Book of Job) does not meet the claim of every word literally because of how language then alphabet then words then media then hand replication of an agreed upon code...or language. Yet the sacred truth somehow survived all that human messiness unchanged as originally told by God himself?
To me the science that challenges fundamentalist beliefs about the Bible is not evolution....it's linguistics and cognitive science knowledge of how spoken language and then written language is slowly trial and error migrating (evolving).
Most Christians belive that the Jewish are Gods people and must be protected.. after all the Torah is the Christian Bible Act 1...
Pretty sure "Act 1" was from the Tenauch as opposed Torah.
God's word is certain.
And men are flawed.
Men ...several men ...wrote and translated what was previously oral history. We know this because language took millenniums to develop. And then written letters....then written langauge...then means to write ...then means to write on media which lasts.
Yet Creation is God's word as he told it. And it was repeated exactly right for thousands of years until it could be written.
Does accurate retelling of a complex story for centuries strike you as a trait of any men?
Bill,
I know you are a very intelligent man and I'm sure you have thought and considered your questions to me and have made up your mind, but I will briefly attempt to communicate one thought to you- nothing is impossible for God. His ways are higher than our ways. If God wants to get a message to mankind to be put down in word for all to ponder, that is nothing for him. Small potatoes in my opinion. God working through man seems to be the way he likes to do things.
In addition, God's word says his word is God breathed, so maybe this means something to you, maybe not. It means enough for me, if not you, so be it. I leave you with a verse from 2 Peter 1:
19We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
That's a crazy thing to say Spock. History shows that there have been thousands of horrible leaders in this world who believe in God.
That response and the response to Paul's comment makes me think you're just excusing religion for all the negative things it causes.
I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I tend to believe true believers in CHRIST will not be promoting the killing of people for immoral or illogical reasons. And don't tell me about some pope so and so because you will never convince me all the popes were followers of Christ. Maybe in name, but not by actions. Only God knows the heart so I leave that to Him to decide.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
To Him be all praise, honor, and glory.
Rest easy fellows, tomorrow is another day.
And of course, it makes sense that he gave up on the links I provided. No way he could comprehend what I linked.
If nothing else, though, his sticktoitiveness is awe-inspiring.
For me, I have much more difficulty with the Bible as literal word of God than as a Creation counter to evolution.
Near as I can tell our only chance to reconcile how spoken language and then written language and then media to carry a whole cultures agreed upon code of communication ( the syntax and verb creation alone takes centuries upon centuries of imprecision much less the accumulated agreed upon words for the taxonomy) all occurred with a guaranteed word of God story from the beginning is about 5000 years of divine intervention with all involved in the oral formation and then written formation of the particular story exclusive of men to the north east west and south on every continent until it was written down in a language form, media and meaning agreed upon by writer and readers.
ok lets say that divine intervention miracles occur for these men down many generations but not all men all over the Globe...just this culture.
Then why is that story not in the Bible?
If its the word of God why not tell the creation story and the Migration/Translation/language story? Where and how did the first men get fully formed language? and if they did how come there is no mention of it?
How come all cultures and almost all tribes ever found have a Creation story? all given to them by God(s) yet this one true one has no story about why and how the story sprung true in perfect verbal language and was perfectly repeated word for word until writing came along?
Written by authors inspired by their conversations about metaphysical concerns? Or miracle of perfect recording handed down five thousand years until it was in writing.
Then can you tell me how if Mose's wrote on stone tablets midway through the Old Testament...that must have been the media writing was recorded on....so they carried around a quarry worth of stone tablets?
Now that's not an odd question...Mayan and Zapotec writing is via pictograph images used as letter of an alphabet...but they had such large quarries to tell the story that they had elaborate villages and temple sites devoted to their alphabets
We do know that linquisitic deconstruction shows there were several different centuries apart writers using changing language across the different books of the Bible.
first and most critical book in Western Civilization...we agree.
Accurate recording of whatever God "said"?...for me harder to believe than either side of an evolution debate?
Quote:
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Understood, I still do not know why I am being singled out here.. there is a bridge in evolution that has yet to be indentified.. Why is it nuts to understand and see that
Sorry. I'm not trying to attack you. Although I don't agree with you in regards to evolution (to me it appears that you're being willfully ignorant) you've shown (IMO) that disagreements about beliefs isn't something you take personally or as an insult. I mentioned you simply because you answered the question.
I'm enjoying this thread and am not trying to insult you.
Spock on the other hand- well, it's a bit of a 'Poe' with him- I can't tell if he's actually THAT much of a liar and so deluded as to think he's being sincere, or if he's just having fun poking the hornet's nest.
Do you know how many words are lost in an Old Aramaic to English translation?
Did you know there is an island off Maryland/Virginia where the people are survivors of ship wrecks of the 17th century. They speak English of the 1700's to this day because they are so isolated (Smith Island) Linquists go there to study the differences in English as a language over 300 years.
So how is it that the Bible was set in stone as dictated to the first humans before any language? or stone. or carving. or verbs. or tense (which has to be invented and mutually agreed upon). or common nouns. or alphabet.
Men are foolish and flawed. How could they be trusted to accurately record and then preserve the word of God.
I don't have to believe or not believe in evolution to postulate that having faith that the word of God is 100% from the Bible...is believing in perfect performance from one heck of a lot of dopey humans. The same humans who cant get through a game thread because the language is so filled with miscommunication
Bill2 : 11:10 pm : link : reply
much less recording down millennia is mind boggling enough
Do you know how many words are lost in an Old Aramaic to English translation?
The inspiration given by God resides with the original manuscripts. Any claim that any particular copies and/or translations of them goes beyond what the Scriptures claim about themselves.
If you are genuinely interested in better understanding do some study of plenary verbal inspiration
This thread reminds me of a quote I read from a man named G. W. Bromiley. I don't know anything much about the man but I took note of the quote.
If the Bible stands before us as an authoritative Word of God, a Word which itself claims authority, then it is as such that we must reckon with it, receiving that Word and the authority of that Word, or resisting it.
Basically we all do one or two things, receive it or resist it and debating it is often mostly pointless.
I'll leave you with one more thought. If man is to know God or anything other than human speculation about God, that knowledge must come from God.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
If you don't believe all Popes were followers of God, then you are saying that Christianity can be GREATLY corrupted and perverted by men.
In comment 12134571
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
My comment about Bill wasn't about trusting his word above all else. It was about his point that the Bible was written by men.
BILL2'S WORD
_____________
ALL ELSE
BILL2'S WORD
_____________
ALL ELSE
I was told there would be no math?
Sorry to add to the confusion generated by Spock.
Btw, Bill2, you are way more kind and generous with people who refuse to respond to logic and evidence than I could ever be.
Actually, I think the question is whether "Bill2's word" divided by "all else" is < 1 or > 1.
I'm agnostic. In my heart, I know that nobody has these answers into why we are here, humanity has dealt with that question since our inception as a thinking race. And people all along the course of history have been wresting with those questions and coming up with this or that answer.
None of those answers mean anything. We barely understand this universe, yet alone where it came from. Science will continue to unlock that, and rational people will listen to what the dedicated men and women of science tell us within reason.
Theist, Atheist, Philosopher........... Nobody really knows...
Certainly nobody on BBI has unlocked one of the core questions humanity has dealt with since the time we evolved the ability to think in the abstract.
Evolution is, by the way, pretty conclusive science.
Epistemology is not a hard science. It is logic. Of course logic and the limits of human language render the limits loops and proofs all at once that we are not up to the task we set for ourselves.
Over the centuries faith in a thought system tied to a moral code obviously has personal comfort for some but also has empirical evidence towards improving mankind.
Excavations of human remains all over the world indicates that before about 2000 years ago over 50% of all lives had or died of major violent bone breaking ( as in a violation during life) incidents....many many of them seeming of human infliction.
From 2000 to 1000 that number was about 20% global average.
In the last century with all its horrors that number was 2%.
There were no other major variables other than less hunting and more organized religion and education into more literate nations rather than tribes.
So we do live in a better world. Pangloss was right. ( of course now we have mental illness....or at least the arrival of medicine now inspires the identification of a need (attempt at sarcasm).
So faith is a good thing. And we have no way to dislodge it with logic.
Logic is a good thing if once reached we can hold on to its chill.
But faith has no way to subordinate logic to buttress the loneliness of being human. If we believe we face those long nights with only belief that we flawed beings hold to. If we don't we face them with defiance...or dip into faith for the moment. We all be Lear. And whatever gets us through the night.
I tend to find going beyond faith to assert science is flawed ( which it often is as it is never done) weakens the claimants insistence their faith is strong.
I dunno. We are humans. All we hold is fragile.
However if they go WR in round one or sign Cobb or take a OT in round one they will be much improved.
From there they could evolve in several directi ons. Or get worse until it feels like end times. Which would mean he is coming. So I believe we will create, evolve and pray and it all will be written on the war room board. My faith in this is unshakeable and I don't care how many links Man George provides trying to show the Eagles and Cowboys have plans as well. I know that my faith is the one true faith. It is written.
No offense but any of asserting some things happened in logical contravention to how language develops and is translated is something God did not speak of in the Book. So the divinity thing is something some people insisted on later. In fact that would have come after the Book of Job if the Bible is to be taken literally. Job made a Deal to worship one God if that God behaved justly from then on. That was a couple of generations down the road....so we made a deal to assert this Bible was the one? I mean that's literally from the Bible
Quote:
I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I tend to believe true believers in CHRIST will not be promoting the killing of people for immoral or illogical reasons. And don't tell me about some pope so and so because you will never convince me all the popes were followers of Christ. Maybe in name, but not by actions. Only God knows the heart so I leave that to Him to decide.
Just curious, thousands of horrible Christian leaders- like who?
If you don't believe all Popes were followers of God, then you are saying that Christianity can be GREATLY corrupted and perverted by men.
In comment 12134571
Quote:
Bill's comment is usually the KO blow in these discussions. I'd love to see a believer really take on that question besides resorting to "because I have faith". It's tough to do.
fwiw, I believe in God or a higher power. And I absolutely respect religion for it's cultural impact. But religion as the word of God is something I've always had trouble convincing myself of since it was written by men.
It appears you trust Bill as much as I trust the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All power to you.
My comment about Bill wasn't about trusting his word above all else. It was about his point that the Bible was written by men.
There has only been one man to walk on water (sinless) that I believe. Do I put my trust in man- heck no. Even a pope. Read history and you will see my point being made. Many of those popes were definitely out of the will of God.
Acts 4: 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Acts 4: 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Right there is where it all falls apart for me. If I were a religious guy, this guy is not someone I would even want to follow.
Quote:
is not based on fact but on faith, they are also admitting that their beliefs are a matter of circumstance.
Had Spock or Chef been born in say, India- they would be Hindu, not Xtian. After all, it isn't logic of evidence, just plain old faith. What he have faith in, is solely based on what we were taught to have faith in if you throw logic and evidence out the window.
Understood, I still do not know why I am being singled out here.. there is a bridge in evolution that has yet to be indentified.. Why is it nuts to understand and see that
The 'bridge' was 65 million years ago with the common ancestor.
having leadership that denies science is not a good thing.
I laughed really hard at this.
Thank you Wup. One of the most frustrating arguments to encounter is the "missing link" fallacy. This argument against evolution merely serves to confirm a total ignorance of the process of evolution.
I agree with you there, and I don't put my faith in the Pope or any man made traditions. As you have discovered "religion" is not the answer.
But as I said in my first post, people either receive and accept Gods Word or the resist and regret it. Arguing or debated about it really is of little value and usually ends up mostly pointless. People are just talking past each other. Now that doesn't mean, and I am not saying two people can't have a discussion about it, but in these types of threads and in this type of format I have found that never really happens. I'll sometimes add something's just to try and clarify some things I feel warranted but other than that not too much. Nobody comes hear wanting someone else's beliefs thrust on them and although he allows us the occasional latitude to do so has asked us not to discuss religion here so I never feel too comfortable going into too much depth when it does occur.
He must be sticking with the adults in the adult threads who talk about adult things. Like Kanye.
But as I said in my first post, people either receive and accept Gods Word or the resist and reject it.
I apologize.
Inorite?!
Alas, work keeps me from that which I love.
Same here
Mike: I new a guy in your position several years ago. He wanted God to "do something", show him any sort of sign. This guy wouldn't tell me what happened to him but I was told by his close friend he got his sign in short order. He just blew it off anyway.
If you are honestly seeking Him and your general knowledge is keeping you back, don't you agree that it is God's responsibility to make himself known to you if He does exist? If you agree, keep your eyes and ears open and when something happens, you will know...something will soon happen.
It's useful to keep epistemology (what do we really know), Faith, organized Religion that is structured by men and Inspiration (provided by books like the Bible or a sermon or confessions) separate and not conflated.
"Life is a flat circle...."
It's useful to keep epistemology (what do we really know), Faith, organized Religion that is structured by men and Inspiration (provided by books like the Bible or a sermon or confessions) separate and not conflated.
Ahh but see that is where we do differ. To me my faith is something I know to be true. Now I totally appreciate where you are coming from because obviously if someone has rejected God and has no faith in Him or the bible of course my view makes no sense and your views would be the only logical conclusion. But for those that have a genuine faith it really is as real and true to them as any other part of their life. But it is not something anyone can show you like 2+2=4 and deliver it to you as proof. You see God doesn't require anything more than simple faith. However He will not settle for anything less.
I fully agree that your faith is real and true to you. Completely agree.
That does not mean it is real and true.
There are many ways we can show this to be an accurate distinction. For example was life real and true to Saul of Tarsus before he was struck?
Is real and true to an insane person actually real and true?
Or we could discuss the point behind the Allegory of the Cave in Pluto's The Republic
Namely, the utter lack of curiosity by a large proportion of true believers to inquire into how scientific thought actually works, and why it is that tens of thousands of the greatest scientific minds in the world, on a variety of relevant disciplines, find the evidence for evolution utterly compelling. The magnitude of that strength of evidence, of course, is growing rapidly as genetic evidence is added to the discipline.
The other issue that drives me kind of batshit is the extent to which so-called leaders in the areas of creation science and intelligent design are willing to flat-out lie in order to hide gaps in their arguments. They are like Army recruiters: don't mention the bad stuff, because it might cause doubts.
Thus, we end up with beautifully rendered dioramas of men cavorting with dinosaurs, that the designers of these displays know full well didn't happen. And we get made-up theories that these people know wouldn't work that explain how the fossils get buried miles below the surface, and how the Grand Canyon developed over a short period of time. It's sad that so-called men of faith need to resort to these kinds of scams.
For all practical purposes, our own realities are all that really matter when it comes down to it. All of our choices (logical or emotional) and reactions to events (logical or emotional) will be based on our own perception of the world around us (our private realities that we rather unsuccessfully attempt to share with our neighbors).
Of course if you want to 'be all that you can be', don't join the Army- work on being open to changes in your own personal reality. Allow for the possibility (more than just lip service, but actual active challenging of your reality) that your own personal reality is wrong.
IMO.
The morality in some parts of the Bible is the beauty. Living a well considered and moral life is very very hard. Some few guideposts and witnesses and moral teachers ( like Christ and like Paul) exist.
Why distract oneself from the pursuit of Christ like living by obsessing over man invented "theology"???
Did the writers of their always evolving cultural/ intellectual history ever intend the 21st century to be bound or were they really trying to stamp out endless heresy so their rent was the officially sanctioned channel. The exception was not Jesus who had no challenge to the state or the official religion....but Paul who was a revolutionary and wanted to develop a system that changed what people believed and how they lived. There are historians who promote the idea that Paul was a more proactive and deliberate influence on the direction of Western Civilization.
You are certainly within your right to believe that God is the originator, but as a scientist, you should know better than to say you "need" God for that. There is as much evidence that God created life as there is for any other theory. In other words - none.
Otherwise, what would stop another person for saying "my God tells me the exact opposite and I believe that to be true because I know it's true." It is antithetical to the founding purpose of this nation and what it stands for to say that one holds true over the other.
I don't think HH was "equating" any such thing. He simply listed his needed qualifiers for a POTUS candidate. Don't you have minimum standards for a candidate to support?
And Hillary never "intimated" a link between vaccines and autism; she said she supported more study. And that was 7 years ago (although, after the Lancer retraction).
But, I will add this, the people of faith may be smaller in numbers, but I believe their faith will grow knowing the world is decaying fast and Jesus is near his return.
I doubt this has a chance in hell of happening, but it would make for a damn good superpower movie!
The morality in some parts of the Bible is the beauty. Living a well considered and moral life is very very hard. Some few guideposts and witnesses and moral teachers ( like Christ and like Paul) exist.
Why distract oneself from the pursuit of Christ like living by obsessing over man invented "theology"???
Did the writers of their always evolving cultural/ intellectual history ever intend the 21st century to be bound or were they really trying to stamp out endless heresy so their rent was the officially sanctioned channel. The exception was not Jesus who had no challenge to the state or the official religion....but Paul who was a revolutionary and wanted to develop a system that changed what people believed and how they lived. There are historians who promote the idea that Paul was a more proactive and deliberate influence on the direction of Western Civilization.
But you've been told many times before
Messiah's pointed to the door,
no one had the guts to leave the temple
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
Yes but absent that interpretation the prospect of God or the concept thereof playing any sort of an organizing or social function within a community, or that it would give structure or meaning to the average person's life, is diminished. Catholicism, whatever its flaws (and I am not a Catholic so I am happy to point them out), and Judaism made, and make, religion a social and community activity to the extent that Protestantism has long struggle to do.
How's this for a religion? No ONE religion is correct--they all point to the same thing.
So, can we expect a remake of Oh, God! with a somewhat different bent? (Of course, it's probably been done to death already and I've just been missing out.)
Just think of the sacraments, though!
We have a beginning and an end- you can argue about an eternal soul however you want- what's inadguable is that our meat has an expiration date.
Everything we observe (at least on the surface) has a beginning and an end. Hell, we love beginnings and ends so much that we artificially create arbitrary beginnings and ends to cycles.
I'd love to read Moondawg's input on this thread, BTW. His contributions on thought and philosophy are fantastic.
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. It is comprised of billions of stars. Other galaxies have trillions. We are just a part of a collection of millions of galaxies known as a supercluster called Laniakea.
Laniakea is over 500 million light years across. There are probably about 10 million superclusters.
Contemplate that for a few minutes.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Quite the godless person.
Hard to tell the anti-Semites apart sometimes.
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. It is comprised of billions of stars. Other galaxies have trillions. We are just a part of a collection of millions of galaxies known as a supercluster called Laniakea.
Laniakea is over 500 million light years across. There are probably about 10 million superclusters.
Contemplate that for a few minutes.
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
If I offended you I apologize. I do think you're putting words in my mouth and reading more into what I said than I did. Re-read the discussion and about what specifically I was discussing with Bill and I think you will see I was talking specifically about someone who openly states that he/she doesn't believe in God and believes the bible is just man made ideas full of inaccuracies. The discussion wasn't about nor was talking about the differences between my faith and yours, (or any others for that matter) nor was I questioning anyone's faith in God. If someone says they believe in God, I don't question that. I was responding to the people that were discussing how they don't and why.
and should the bastids be held liable for any pain and suffering they caused American workers whos jobs they stole.
F-them!! Do it HH.
Yep. Get those rich bastid's families down in Mexico to fork over cash to get Juan out.
I would start simply with a short honest prayer to God and tell Him how you feel. Tell him you don't really believe in Him, but you are at least open to receive His wisdom. ASK, SEEK, AND KNOCK and he will answer.
Then, I would start by examining the life, death, and alleged resurrection of His Son, Jesus.
I will keep my thoughts simple and leave it at these two.
Let me know if I can further be of assistance. Thanks for sharing from your heart.
Either you believe in Christianity or you don't believe in God at all? What an appallingly arrogant and toxic thing to believe or to hold over others' heads.
It is colossally insulting...and as per MY religion's theology, ultimately violative of the 2nd Commandment against making a graven image of God...it looks to me like idolatry.
To define God is to limit God. To limit God violates the very nature of God, in that God is beyond infinite.
A God with only one path to that God? How very non-infinite, tiny, effete and puny a god that must be.
Schnitzie, I put you right next to Bill2 as being one of the real classy people here, so I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt on my response to this post you wrote.
I believe you have stated you are JEWISH, so I will assume this to be the case. As I read the Tanakh, I don't see multiple ways to find God. It seems pretty exclusive to me- his way or no way. In fact, he rather disapproves of competition. Please site me any references for me to ponder that you believe allow for more paths to God from the Tanakh.
Now, let's talk about the claims of Christ. As you know, CHRIST was JEWISH and only came to share the good news to Jews (no other people group). That seems rather exclusive to me too. In fact, the New Testament states that it was because of the unbelief of the Jews that the door for the Gentiles was now opened.
Again, I see one path. For the record, I do not believe Christianity was meant to be a separate religion. At least I never picked that up from the words of Christ.
Lastly, I see no reason why one religion cannot be the only correct one. After all, there is only one God, so we believe.
Link - ( New Window )
I'm pretty sure a good portion of people that I've come to know in my life that are over the age of 10 (and some under the age of 10), act more grown up and 'godly' than the "all powerful" that some of you worship.
"I'm going to make this planet almost infinitely diverse so that each sentient being that I create has an absolutely unique life! And boy is it really gonna fuck with their minds when they find out there's only one specific way that they'll be able to advance to everlasting bliss regardless of if they were even provided the opportunity. Fuckers."
-that god guy, probably
B) what I believe is that when you die you are dead
C) ones good and bad works and tons of inadvertent stuff influences those still living a little bit...A little bit.
I was intrigued by some work by Teihard de Chardin and his variation on convergent evolution. So you may find his work reconciling evolution and god and the future interesting.
I dunno...I just landed so I am driving out of Newark. There is a lot around here that is not in the Bible so I dunno.
I don't know where to start on a literal view of the Bible. For example...which God are we talking about? The one in Genesis or Job or the New Testament? Ones a powerful god one a vengeful god one a harsh god one a mysterious god and one a compassionate god. There were several writers assuming the translators did a reasonable job going from 5000BC Aramaic to 100ad Greek. Each describes God with different personnas.
One story in particular is the Star Thrower from his book "The Unexpected Universe". This isn't the butchered version you often see, but the original. And it's worth reading...not too long, but I think you'll see how it relates to this discussion. As Eiseley says:
(oh, and Hi Bill! Don't discount the power of oral tradition...though I agree with your point about language... there was a time ages ago when Greeks could recite Homer or the Icelandic Skalds the Elder Edda by heart, and passed them on almost intact from generation to generation. A skill lost with the rise of the printing press, I think).
One more quote from Loren:
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I'm pretty sure a good portion of people that I've come to know in my life that are over the age of 10 (and some under the age of 10), act more grown up and 'godly' than the "all powerful" that some of you worship.
"I'm going to make this planet almost infinitely diverse so that each sentient being that I create has an absolutely unique life! And boy is it really gonna fuck with their minds when they find out there's only one specific way that they'll be able to advance to everlasting bliss regardless of if they were even provided the opportunity. Fuckers."
-that god guy, probably
Children of a Stupid God - ( New Window )
Worthwhile to explore.
Link - ( New Window )
I will read more of the link you. And yes I agree that Christ's story is inspiring and a triumph
Yet a bunch of guys who spent a life as one of many sects and splinters against the "official" religiousos then started writing 35 to 70 years later about a friend of theirs who was a victim of state and powers that be oppression and cruelty. Or he was the Son of God. Or he was called that to give a halo effect to the new carriers of the best religion. But no matter the implausibility of certainty I just know for sure.
But that missing link and the lack of any record that Christ wanted any church or religion... or was ever heard saying anything until written decades later. ...that missing link is not a missing link at all. It's as solid as can be in the face of certainty and overwhelming evidence????
It's funny how we all find certainty follows our belief so very fast.
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
How's this for a religion? No ONE religion is correct--they all point to the same thing.
Randy, this may sound beautiful but what basis do you have for saying this? For example, both the Holy Bible and the Koran do not espouse this thinking. Again, I see no reason why one book cannot be THE book. It makes sense to me to see the enemy of God create counterfeits to confuse the masses and keep them from knowing the truth. After all, the Evil One Is a liar and a murderer and his purpose is to get converts too.
Quote:
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Quite the godless person.
You don't really believe Hitler was partnering with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by killing Jews do you? Hitler was probably demon possessed and certainly doing the work of his father, Satan.
Worthwhile to explore. Link - ( New Window )
Campbell is an extraordinary thinker and an absolute joy to listen to.
Or did you read them all and come to that decision on your own?
Or did you read them all and come to that decision on your own?
Polytheism makes no sense to me so I eliminated any religion that promotes that. So, I narrowed down my research to monotheism, which pretty much narrowed the search to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Obviously I read all three books of such.
However, I was not a believer in any one religion until age 27. It was at that time I guess you could say I had a "spiritual awakening" that transformed my way of thinking from agnostic to on fire for the Lord. It became clear to me that the God of the Holy Bible is THE one true God, and this is the one for me to follow.
Quote:
that it was awesome how Spock capitalized JEWISH..
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
I think we need to score one for Spock here :)
How do you know that?
I guess you do not believe Jesus rose from the dead and do not believe he spoke other people, like Lazarus, to rise from the dead, although the Bible states such. In fact, the bible states there were hundreds of people who witnessed this happening. Are you that confident that all these people who witnessed such happening and even wrote about it are all wrong?
But, as I write this, I realize, this really is more of a faith issue. Do you believe the bible is a true account of the times back then. I can see you don't, yet I do. I guess this is where we differ. I respect your right to not believe.
Thanks for sharing.
Not sure what you are asking, but I use Bible Hub to see compare translations from the original Hebrew or Greek. I think the New King James Version is the one I seem to prefer, but I read several and go deep in the original Hebrew or Greek individual words when I feel I need to.
Separate non hostile question so I can understand: do you think the world is a certain or uncertain place? ( not a question about Divine Will)
I wrote this before, but it bears repeating. Years ago, on this site, Spock (as Rocky) as was he was condemning Jews to hell, argued the earth was thousands of years old. Had to be, it was in the bible, same "logic" he applies now. He even provided a link (such as I did) to "scientists" that supported his view.
Fast forward, he has abandoned this particular piece of the bible as being incorrect and utterly ridiculous in the face of scientific inquiry. Yet, he remains that the rest is the infallible word of his god.
Ask yourself, are you debating a reasonable human being able to see evidence on both sides, or rather a dogmatic simpleton that is so invested in his "team" that facts don't matter?
I dunno too many missing links for me. At best it's a theory but certainly not proven or scientifically valid.
Separate non hostile question so I can understand: do you think the world is a certain or uncertain place? ( not a question about Divine Will)
New Testament written in Greek.
Why would I not think the world we live in is certain?
( and hey how are you )
OT was later translated into Greek- Septuagent.
I wrote this before, but it bears repeating. Years ago, on this site, Spock (as Rocky) as was he was condemning Jews to hell, argued the earth was thousands of years old. Had to be, it was in the bible, same "logic" he applies now. He even provided a link (such as I did) to "scientists" that supported his view.
Fast forward, he has abandoned this particular piece of the bible as being incorrect and utterly ridiculous in the face of scientific inquiry. Yet, he remains that the rest is the infallible word of his god.
Ask yourself, are you debating a reasonable human being able to see evidence on both sides, or rather a dogmatic simpleton that is so invested in his "team" that facts don't matter?
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Unintentional lulz FTW!
It was more a reminder to everyone (including me) that casting a light for a simpleton that insists on poking his eye can be futile.
Spock/Rocky/Rhett - I have an extraordinary memory, and I can see how being reminded of your past can be uncomfortable.
I ask you, how is the bible wrong about the age of the earth, but the creation myth is the infallible word of god?
And no, absent a full frontal lobotomy, I am not converting.
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Spock: I don't like the term, "homophobe" but as long as it's used, I feel it's OK to refer to a person like this a "Biblephobe". Same thing, different slant.
Quote:
In comment 12136016 Davisian said:
Quote:
that it was awesome how Spock capitalized JEWISH..
Cuz
He's
Righteous
I
Say
To all
Knowledge
Is
Listening
Like
Each day is,
Real
Special
I should ignore this because it doesn't contribute to the conversation, but just to clear the air on this- I did not PURPOSELY capitalize JEWISH like this because I was making a statement I wanted people to notice. In fact, I see no reason why I would capitalize that word. Heck I don't even capitalize Italian or Irish which I am both, so other than my Savior being born JEWISH I see no reason for doing such. The reason why it is capitalized is I suppose an iPad issue. I think when I capitalize a word once or twice the computer inside the ipad registers me doing that and then continues doing it until I specifically ask it not to by "X" it out.
So, because this seems to upset your poor tummy I will "X" it out now. Ready? Jewish, Jewish, Jewish......done. Feel better? (SMH)
I think we need to score one for Spock here :)
Not necessarily. What prompted him to capitalize Jewish so many times in the past that his tablet assumed that was the norm? There appears to be some history here.
Quote:
In comment 12134262 Spock said:
Quote:
Thank you for being cordial in your demeanor to me.
I hear what you are saying, but I always think we will need God. I can't imagine a world without God and just greedy arrogant selfish man ruling the roost. History shows what man can do to fellow man to enforce his will.
In fact, all of the horrible leaders of this world I imagine was godless. Do you want more of Stalins, Hitlers, Pot, Khan, etc running around here?
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Quite the godless person.
You don't really believe Hitler was partnering with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by killing Jews do you? Hitler was probably demon possessed and certainly doing the work of his father, Satan.
When you say "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," it's an implicit statement that other gods exist.
Why would anyone fear the bible? Does anyone fear a copy of the "Red Riding Hood"?
I am concerned how people interpret the bible to the point where anti-semitism, homophobia and anti-science start to permeate this country.
I dunno too many missing links for me.
A remarkable and great collection of writings.
but far more importantly and something I have been waiting for:
You stated that you agree the world is uncertain.
So then logically you agree that certainty in the face of uncertainty is insanity.
Quote:
Are you always a jerk? You are like a broken record repeating time after time my beliefs. I'm glad I've made this much of an impression on you. Perhaps you are close to converting to Christianity than you think.
Spock: I don't like the term, "homophobe" but as long as it's used, I feel it's OK to refer to a person like this a "Biblephobe". Same thing, different slant.
Seems so here. I think I will give Rob a 101 course on different religious beliefs to help clear the air.
Now it is very comforting and peaceful to have found certainty in the dwarfing uncertainty around us.
But i submit that the operative words in all this are: YOU FOUND certainty.
What's interesting here in this discussion is how Oral Tradition (in this case, a living document of the Biblical Stories) would have compared to their static snapshot in the written texts. For example, try reading the King James Bible...something that would have made perfect sense in it's linguist construction back in the year of our Lord 1611, but is difficult for the average person to read in 2015. English has changed in the last 400-500 years, as any reader of Chaucer would know!
Oral tradition would have handled this change naturally; the language would have changed, but basic truths would have remained constant (see the links below):
Written History vs. the Oral Tradition - warrior society]
Oral Traditions - Indigenous Foundations
The Middle East (in particular, the areas that the Bible talks about), was (and still is) a cornucopia of ideas, including stories that were shared across cultures. It's no shock that the story of Gilgamesh...in this case the story that morphed into the Noah's Flood...was included in the Bible. It's only recently that society has frowned (copyright) on the sharing of ideas; for most of our history, people borrowed stories that helped make their point.
Speaking of Gilgamesh, I love to go back to Patrick Stewart's oral retelling of the story in the ST Next Generation episode "Damok". Language..how people, and perhaps in the future how humans interact with non humans...is so critical.
Epic of Gilgamesh from Star Trek
Christians (Protestant for sure): believe the same
Jews believe: their messiah has not yet come
Christians believe: he has and his name is Jesus
Jews believe: CHRIST is not the son of god as he claims to be, rather is a false prophet and Definitely not the messiah they are waiting for
Christians believe: CHRIST is the son of God and the awaited messiah the Jews were hoping for
Jews believe: salvation is by works and faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Christians believe: salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ's atonement at Calvary and the belief in the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Jews follow Moses (mainly)
Christians follow Jesus mostly
Christians are commanded by Jesus to go into the world and share the Good News that Jesus saves. To not do this In my opinion would be disobeying the Lord. So, when I share the good news as I believe and you don't agree, why can't you just say, "I don't agree with you" and move on. I'm not interested in forcing you to believe as I do. I merely want to make sure people know the truth as I believe is set forth in the Holy Bible.
For the record Rob, in a strange way I find myself "loving you" despite your relentless assault on my (good) name.
Unintentional lulz FTW!
This makes me think of this scripture verse regarding not wise people:
19For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Spock's musings: it appears to me from this verse that sometimes man's intellect could be getting in the way because it doesn't sound to me like God is THAT impressed with the super intellect who doesn't know God.
Christians are going to Heaven.
(1 Samuel 15:3)
Christians are going to Heaven.
Not necessarily Big Al. Read this from the book of Romans 11:
All Israel Will Be Saved
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.
(1 Samuel 15:3)
Yes, you quoted true scripture. This does sound hard to read but you and I don't know all the facts behind these words. Do you know anything about the Amalekites?
On a personal side note, I do not question anything God does or allow, it is not my place to question the Creator of the Universe. He is God and his ways are not mans and are much higher. The Book Of Job taught me this lesson. When Job was bummed out suffering in much affliction, he too questioned God, which brought about a dialogue with God that will always be etched in my brain. (God is God and man is man.)
I know he is a righteous God and I have 100% confidence in the way he does things. I know you may not, so I guess this is where we differ. So be it.
I agree and I think...I think we might agree on an important aspect of this of I can reasonably articulate how I see it.
I will approach it from a different free range sentence floating in space but not from anthropology or linguistics but the hum drum of an old business scramble by Peters and Waterman called In Search of Excellence. One of the aspects they observed about the "social systems" known as business organizations was a feature they called "simultaneously loose and tight"
I am going to re purpose that sentence fragment and apply it to communications and recorded observations and from their to some aspects of one of the topics on the thread.
Imho all FORMS of communication exchange between sender and receiver are simultaneously loose and tight. So for example a text message conveys a fragment of its possible interpretation by the reader....what was the senders and readers emotion, degree of concentration, possible meaning of words, history of past dialog and consistency and familiarity. So a simple " I will be 10 minutes late" can be a very loose communication if either has a history of unpredictability or instability. Or it could be a very tight message if punctuality and consistency and precision of both senders and receivers "world view and intent and level of expectation are roughly the same.
Now the same medium of texting should never be used to convey emotionally laden or layered thinking. "I am on the 545 pm train" is tight for a medium that's adequate for "tight" communication.
"I'm confused by Johnnys recent behavior towards me and my mother" is too loose a subject for effective communication via text.
Now let's look at Oral Tradition, morality tales, the Bible and citing the Bible for precise meaning quotations or dates or insight into ideas like evolution developed long after the senders could have even had such a word in their vocabulary.
I think oral tradition, morality tales, affiliation tales for a family or a tribe or a nation and useful myths and allegories are indeed accurately/effectively repeated down many generations. The Norse and Icelandic traditions are just one evidence of this. But I think the purpose and the point of all of those fall into the category of "loose" communication where the authority and style of the teller and desire for context of the listener is emotive or "contextual" in nature.
If Einstein s proof or a calibration of a stress testing instrument was done by oral tradition then the imprecision which could build in renders the "loose" of that medium one where doubt is reasonably valid.
So as a creation tale, as morality tale, as the first tragedy, as evolving recording of a societies contribution to what it means to live in western intellectual tradition....The translators and translations do not matter. The Bible is simultaneously loose and tight when used and drawn from. In that sense it is perfectly simultaneously loose and tight.
However when used as an authoritative traceable and validated source in a scientific theory developed 3000 years later....it is way too loose. When used as a rule for a complex moral or social situation unimaginable to its source....it's way to loose and imprecise a form of communication.
To assert a brand new boyfriend is blowing you off when he first texts he will be late would be seen as melodramatic and a moment of irrationality on the readers part unless she saw where he was or had a friend validate the train was indeed late. To assert that Christ meant or would have said is conjecture upon conjecture ascribing the Bible was far "tighter" a form of communication than it could possibly be.
The labeling of those who note the Bibles miss use are not non believers or saying anything about the book itself. They are saying it's too loose ( yet no less tight and wondeful as a source of wisdom) for the re purposing of the promotor.
Imho
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
For the record, I find you to be a despicable, anti-Semitic, homophobic anti-science piece of shit that embodies the worst of religion.
Had you been born in Syria, your weak-mindedness and blind allegiance to the most regressive of religious dogma leaves me doubt you would be a member of ISIS.
Yup, ISIS like...
Quote:
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
For the record, I find you to be a despicable, anti-Semitic, homophobic anti-science piece of shit that embodies the worst of religion.
Had you been born in Syria, your weak-mindedness and blind allegiance to the most regressive of religious dogma leaves me doubt you would be a member of ISIS.
Message received. Shalom.
Quote:
In comment 12136208 Big Al said:
Quote:
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
As applied to the social systems of a business organization the authors described the galaxy of rules, myths, favorite stories, beliefs, written and unwritten rules as all necessary for leaders to get both compliance and motivation and self identification of members as part of a greater whole. When the full range of controls and guides and reward and punishments and ways of ostracism for those who leave and education and myths was present said social system was said to have simultaneously loose and tight control of the members in the system.
As if none of that purpose was ever on the minds of any of the writers writing to any of their audiences
Quote:
In comment 12136212 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136208 Big Al said:
Quote:
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
It's true the missing link "argument" has no logical force but it does have one amusing feature that I admire. Every time scientists supply a formerly missing link, they create not the more continuous chain of events you might imagine but two "new" missing links. One on each side of the new discovery. We have many more "missing links" today than we did when this spurious argument was first raised. And we'll have more tomorrow than we do today!
Quote:
One of the things that intrigues me about these threads is the non evolution believers holding aloft like a trophy the missing link cul de sac.
It's true the missing link "argument" has no logical force but it does have one amusing feature that I admire. Every time scientists supply a formerly missing link, they create not the more continuous chain of events you might imagine but two "new" missing links. One on each side of the new discovery. We have many more "missing links" today than we did when this spurious argument was first raised. And we'll have more tomorrow than we do today!
Remember it was written pre law and pre consensus views of how to govern so it has to be Edward Morrow and stop you from eating uncooked pork and protect and keep in place men widows women and children and be Federalist Paper Number 10
Quote:
In comment 12136218 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12136212 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136208 Big Al said:
Quote:
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
What just confused me was your criticism of me referencing what you said over 15 years ago. However the only change I see is your references to a Bible quote rather than a willingness to say it. No difference to me.
So, move on. I'm definitely a follower of the God of the Holy Bible, as our millions of others. If this bothers you, just hit the ignore button.
Hope you are well Big Al
Time to leave and go back to real life
Of course it is fair to ask a candidate any question we the people want to ask them!
Now, regarding if and how any candidates respond:
I would seriously question a candidate who ducks the question:
In truth, many, if not the vast majority of Christians believe in scientific method as well as the faith and have no problem reconciling the two..(and not needing to argue that here, that is another trap, no thx).
For a candidate to fall into the trap of believing that a significant number of Christians would not vote for him or her due to his or her statement in favor of scientific reasoning in the question of evolution might be tantamount to his or her buying into the rhetoric of the secularists, i.e. secularists that sometimes seem to want us all to believe that Christians lack the ability or inclination for rational thought.
Which is typically not true of course.
So- my disinclination to engage in the thread....the subject ..the exact question of the thread, itself lends itself more to polarity and broad, panning diatribes one way or the other, bringing people out of the woodwork, and, in doing so, tends to support those who -want us- to believe that Christians lack rationality.
So- baiting as it were.
Which does not tend to increase the rational discussion or benefit the electoral results - in the end.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
Hope you are well Big Al
Quote:
In comment 12136222 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136218 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12136212 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136208 Big Al said:
Quote:
was not your response years back. Have your opinions evolved?
Big al, I'm disappointed in you here because I wouldn't expect you to quote my words from near 20 years ago especially knowing that I apologized 10 years later for coming across too hard, unloving, and perhaps arrogant in my words. You have not heard me speak as aggressively like then in over ten years. I'm disappointed. I guess you felt the need to pile on which disappoints me because I expected more from you.
Not piling on. just would like to know your current position with a direct rather than evasive answer. I have no problem with your faith up until your faith denies the validity of other faiths. Do you still feel that Jesus is the only path to heaven? Simple yes or no question.
Have you not read this thread? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I believe what is written in the Holy Bible. Let me show you one more time.
Acts 4:12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
John 3:16: 16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.
What just confused me was your criticism of me referencing what you said over 15 years ago. However the only change I see is your references to a Bible quote rather than a willingness to say it. No difference to me.
So, move on. I'm definitely a follower of the God of the Holy Bible, as our millions of others. If this bothers you, just hit the ignore button.
since he is referring to the pre-new covenant part of the bible and thus obviously not meant, in the Christian view (perhaps not in any view) , to be taken as -directly- instructive, rather, an example of life prior to the advent of the instructive events to follow.
or a radical athiest trying to build an argument against the faithful by setting a bad example, pretending to be one
on the other hand, I did not read the thread....so...I could be wrong.
in other words, in all the big 3 monotheistic faiths, god changes his mind on stuff, so, trying to justify old testament wars in todays context is just stupid.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens. ''
Quote:
.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
I think putting children and infants to death is universally evil. And if I spent any time trying to rationalize a single case of it, I would consider seeing a psychotherapist.
not Spock, thankfully
(forgive me Spock!!!!)
idiotsavant : 2:44 pm : link : reply
be baiting or a troll,
since he is referring to the pre-new covenant part of the bible and thus obviously not meant, in the Christian view (perhaps not in any view) , to be taken as -directly- instructive, rather, an example of life prior to the advent of the instructive events to follow.
or a radical athiest trying to build an argument against the faithful by setting a bad example, pretending to be one
on the other hand, I did not read the thread....so...I could be wrong.
in other words, in all the big 3 monotheistic faiths, god changes his mind on stuff, so, trying to justify old testament wars in todays context is just stupid.
Obviously, if you question the rationality of being a Christian based on old testament quotations (assuming that they are directly instructive) you miss the entire point of the faith in the first place.
the new covenant, a new relationship between god and man, after that stuff and a radical change.
those things are instructive as examples of how things were prior to the new covenant, even for a non-christian, one could assume that, when he does come, the savior would also nix that stuff.
Quote:
In comment 12136211 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
I think putting children and infants to death is universally evil. And if I spent any time trying to rationalize a single case of it, I would consider seeing a psychotherapist.
Ok, don't think I need a shrink, but just trying to give you a perspective you may not have considered. I'm sure God doesn't need for me to be his apologist, but being a lawyer, it is in my blood to defend His good name. Carry on.
not Spock, thankfully
(forgive me Spock!!!!)
Savant, maybe he is a troll, but his question actually seemed quite valid enough for me to ponder and supply an answer. Obviously my answer didn't satisfy and I don't even know how good it is, but I tried.
Quote:
.
I was thinking about this while I was walking my dog, and let me share what thoughts I came up with.
I know God doesn't will for any man to perish, in fact, man was created in his image, so we are pretty special to him.
For God to allow for all the Amelykites to be eliminated, including children, tells me maybe this was a horrible people group with horrible practices and maybe even the children were going to grow up to be horrible adults. Would you be upset knowing Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were killed as kids knowing what they would have done if allowed to live? After all, God is not limited by time like we are, so he does know the future before it happens.
Anyhow, just a thought. What do you think?
Ummmm, then why didn't God kill Hitler or Stalin before the untold tragedy and suffering of innocents? Wait, I know ... we cannot comprehend his infinite wisdom, so there must be a very good reason why he would slaughter and entire people including women and children rather than kill Stalin and Hitler. Of course!
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
according to me brain anyway...
when you DO choose.
Mike, like I said, I do not hold myself out as having all the answers to these kind of questions. I just throw out my speculation, not knowing whether it is valid or not.
Our free will allows each of us to judge matters as we deem accordingly. Of course our "judgments" are based on our belief systems.
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Except that then does not explain His wish to exterminate a group of people including innocent children. And that of course is what I was replying to, Spock's justifying that act by saying they must have been evil He certainly would have been justified in wiping out evil people. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't hold water.
Man- "I will raise hell"
God- "that makes me sad"
Man- " I don't fucking care"
God- "then I will make rules and laws and instruct you to follow them (Moses)"
Man- "thats peachy, because now I get a huge fat hard-on when I break the rules and laws"
God- "OK, then, Now, choose to follow the Spirit, not the law" (jesus)
(and knowing that most people would still do tons of wrong, but still keeping with his original galactic universal scale project)
The -new - covenant shows that he either
a) took those methods very seriously as wrong and sent his very own son to change them
and/or
b) that part of the -old- testament was written by people, not by god, refer to above post.
in either case, it is not directly instructive and to think it is would be a gymnastic achievement.
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Great words here savant. Thanks for them. I agree, I think many people struggle or forget to factor in how much free will God has given us here on earth. i guess people want God to intervene all the time to stop misfortune or evil from happening. He will ........someday, not just now.
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
Its just silly.
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
Its just silly.
I have no idea why I continue, but here goes...
Why would one need an excuse to reject the idea of God? That's just silly.
Next, I don't reject God, He/She may exist, but I see no evidence to suggest that, never mind proof... NONE.
To blindly accept a God would require that I suspend all learning, logic and critical thinking, never mind the absolutely no evidence thing.
And this being that is put forth as an infallible perfect entity changes his mind?! C'mon man.
Now I suspect you will put forth something you see as evidence, something that is much more easily and logically explained by means other than a magical being, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience for that folly right now.
It goes like this: The person promoting non-belief puts forward the idea that god cannot be anthromophical (like a human in a rough way, only greater obviously), then sets about re-reading the bible according to that.
Where- if you actually read the bible, it is made very clear that it is intended to be read that way, and . that. he . changes . his . mind!
So, you take something from the pre-new testament part, and put a 21st century set of ethical eyes on it...and use that as an excuse to reject god.
Its just silly.
I have no idea why I continue, but here goes...
Why would one need an excuse to reject the idea of God? That's just silly.
Next, I don't reject God, He/She may exist, but I see no evidence to suggest that, never mind proof... NONE.
To blindly accept a God would require that I suspend all learning, logic and critical thinking, never mind the absolutely no evidence thing.
And this being that is put forth as an infallible perfect entity changes his mind?! C'mon man.
Now I suspect you will put forth something you see as evidence, something that is much more easily and logically explained by means other than a magical being, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience for that folly right now.
Man- "I will raise hell"
God- "that makes me sad"
Man- " I don't fucking care"
God- "then I will make rules and laws and instruct you to follow them (Moses)"
Man- "thats peachy, because now I get a huge fat hard-on when I break the rules and laws"
God- "OK, then, Now, choose to follow the Spirit, not the law" (jesus)
(and knowing that most people would still do tons of wrong, but still keeping with his original galactic universal scale project)
God: "Put to death children and infants."
Saul: "That sounds barbaric. I will exercise my free will and not do that."
God: "Fuck you. You're out of my plans."
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Quote:
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
Quote:
In comment 12136469 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
I guess I got your posts mixed with Bungles posts. Sorry.
Wow, you don't really know me yet you say these words.
I'm tempted to tell you about all the good I have done over the years to make our community a better place, and about my spotless police record, but you know what? Why waste my time? Believe as you will with your God given free will.
Quote:
In comment 12136481 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136469 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
it seems to go both ways, some also excuse their own actions using the same false logic
I can still remember this couple in our bible study years ago were on fire for the lord. Well, long story short, the wife was brutally murdered leaving her house one day. She would not allow him to rape her so she ended up being killed.
Her husband, like I said, a good friend, quit the bible study and just abandoned his faith and moved away. He blamed God for this tragedy too. I can still remember him asking me, "could God have stopped this from happening?"
Nothing I could have possibly said to him regarding free will, faith or her now being in Heaven would have mattered. He wanted nothing to do with any of us. I suppose River Mike feels the same way concerning matters like this.People need someone to blame so guess who usually gets blamed for all our misfortunes?
Spock, you're taking liberties here. Where is it shown that I feel I need someone to blame? And to blame for what? You are now making things up. It's starting to become clear why you can believe in magical beings with no evidence.
I guess I got your posts mixed with Bungles posts. Sorry.
Spock, one last thing. I have a great deal of respect for you. The fact that you believe as you do puzzles me but if it provides something for you, then that's great. I disagree and disapprove of those who were vicious, insulting and hostile toward you even though my last post may have been somewhat insulting due apparently to a misunderstanding. You have been civil and evenhanded in your posts and have generated a lively discussion.
Quote:
false -supposition- put forward by both new agers and willfully self-deluded or confused self styled but misguided monotheist believers
...the supposition that 'god controls everything that happens in the world', then, of course you have no choice but either to:
a) justify all sorts of things that should not be justified, all the way from your salary (humor, but you get the idea) all the way up to the great evils you referred to
or
b) become an athies, deny his existence using the logic you put forward
Now, please consider this actual Christian view (which is probably also represented within all monotheistic circles, if we would ask around):
That, God gave people free will, and that the never ending evil in the world you referred to is as a result of decisions >people< make.
And that Gods ultimate purpose of being involved here is to give us the choice to us choose him, of our own free will, and as for all that evil, while he >could< stop it, he would not go back on his monumental decision to give us free will, that being his main and number one big project. So in that sense, feel very flattered.
Does he feel our pain? Of course!
Except that then does not explain His wish to exterminate a group of people including innocent children. And that of course is what I was replying to, Spock's justifying that act by saying they must have been evil He certainly would have been justified in wiping out evil people. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't hold water.
The alternative to wiping out these supposedly evil folk is simply to employ the infinite power of god to turn them into good people. Nah, easier to just slaughter the innocents so that the righteous, god-fearing killers can profit by taking over those evil peckers' land and goods. Yeah, that's the ticket.
And by the way Spock, where did god come from? Answer without the biblical mumbo-jumbo that says nothing at all.
I have always appreciated how open you are with your questions and the fact that you have been very cordial in discussing these matters with me. I know you are seeking the truth but have big question marks that keep you from jumping on the God bandwagon as I have done. Honestly, the lawyer in me wishes I could convince you to grab the coattails of Christ and enjoy the ride, but I know it is not that easy for you, for now at least (big grin). I'm here for you should you desire to talk or ask questions that gnaw away at you. I can't gurarantee they are the best answers but I will try my best to see they are. Cheers, and again, thanks for the kind words. As you can see, these are far and few on this thread, so they mean a lot to me.
My short answer is simply- He has ALWAYS BEEN. "I am that I am!"
My short answer is simply- He has ALWAYS BEEN. "I am that I am!"
JUMBO mumbo jumbo. You have no courage of your convictions, Spock. Pointless to waste more time on a dangerous fool. Your type of inflexibility cannot be considered a positive in any community outside of one inhabited only by others who share your affliction.
It's your kind of thinking that inevitably leads to monstrous evil. It's inevitable because you have all the rationalizations for any action already built into your false ethos.
Does anyone have evidence that we're not?
Who created God? - ( New Window )
I can take your answer, so let me have it.
But I have a question for you about the whole "God made man in his image" aspect. Do you believe in DNA?
Because according to DNA, Humans and Chimps are roughly 97% the same.
So do you think that it's just that extra 3% that gives us that special something other than animals?
And also, why do you think God doesn't allow Chimps to go to heaven if they're 97% the same as him? They might not be a spitting image of him but 97% is pretty damn close.
Isn't it pretty obvious how different we are even though according to your numbers we are only 3% different.
Hey Osi, if you feel inclined, where did matter come from? How did it first come into existence? Thanks.
I can take your answer, so let me have it.
Isn't it pretty obvious how different we are even though according to your numbers we are only 3% different.
Hey Osi, if you feel inclined, where did matter come from? How did it first come into existence? Thanks.
I don't see how you could say yes to both questions.
You believe in DNA. But you don't believe in the actual data based on DNA?
And it's obvious that humans and chimps aren't identical. But isn't it also obvious that Chimps are more similar to us than they are to any other animal outside of great apes?
And to answer your question, I don't know how nothing came from something. But if the answer is God, I'd question where God came from.
But...what if you retold thought experiments in the Oral tradition fashion, perhaps to preserve his ideas and other Scientific concepts for posterity, in case of a great natural or man made disaster? Then, after several generations, wrote the current version of them down? It wouldn't take much to re-create Special Relativity from the stories.
One of the problems with the Bible, as mentioned before, is that not only were the Oral traditions transcribed much later than the actual events, the people who wrote down those stories were influenced by their times, as well as the audience they were writing for. So, the Old Testament can be brutal, with slavery, prostitution, war, beheadings, etc...those things were the normal part of everyday life back then. The same things that are now abhorrent 2,000 plus years in the future!
I did get a kick out your last paragraph.
As a Catholic, I think you've spot on on the 2,000 year old Roman Church! I don't think it's negative in the least...I think it would apply to any organization that lasts that long.
Quote:
One thing you said stuck out- you called me dangerous. Is it because you equate my passion for God similar to a jihad muslim's passion?
I can take your answer, so let me have it.
I actually answered this question in past discussions with you. I don't consider you nor other Christians dangerous at this point in time. However those with your beliefs were very dangerous in the past. Countless murders came out of it.
And I told you I try to live the words of Christ in my daily life. He said to LOVE my neighbor, and he even said to LOVE even my enemy and turn the other cheek. He did not tell me to go out into the world and kill unbelievers.
Al, all those past pogroms against people groups, such as Jews, were wrong and I don't condone such actions at all. These Inquisitions, like the Spanish, etc were atrocious and I'm appalled by such. I don't know why you equate my thinking with THAT thinking.
I may believe if one rejects CHRIST they may lose their seat in Heaven but that has nothing to do with the way I treat people who also are created in the image of God. God tells me to love........jesus modeled for me what I must do. I'm trying....
One last thing- if you are Jewish, I am the last person you should be afraid of because born again christians "support ISRAEL" more than any other people group I know of.
1The Lord had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your fathers household to the land I will show you.
2I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.a
3I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.
I will CURSE THOSE WHO CURSE YOU. Do you think I want to be cursed?
You guys have missing links in your thesis
I have none when it comes to the Bible ( old new or both)
My god does not intervene to stop one iota of unimaginable evil but did intervene at all and never would and thats a good thing. But specifically and surgically did on something that does not matter ....how evolution occurred and that's a good thing.
Trust my god for he is consistent and has done good works like he wants from us.
I mean don't bother with the man drummed up theology and rhetorical flourishes out of these cul de sacs....just look at what you said....it does not even sound like a god...it sounds like convolutions of men.
Again no tone or put down...I am just sharing why that God seems like a man rigged hologram...to my way of thinking and I have done a lot on the subject
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
A pretty good summary:
[quote]In order for most of todays Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movements support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.
Every time you hear the phrase, Jesus is coming back soon, you should mentally add, and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in soon plus 84 months. Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.
This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons many, many sermons on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture. Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.
[quote]
Of course, Israelis accept the support of American Fundamentalists, because they need it. However, not for a second does any thinking Jew believe that Fundamentalists support Israel out of love for Jews. It's a marriage of convenience.
You knew that, of course. It's common among Fundamentalists to use "pretend truths" to support their positions. That's how we got men cavorting with dinosaurs--it is necessary to offset the actual information in the fossil record. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Link - ( New Window )
Now enough ass kissing, whom can I go call a name now?
And anteaters "support ANTS" more than any other animal I know of. Without them, the anteaters would all perish. Doesn't mean the ants trust them, though.
By the way, you do not speak for me, so please don't asume you do. That garbage you pasted is not my thinking but I'm sure it is somebody's.
I don't think Bill2 came out just to respond to me, but thanks for the kind words. Your first I believe to me. (You must have a fever.)
Co Q-10 seems to be helping the neuropathy as well as giving me energy from the satins I'm on.
And apparent inconsistency just has me at Al Pacing level response. " every time I get out they pull me back in"
I don't find true believers of any kind to be rotten people. ...I am just amazed that any examination of any subject has one anything but convinced one knows so little of what really matters and finds oneself more humble than before they started their inquiry.
I dunno...The longer I live and the more I work at learning all I can the less I know.
Liar.
OK, here's a fundamentalist site that says there IS a connection.
Link - ( New Window )
Christians are going to Heaven.
Not all Christians. Only the ones who follow all the rules. Which means no one.
Very disturbing applying your own stereotypes.
Quote:
Jews are going to Hell
Christians are going to Heaven.
Not all Christians. Only the ones who follow all the rules. Which means no one.
Are you saying Christ's atonement at Calvary will save no one? Don't forget Buford, the message is- CHRIST died to save SINNERS.
2) I am sure I could find vastly better articles, if it were worth my time. They are all over the Net. Thousands of them.
Wasn't your suggestion but we have talked on the subject in the past. Started taking the supplement a few weeks ago and it seems to help. Just wanted to pass it along.
God no I am not Spock. Pun intended.
I could never get over how any one religion is the only true religion and those of not (fill in the blank) are damned to eternal hell.
What the heck kind of just god does that? IMHO.
Why I just follow these threads.
Quote:
In comment 12136198 Big Al said:
Quote:
Jews are going to Hell
Christians are going to Heaven.
Not all Christians. Only the ones who follow all the rules. Which means no one.
Are you saying Christ's atonement at Calvary will save no one? Don't forget Buford, the message is- CHRIST died to save SINNERS.
Yeah, but that was 2000 years ago. Those people are already dead.
Quote:
The existence of people like you in 2015 is truly depressing.
Wow, you don't really know me yet you say these words.
I'm tempted to tell you about all the good I have done over the years to make our community a better place, and about my spotless police record, but you know what? Why waste my time? Believe as you will with your God given free will.
I didn't say you are a bad person, did i? I don't need to know more than I've read in this thread to be depressed by your existence. I don't dislike you (how could I?) but you represent a large segment of the population that is just totally against progress, growth and understanding. Every keystroke you've given this thread has burrowed you deeper into the nonsense you tell yourself. It's sad.
Very disturbing applying your own stereotypes.
Yeah, manh george! Stop using dated text with waning relevance in today's more informed society to prove your point!
Quote:
Posting a 13 year old article from some dubious cafeteria website is not cool. Like I said, I'm sure someone believes anything, but you are trying to brand all fundamental christians with one brush.
Very disturbing applying your own stereotypes.
Yeah, manh george! Stop using dated text with waning relevance in today's more informed society to prove your point!
Ha.
Good one Mike.
OK, manh. The world is going to hell, and it's the "faithful" ultraorthodox that are taking it there. It's like denying global warming; science has become whatever you want to make it. Keep the muscles flexed, my friend!
Indoctrination works best on the young.
I thought global warming was old school and it's now climate change to adhere to the latest observations?
Who knows? - ( New Window )
I thought global warming was old school and it's now climate change to adhere to the latest observations?
No, it's still global warming. They just needed a new name because the "Darwin was a liar" demographic thought it meant it was false every time they had to wear a jacket...
*citation needed
Quote:
"It's like denying global warming; science has become whatever you want to make it. Keep the muscles flexed, my friend!"
I thought global warming was old school and it's now climate change to adhere to the latest observations?
No, it's still global warming. They just needed a new name because the "Darwin was a liar" demographic thought it meant it was false every time they had to wear a jacket...
Ok, makes sense. Everything gets relabled every other day. It's hard to keep up.
As long as they all fight the good fight. Whatever that is.
Quote:
they are the missing link.
*citation needed
What citation needed? Don't you watch that show on the History Channel called "Ancient Aliens"?
2) I am sure I could find vastly better articles, if it were worth my time. They are all over the Net. Thousands of them.
Actually I don't know it, first time I read garbage like that. There you go again, speaking for me when you are not me, which I'm sure you are glad about that. That makes us even.
Maybe because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
Who made you Police Lord of BBI? As for not adding football contributions, you obviously do not follow my threads. Why don't you do your homework before you utter nonsense. Lastly, I was merely responding to the OP and if you noticed, everything I said here was A response to something said or asked of me. So, go back to sleep would you. Zzzzzzzzzzz
1) notice that you mentioned how pliable the same tropes that feel ancient and have the power of evoking earliest learning one has as a member of society and signify entrance to the common experience of one's elders and all one respects...are ...When applied as propaganda to address a specific crisis and overwhelm moderation. It's how the consent of the governed to war or immoderate response. The use of Volk and Wagnerian recreations of even more ancient mythology woven into specific recent resentments gets you a hell of a rally. Or drawing on "of the people by the people and for the people" while This Land is Your Land plays in the background can sure distract from a proposal to benefit a few privileged people.
and in the crisis a small weak people whose history and geography left them affected by the Assyrian Egyptian Babylonian and Roman aftershocks. ..drawing response by evoking the common "specialness" was needed to endure. And I think that backdrop affects many aspects of the Old Testament and the need to protect the small collections of believers and weave between the religious agents of control for the Romans and the Romans is omnipresent in the New Testament. Truth be told ...who could read at the time? The possible illiterate prospects or the literate elites who crucified all possible challenges to the ways rent flowed?
Lastly, as a Catholic applying the ways Paul advocated passing the lessons on and building coherence within his small community per Greek city strategy for civilizing the world is all built around instructions to community leaders or guidance on pastoral issues that come up in repeated ceremonies and recreation of Oral traditions and dramas. Later the indoctrination power of the Creed via repetition was a source of great differentiation uniformity and driving out splinters sects schism and competitive challenges to the ears and approvals
of the state....In trade for acting as agents of social control. Or Compare the pillar forming repetition of the mass and the Creed on central uniformity and the loose unstructured equivalent of localized experience mullah to mullah.
Good stuff John. Makes me wish camp was still in Albany!
Quote:
?????
Maybe because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
Quote:
This is a football board. You add absolutely nothing to any football discussion. Nothing. Ever. You're a dupe (extremely odd for such a spiritually enlightened individual as you proclaim to be - why so many identities?) who talks about religion constantly and you've shown your anti-semetic self on bbi already. So why don't you go to a religion board and discuss your beliefs with like-minded individuals? Despite the number of posts to this thread, the loss of your contributions will improve bbi exponentially. Thanks in advance and farewell.
Who made you Police Lord of BBI? As for not adding football contributions, you obviously do not follow my threads. Why don't you do your homework before you utter nonsense. Lastly, I was merely responding to the OP and if you noticed, everything I said here was A response to something said or asked of me. So, go back to sleep would you. Zzzzzzzzzzz
I've read your football posts. They're usually horrible with no insight. You add NOTHING to bbi.
Kindly fuck off from bbi. No one besides maybe Milton wants you here.
And don't pull the martyr bullshit thinking you're some sort of soldier for Christ. You're not. You're just a weirdo who has hid behind multiple identities to troll long standing and respected Giants fans.
You're pathetic.
The fish needs to say:
"something aint right about this camel ride"
and I'm
Feeling so damn
...thirsty"
(Hafiz 1320-1389)
Tis true indeed.
chris: the feeling is mutual for believers to non-believers. I suppose it will always be that way.
A good allegory would be that believers are like NY Giant fans and non-believers are most similar to Eagle fans.
Quote:
with believers. I fall for it too.
chris: the feeling is mutual for believers to non-believers. I suppose it will always be that way.
A good allegory would be that believers are like NY Giant fans and non-believers are most similar to Eagle fans.
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
''If one
is afraid of loosing anything
they have not looked into the friends eyes:
they have long forgotten gods
promise
the jewels you get when you meet the beloved
go on multiplying themselves:
they take root
everywhere
they keep mating all the time
like spring warmed
creatures
Burglars
Hear Watchdogs inside of His
gifts
and run''
(Hafiz again, still 1320-1388 or something)
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
If the shoe fits...
''If one
is afraid of loosing anything
they have not looked into the friends eyes:
they have long forgotten gods
promise
the jewels you get when you meet the beloved
go on multiplying themselves:
they take root
everywhere
they keep mating all the time
like spring warmed
creatures
Burglars
Hear Watchdogs inside of His
gifts
and run''
(Hafiz again, still 1320-1388 or something)
Alabama?
Another idiot. Without the savant.
Quote:
Bleackkchkkk. Just got the douche chills from your horrible post. Allegory? What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you know what an allegory is or are you just making shit up like your pal Spock or Rocky or whatever identity he's using these days?
If the shoe fits...
Pffft. More weird shit from you guys.
Yeah, the shoe fits. You make shit up and make no fuckin sense.
aint no sin.
Haha. More passive aggressive nonsense from such an enlightened and saved man of Christ.
Listen closely.
You're a dupe. Therefore a liar and deceiver.
Hypocrite.
ALB is a mistaken abbreviation for the State of Alabama. It's actually AL.
aint no sin.
Could have fooled me. Did you read his diatribe toward me? Didn't sound like fun, and I certainly want entertained.
aint no sin.
I was kidding with B and chris about the Eagle-fan stuff...
(fighting temptation to ask if ALB stands for Albania)
Quote:
chill, B is having fun and doing his thang.
aint no sin.
Could have fooled me. Did you read his diatribe toward me? Didn't sound like fun, and I certainly want entertained.
Maybe you should create another name on bbi to deceive us?
Liar.
Indeed. He fought religious hypocrisy with his writings. Something that your boy Spock clearly does not understand based on his history of deception and lies illustrated here on bbi.
The sun once glimpsed god true nature
and has never been the same.
Thus that radiant sphere
constantly pours its energy
upon this earth
As He does from behind
the veil
with a wonderful God like that
why isn't everyone screaming drunk in ecstacy?
Hafiz' Guess is this:
Any thought that you are better or less
than another man
quickly
breaks the wine
glass
then, I had kids, and changed my email (was at work in any case, forgot my password, or something) decided a new handle was in order (alligatorpie, which was obvious to regulars)...then after the crash and during the realization (the name was a gag with my kids) that I had changed again, and the kids no longer little....idiotsavant....
people change....thankfully....and not unrelated to the conversation or the conversion
then, I had kids, and changed my email (was at work in any case, forgot my password, or something) decided a new handle was in order (alligatorpie, which was obvious to regulars)...then after the crash and during the realization (the name was a gag with my kids) that I had changed again, and the kids no longer little....idiotsavant....
people change....thankfully....and not unrelated to the conversation or the conversion
Wasn't referring to you bud. I was referring to the chickenhawk who now calls himself Spock.
Great Religions are the
Ships
Poets the life
boats.
Every Sane Person I know has jumped
overboard.
That is good for business
ISN'T IT
HAFIZ?
I have
nothing to say
for god has taken his sharp knife
and completely
hollowed me.
yet a mysterious wind comes by
and moves the invisible
.
I enter your soul
your' beauty, dear pilgrim, startles me.
Causes my spirits foot to slip
against the lute strings on
your heart
then Hafiz just translates
the cries of your love
as if they were
my own
words
I hope
you wont sue
this drunk old man
for
that
Quote:
In comment 12136638 yatqb said:
Quote:
?????
Maybe because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
Wow Rob, talk about intolerant and hateful!
"Some crappy Christian school........."
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
On BBI you have been openly anti-Semitic. Anti-gay. Anti-science (did you teach the kids about the dinosaurs in the Congo?). Don't play the martyr card when someone has a memory for your words and hates you because of the hate you yourself have spewed.
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
*citation required
Quote:
At some crappy Christian school where you probably forced the kids to learn that caveman lived with pet dinosaurs. How in the world are you capable of teaching science, when you don't even understand the most basic principles?
And you bet I am anti-god, at least the one radicals like yourself and ISIS worship - he fucking sucks.
And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not their own.
I honestly don't even know where to go with this....what the fuck?
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
Uh, fucking horseshit. My issue is with the intolerance and hatred your fucking version of god brings forth...
I somewhat pity you for this hatred you carry for people of the christian faith, but don't worry, I don't hold it against you. I can still find forgiveness for this act of insensitivity because as a teacher of history, I know the many pogroms against your people in the past probably still resonate in your thinking.
Wow Rob, talk about intolerant and hateful!
"Some crappy Christian school........."
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
There's the Sprocky that we love to hate!
They go through life trying to "get even with God" by condemning anything having to do with Him and probably do not realize it. Let them go. They can only be helped by meeting someone in their life that may have an attraction for them.
A poster on the internet, no matter how well meaning is not going to cut it.
Point noted. Thanks for the word here.
And any school that would have you as a teacher does a disservice to the children.
If you were born in Syria, you would be a card carrying member of ISIS...
Now, we also know it is a population that borders on troll by never giving up or acknowledging the same infuriating rhetorical loops used by a conspiracy believer. Faith and magical thinking share the same traits of rhetoric...As do trolls and the annoyingly unself aware. They may get there for any variety of reasons but it is annoying ....which is why the same posters rise to the provocation of debating. Me certainly included. All post of any of those types have a certain lack of civil intellectual conciliation yet presume to discuss serious topics which deserve our best.
So at some point all these threads break down. My concern is that if we don't resist the lack of intellectual conciliation on one side and the lack of personal conciliation on the other the topic is ruined and sometimes banned.
Seems to me that this thread ran out of steam and one last word kind of temptation is now all that's left.
Let's see how accurate I am.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. You didn't take offense, but notice the words you seem to take offense to (highlighted). How do you spell hypocrite?
Quote:
In comment 12137051 Rob in CT/NYC
Wow Rob, talk about intolerant and hateful!
"Some crappy Christian school........."
You make a derogatory inflammatory comment like this and I'm sure NO ONE will call you out on it, no one. Even the one or two christians here won't call you out because they want you to like them. And of course the supposedly intelligent guys here- you know who they are- they won't take issue either because they are probably jewish and couldn't care less about someone mocking another religion that is not theirs.
If I said, "some crappy Jewish school....." I would have 999 posts calling me anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.
The BBI way lives on. Two faced and hypocritical- that's the way, a ha a ha we like it, that's the way, a ha ah we like it.
There's the Sprocky that we love to hate!
Interesting post, huh? Those darn Jews can be pretty smart, but ask them for help and you get bubkus.
If you can't do, please refrain from pulling this card out.
Two questions Al,
1. Al, did you find robs comment insulting?
2. If someone said, "crappy Jewish school", would you find that insulting?
That's not anti-Semitic rob. I am merely quoting from a book written by Jews about a Jew. That book says how salvation is attained, and like I have stated 1000 times, it is not limited to Jewish people only.
Maybe you need to read the definition of anti-semitism is again.
Yup, any school that would hire Rocky to teach science has to be shitty.
Quote:
all the insults aside, I would question any school that hires a non believer of proven science to teach science. What specific subject in science was being taught?
Two questions Al,
1. Al, did you find robs comment insulting?
2. If someone said, "crappy Jewish school", would you find that insulting?
The way you participate is also insulting.
I grant that you can't see it. Must be ready for conversion. I am right. You are lesser. And closer to evil and influenced by evil. Unlike me. I shall pray for you.
We are all way past conversation or learning. And tolerance. And civility.
Quote:
In comment 12136760 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136638 yatqb said:
Quote:
?????
Maybe because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
How is it that you can so easily accept that god has no beginning or end, yet keep saying that there must be a god because science can't explain how something came from nothing?
If you believe in the conservation of energy and matter, the simplest explanation is that "the Big Bang" was simply part of a cycle and our universe has always been and always will be here.
If you're referring to 'life' using "something from nothing " is idiotic, as no one claims it's anything of the sort. There were materials and energy that combined in what we think was a unique way. Personally , I have my doubts that it is really all that unique.
Do you argue this much about how the sun was formed? How about the planets of the solar system? Has science gotten all of that wrong too?
Quote:
In comment 12136760 Spock said:
Quote:
In comment 12136638 yatqb said:
Quote:
?????
Maybe because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
Everybody wants to believe! What separates the believers from the non-believers is that the non-believers accept reality while the believers go on believing what comforts them (at the expense of reality).
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
A-hem! Many of you do not believe Jesus even existed, let alone rose from the dead. So who is denying reality now?
And then Ive read 100 times here that I am anti-science, which is pretty funny considering I taught science in school at one time for some years. A more accurate conclusion would be the ones calling me anti science are really anti God.
Lastly, science has not proven anything beyond micro evolution and science has not proven how something could come from nothing, yet everyone here tells me I deny reality. Oh really! SMH
How is it that you can so easily accept that god has no beginning or end, yet keep saying that there must be a god because science can't explain how something came from nothing?
If you believe in the conservation of energy and matter, the simplest explanation is that "the Big Bang" was simply part of a cycle and our universe has always been and always will be here.
If you're referring to 'life' using "something from nothing " is idiotic, as no one claims it's anything of the sort. There were materials and energy that combined in what we think was a unique way. Personally , I have my doubts that it is really all that unique.
Do you argue this much about how the sun was formed? How about the planets of the solar system? Has science gotten all of that wrong too?
Some folks have friends that have had great success in a 12-step program. I find my goals to be very similar.
People here can make fun of my faith but I really do care about them no matter how much they may resent that. I really care about other people not just in the matter of faith but in day to day dealings.
If I post something on BBI that appears shocking, it's just an attempt to make people laugh. Life sucks without a bit of humor.
The way you participate is also insulting.
I grant that you can't see it. Must be ready for conversion. I am right. You are lesser. And closer to evil and influenced by evil. Unlike me. I shall pray for you.
We are all way past conversation or learning. And tolerance. And civility.
Thanks for sharing that, but I am not sure I can agree with your assessment here. If you follow this thread for example, you will see how people like Rob, Chris, and 20 other guys jump me personally, not limited to my post, and they do this time after time. I am usually put on the defensive to defend my position or thinking on MATTERS THEY BRING UP. What do you expect me to say?
Now, I see you called the gang out a few minutes ago for bullying, but where were you when it first began?
Also, you singled me out here, but have never singled anyone else out save your comment that rob was insulting to me. I'm not asking you to be the BBI police but people respect you and listen to you. I'm sure if you called out a few guys by name they would go back under their covers. :)
Lastly, I know you may not be able to do this, but put yourself in my shoes. Do I not have the same right as you to share my beliefs on a thread like this? look at all the derogatory comments made toward me personally for saying evolution is faulty. Eric has stated many times, attack the post, not the poster, but do you see that taking place? I don't. If this policy were followed this would be a quiet place, but men will be men. And just because my opinions are in the minority doesn't mean I will keep quiet.
One of the problems I have as a person on a journey to consider with folks entrenched in a belief system is that I try to but cannot separate tolerance for other beliefs but intolerance for personal rigidity. And I think if you believe something that is not certain then acting like you know with certainty is a personal not belief system arrogance. So somebody thinks something I do not...so what. But if engaged with a rigid arrogant person and the topic is a belief system it's real hard to keep the caveats directed at the right targets. One of the ways the arrogant and santimonius exercise arrogance is to pick topics that are sacred so debate is cloaked in hard to assail shibboleths
Seemingly normal people advocating killing all Muslims or at least stating that opinion. I've tried to reason with them but it really doesn't do any good.
IMO, if people want to learn more you have to become open-minded, take in as much as you can and then decide for yourself. People who stick to long held prejudices can be quite dangerous as we see almost every day.
Another thought. A number here have nor been happy with my responses to you because they feel I have been too tolerant of your posts and have refrained from insults. However. this has not helped since I too have now gotten on your shit list, judging by your last post to me.
And if you debate the subject you attack me. Attack me and you attack my personal beliefs as well.
All I am doing is being a victim of unfair attacks while asserting very debate able impossible to be certain of taken on faith beliefs.
Then just keep it going by sniping at transgressions from the mountain I insist upon.
Asserting a position of faith to posters who discuss in good faith from a position of bad faith eventually breaks down. The guy who started with intention to discuss in bad faith gets to walk away with their psychologically well defended psyche intact...." THEY WERE THE ONES WHO ARE LESS". I WAS THE GOOD GUY"
What you say and what you believe and how you engage are all different.
I say good things but ignore that I engage in a bad way. The conclusion that "People resist good things" is not the honest takeaway.
and I think the poster engages in bad faith on these topics. I have no illusions that he has honest faith. And engages on other topics in good faith
Seemingly normal people advocating killing all Muslims or at least stating that opinion. I've tried to reason with them but it really doesn't do any good.
IMO, if people want to learn more you have to become open-minded, take in as much as you can and then decide for yourself. People who stick to long held prejudices can be quite dangerous as we see almost every day.
All humans do things for an emotional pay off. May not be aware of it....but all do.
The "they are unfair to me" trope is only used by someone who is not engaged to learn or help or enjoy good discussion. It is a sign of someone who does not care about a serious subject by prioritizes playing out a personal drama with a personal payoff.
And Spock maybe you are singled out because others know they are attacking you. You take more work to reach because you need a lot of moats. Maybe the right formula is less Christ and more Buddha.
Quote:
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
That is very different than advocating killing all Muslims.
That occurs with their next sentence.
Quote:
In comment 12137162 mrvax said:
Quote:
That's just it. These people I'm talking about lump all Muslims together. They say to me "When was the last time you heard a Muslim leader come out and publicly denounce these acts?"
That is very different than advocating killing all Muslims.
That occurs with their next sentence.
In bad faith.....
Hmmmmm
I respect your right to perceive things and draw conclusions as you do. (I'm sure my beliefs, being directly opposed to a theory you whole heartedly embrace, has nothing to do with you making this comment.)
Good day. Stay warm.
http://imgur.com/5mbPggS - ( New Window )
However, some opinions are offensive, give rise to harm to various groups, abridge their rights, or even, in some case, damage the fabric of our democracy. These opinions should be marginalized and ridiculed.
If a poster here were to post racially offensive comments, he would hopefully and rightfully be shouted down. I have elected to extend the line further, and believe that the nullification of all other religions as well as the abandonment of science deserves the same response, particularly in light of posters who demand the "missing link" then won't even read why they are asking the wrong question,
B) I don't wholeheartedly embrace any theory
c) Notice the arrogance and supposition
d) Notice you distract yourself from the possibility of a message and attack the motives of the messenger.
Notice that ascribing and asserting thoughts into others heads is done by people who don't see that they engage in magical thinking??
Engaging with another supposing you know why and why they think is engaging the world around you in bad faith
all...all...all tactics of arrogant, psychologically well defended, impossible to be humble, needy, unaware person engaging others in bad faith. Don't take my word for it...look it all up.
For the record: No problem with what others believe. And I hold nothing unknowable as certain. My point to you is simple and you are breaking down in front of its inexorable validity with every singe post...you are not a victim Spock. You don't engage on this topic in good faith. Never have. Therefore you set up the reactions you get. Its not a beat down....its your kabuki theatre.
Maybe a good idea to post on Giants threads and such until your journey of discovery is further on?
Any remaining posts will only reveal the extent of the problem. there is no real good last word but self imposed self discipline to walk away and dig deep as to why you engage in plays that always end in the same self messages
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Scientific theories are not mandates that must be accepted as if given from on high. Everything in science is a tentative answer to a question that can be completely overturned tomorrow in light of new answer. So, to get behind any scientific concept "whole-heartedly" is foolish and decidedly UN-scientific.
Thanks.
There's a great deal about the diversity of life that we (as a collective) haven't come close to understanding in depth, and rather than be satisfied with the sum of the current body of knowledge, we (again, as a collective) strive to build that volume to greater depths. It's about never being satisfied that we've found THE answer, and understanding that we've found a part of the answer. Without that curiosity, we'd still be casting spells and throwing runes wondering why little Johnny has those boils on his tongue.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, could you tell me the time of Bill's post that says this? I went back quite a way and can't find it. I'm interested in the context of that statement. Thanks
Forget the global economic meltfown, let's ask the candidates about evolution.
Quote:
My bad. I thought I read here you agree and support the thinking behind evolution.
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, could you tell me the time of Bill's post that says this? I went back quite a way and can't find it. I'm interested in the context of that statement. Thanks
You want The time of Bills post that says he agrees with evolution.
Well......
Actually, my words above say, "I THOUGHT I read here you (meaning Bill2) supported evolution...." So maybe Bill didn't say he agrees with the theory.
If Bill doesn't agree with evolution I would love to hear him express this. I'd love to read the ensuing debate.
What River Mike is asking is where in this thread did Bill give the impression that he doesn't agree with evolution whole-heartedly.
Reading back through, I don't see anything that comes close to that either, so now I'm also curious as to what gave you that impression.
Quote:
You want The time of Bills post that says he agrees with evolution.
What River Mike is asking is where in this thread did Bill give the impression that he doesn't agree with evolution whole-heartedly.
Reading back through, I don't see anything that comes close to that either, so now I'm also curious as to what gave you that impression.
Bill2's 11:27 am posting, point b I believe. What does that infer to you?
As for me, I'm prepared for science to change, modify, or discard any theory. But it does so when present with new findings that are exposed to rigorous and critical review and testing. That said, I don't expect any major changes in the theory of evolution (there have already been minor modifications) because of the absolutely incredible body of evidence confirming it.
I am being told I am anti scientific by rejecting Darwinism or evolution but according to this 22 page document signed by SCIENTISTS and people of higher education, they too aren't embracing the theories of Darwin that readily.
So how do you perceive them?
Scientists needing more - ( New Window )
I give you Project Steve - ( New Window )
That said, I would question what proportion of qualified scientists are on that list (50%, 20% 1%, .2%?), and what proportion of those are devout Christians. The bottom line is that link didn't tell me much.
" A Christian God, who will doom all non-believers and incorrect believers, should be taught as a viable alternative cause."
And nowhere on that site do they suggest that the earth ISN'T many billions of years old. No dinosaurs with men in the Congo.
Forget the global economic meltfown, let's ask the candidates about evolution.
And when did anyone aver that asking about evolution was the only question one might ask? DUH!
I give you Project Steve - ( New Window )
Old? It says updated February 2015
Might as well put that list in the trash and burn it.
Quote:
for those who never evolved.
Forget the global economic meltfown, let's ask the candidates about evolution.
And when did anyone aver that asking about evolution was the only question one might ask? DUH!
You certainly have evolved from . . . .
Quote:
In comment 12137292 Giants2012 said:
Quote:
for those who never evolved.
Forget the global economic meltfown, let's ask the candidates about evolution.
And when did anyone aver that asking about evolution was the only question one might ask? DUH!
You certainly have evolved from . . . .
Coming from the missing link, I'll accept that as quite a compliment.
Mike, I believe that is natural selection as opposed to evolution. I whole-heartedly believe in natural selection too.
But if I assert something as fact and you challenge it I can retreat to say it's what I believe given I have no proof to disprove it. But I can't respond by saying you have no proof either therefore I am right and it's a fact. Nor can I set myself up as tight and insist you have not convinced me when what I asserted is full of logic leaps.
you have a right to believe. You don't have a right to say the other guy is wrong or lesser or close to conversion or more influenced by evil than you are.
Believing without facts is a personal choice. In person. Debating without facts is not. Now I realize some attack your thinking. And vice versa. My point was and is that we will never know either way. The primordial soup supposition...I was not there so I did not see it...is to me as statistically as likely as divine intervention to start and then again when it came to humans. Until we know otherwise it's belief. And I think all humans should be very humble open and fragile and seeking when it comes to belief...In sum all the things really worth knowing we will never know.
it's the manner not the subject. Yes others do the same to you. So what. Let them. Water off a ducks back. Seriously. Why do you as you describe always wind up in the same place?. I'm trying by several different means none of which are successful to point out that the issue is not the issues you are talking about. It's how....not what. Hope that helps.
Quote:
... You see a multitude of dog breeds that have evolved through the occurrence of desired traits that happened randomly and were selected by humans for reproduction of those traits...
Mike, I believe that is natural selection as opposed to evolution. I whole-heartedly believe in natural selection too.
This a very common false distinction used by creationists in their attempts to obfuscate that which is, in its essence, very simple:
"Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Darwins grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood."
You certainly have evolved from . . . .
Coming from the missing link, I'll accept that as quite a compliment.
A few more generations and your type might not find this question as a "deal breaker". Until then, consult away . . . .
Quote:
In comment 12137409 Giants2012 said:
You certainly have evolved from . . . .
Coming from the missing link, I'll accept that as quite a compliment.
A few more generations and your type might not find this question as a "deal breaker". Until then, consult away . . . .
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Pearls from a swine.
There's nothing circular about that.
Talk Origins - ( New Window )
Bob- pretty sure natural selection is an observable fact of life. Most of us remember the observation in science class of the white & black moths on black and white trees. If the moths matched the tree color they tend to survive and populate. Else, they get eaten.
It's simply a population responding to its environment through a number of processes in order to reproduce the next generation.
Over many many generations there are enough changes that the current generation looks nothing like previous ones and a new species gradually comes to be and an old one may die out or coexist separately.
Those that do will and those that don't won't.
That's borne out a billion times over.
Now I have a question. If no end goal how come molecules-to-man? For example, when the 1st mammal graced the Earth with a functioning breast that was able to sustain it's young, what did the breast consist of or what was it capable of doing the generation before? A partially working breast? Would not changes/mutations necessary to make an eventually working breast over time have to have a "goal" of someday actually be a functional breast?
Or, did small changes happen over a long period of time by random mutations that a fully functional breast eventually formed by chance?
You see it as circular. It's not for the reasons I've explained.
You still want to call that circular.
Not much more I can do about that.
Can you narrow down the subject over there for me? Thanks. (I'm not pulling your chain, I intend to read it.)
There's a lot there and none of the answers you're looking for are pithy.
The best I can say is that the answers are there, and if you're really interested in finding them, you're going to have to do some work.
You must have missed my earlier post when I referenced History Channel's "Ancient Aliens."
Nice summary from Wiki, including a few excerpts from the Pennsylvania case that ripped the shit out of DI:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found:
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." [...]
This federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis," through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.
And, of course, the question as to how many scientists on that list are fundamentalist Christians is a fair one. There's this little problem with true believers called "confirmation bias."
From "Rational Wiki":
A prime example stems from the intelligent design and creationism movements. Proponents of these ideas start by assuming that an intelligent creator must have been behind life (often assuming the Christian god) and then seeking out any (and only) evidence that might back up this claim. For example, Answers in Genesis often claims that fossils in the ground are proof of a Global flood and that layering is caused by the relative abilities of animals to reach higher grounds. They quote evidence which shows that humans and primates are on top of dinosaurs in the geological record and claim that this is because we "could climb to higher points on the landscape".
However, they never address any evidence that might disconfirm this hypothesis such as why angiosperm plants and their pollen is never found below vascular fern fossils, or why we see absolute cut-offs in the fossil record rather than a statistical tendency, which the "climbing" hypothesis would suggest. (In other words how come there weren't some weak or elderly humans who died with the dinosaurs.) The fossil record is in fact best explained by common descent but this is ignored through confirmation bias by creationists.
Creationists, along a similar vein, claim that "evolutionists" are practicing confirmation bias, since they are all atheists out to distort the scientific record to make it look like God does not exist. This claim is, of course blatantly false, theistic evolution disproves it. Furthermore not all scientists are atheists, and additionally old-earth and evolutionary theories were developed by considering new observations rather than dismissing the old ones
In my experience and readings, Creation Science leaders fall into two camps: 1) Those who are so deep into confirmation bias that they don't see how wrongheaded their approach is as a form of science; and 2) The flat-out liars, who use the tendency of true believers to give in to confirmation bias in order to fill their heads with bullshit.
The leaders of Creationism, such as those at our buddy's DI, actually tend to be more in the liar camp than the true believer camp. For example, if you look at the detailed history included in the Pennsylvania trial noted above, the move from the use of the word "Creationism" to the phrase "Intelligent Design" was NOT a change in views, but an out-and-out scam intended to fool people into thinking that Creationism was about evidence and science, rather than faith.
One of the things I find most disgusting about these people is their repeated tendencies to use half-truths and flat-out lies in order to pull in the already-convinced. The question is, why would they need to do that, if their view were a valid alternative to the vast majority of scientists who believe that Darwinism is a settled theory, rather akin in the magnitude of the evidence to the theory of gravity.
Btw, the word "falsifiability" above is a key to all of this. Creationism CANNOT be science, because it cannot be falsified. There isn't any set of experiments you can do that lead to the idea that "if X is true, the theory is false." True believers aren't open to falsifiability.
Link - ( New Window )
That would be an evolution killer.
Examples from the link:
--Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" -- they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the absence of the others. However, these structures have been exhaustively studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated entirely plausible evolutionary pathways.
--Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth. (Note from MG: by "emerge" he did not mean "exist." Primitive mammals started about 145 million years ago, but didn't turn into complex forms until well after the KT boundary, when dinosaurs vanished.)
--Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
--Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
Scientists talk all the time about methods to falsify the theory of evolution. For example, all you would need is a single example of more advanced adaptations existing provably before more primitive adaptions in a given fossil family tree and the whole thing falls apart. Examples have seemingly been found, but not in the same family tree. What occurred, it turned out, was parallel adaptions in different family trees, which turn out to be incredibly common.
Give a paleontologist specializing in, say, salamanders, to look at an extinct species from a given geographic location (to hold the family tree consistent), and he will tell you with pretty good accuracy, its approximate age, and never be wrong. He get's there by looking for more and less primitive physiological traits. If you found an example that was tens of millions of years out of sequence, with accurate location and age testing, the whole theory would be thrown into question--falsified. So far it hasn't, and the evidence gets clearer, as noted above, when genomics is added to the mix.
Link - ( New Window )
So, if you don't support this theory of evolution "whole heartedly," I would love to know, if you feel so inclined, what part of this theory you DONT support.
Thanks.
Hilarious.
Out of all of that, you still fail to understand what he means when he types, "bad faith" and just continue on doing exactly as he described. (I'll give you a hint- it had nothing do do with anyone's support of evolution or with anyone's religion.)
What is proven to an exquisite degree, and yet remains falsifiable, is macroevolution.
"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. ... What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
As I linked before, it is explained and proved extremely well here. This should be right up your alley.
Link - ( New Window )
Look at this guy and tell me if any of you have credentials as impressive as he does. (Mahn, RiverMike, and Wuphat, I believe you three in particular hold yourselves out to brilliant in these scientific fields, yes? )
It sounds like he also would love to talk with any who disagree with him. I'd like to know what reasons, if any, you would discount his words and not consider their merits.
Not a macro evolution believer - ( New Window )
You view others with some very distorted lenses of that's the impression you get from those guys.
Might I suggest you investigate some ways to build your confidence in that particular area?
Way to pick your spots.
IM gonna start getting my teeth cleaned at the car wash.
But you go on and build up those straw men.
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
Think about what such an exercise would entail - a complete and accurate model of an organism's environment over multiple generations.
As for the link supplied, he never once discusses specifically what it is that he doesn't understand regarding macro evolution, so even if I were qualified, I couldn't offer answers where there were no questions. Since the mechanism of macroevolution is relatively simple, I would have no idea what it is he doesn't understand unless he actually asks a question.
I guess what I yearn for is a theory that can predict a priori (sorry that is on my brain) which traits will be selected for and which ones won't. It would seem that at the rate species are going extinct today, that trait selection is suboptimal.
Bob, first, they didn't just go poof, extinct, it did take awhile. Second the most currently accepted theory is that the extinction was from a cataclysmic event asteroid impact?) that changed global conditions worldwide. The time period following the event wasn't long enough for genetic adaptations and selection to them to occur before the sudden and drastic changes killed them.
Second, current theory also state that they are not extinct at all, but are with us today in what we know as birds. However, the species that we traditionally identify as dinos, did in fact die off. Other, more birdlike species were apparently well enough adapted to survive global changes. the changes.
I remember when I started a thread regarding who people consider to be knowledgeable BBI posters on various topics, and one guy came into say how he was an expert on his field and proceeded to hijack the thread. That same guy is the one who now is playing the victim card and accusing others of acting the "brilliant." That's just too rich.
AS far as the disappearance of the dinosaurs, there is absolutely nothing there that is inconsistent with macroevolution. Under the history of paleontology, there have been as many as 10 mass extinctions, all of which have been pretty well linked to one of four types of events, alone or in combination:
--excess volcanic activity, causing temperature and biochemical changes;
--Some other bichemical series of events;
--Collision with a really huge asteroid that caused the equivalent of a nuclear winter--so much dust in the air that no sunlight reached the surface of the earth for an extended period of time; and/or
--A collapse in global temperatures leading to a full cover of the earth by glaciers ("snowball earth").
The dinosaur event is now thought by scientists to be connected mostly to the third, but also in part to the first at a time called the KT Boundary. The nine others killed off a varying proportion of species, and left many of the rest in bad shape in vastly different environmental conditions. A wonderful article describing the top 10 mass extinctions is linked.
All evolutionary theory predicts is that so long as some types of species survive the mass extinction, they will ultimately thrive and adapt to refill the evolutionary niches available to them. Just as in the pre-KT and post KT evironments: before you had large predatory and prey dinosaurs. Afterward you had large predatory and prey mammals--far larger than what exist today. Over time, these too became evolutionarily non-fit, especially as the earth cooled.
What living beings are "fit" during times of global collapse? Bacteria, bugs and some undersea creatures, and in the last cycle, some small underground mammals, amphibians and reptiles, among other things. They become the raw material for the next cycle.
Link - ( New Window )
AS far as the disappearance of the dinosaurs, there is absolutely nothing there that is inconsistent with macroevolution. Under the history of paleontology, there have been as many as 10 mass extinctions, all of which have been pretty well linked to one of four types of events, alone or in combination:
--excess volcanic activity, causing temperature and biochemical changes;
--Some other bichemical series of events;
--Collision with a really huge asteroid that caused the equivalent of a nuclear winter--so much dust in the air that no sunlight reached the surface of the earth for an extended period of time; and/or
--A collapse in global temperatures leading to a full cover of the earth by glaciers ("snowball earth").
The dinosaur event is now thought by scientists to be connected mostly to the third, but also in part to the first at a time called the KT Boundary. The nine others killed off a varying proportion of species, and left many of the rest in bad shape in vastly different environmental conditions. A wonderful article describing the top 10 mass extinctions is linked.
All evolutionary theory predicts is that so long as some types of species survive the mass extinction, they will ultimately thrive and adapt to refill the evolutionary niches available to them. Just as in the pre-KT and post KT evironments: before you had large predatory and prey dinosaurs. Afterward you had large predatory and prey mammals--far larger than what exist today. Over time, these too became evolutionarily non-fit, especially as the earth cooled.
What living beings are "fit" during times of global collapse? Bacteria, bugs and some undersea creatures, and in the last cycle, some small underground mammals, amphibians and reptiles, among other things. They become the raw material for the next cycle.
Link - ( New Window )
mg, thank you for offering a much more in depth and elucidating explanation than I had the patience for :)
I would never debate a scientist--and especially never debate a fundamentalist Christian one who is suffering from confirmation bias, just as you are. He would dance rings around me simply by knowing more science, but that wouldn't make him correct, of course.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
My answer: I suppose so. And asking about extraterrestrials, taxes, a Calc II question and a recipe for fried chicken are all fair game.
Should anyone be a single issue voter? IMO, no. There are a LOT of important issues to consider before casting a vote for the least repugnant candidate.
My answer: I suppose so. And asking about extraterrestrials, taxes, a Calc II question and a recipe for fried chicken are all fair game.
Should anyone be a single issue voter? IMO, no. There are a LOT of important issues to consider before casting a vote for the least repugnant candidate.
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
So, if this guy says he cannot see macro evolution from a chemists point of view, do you not take notice of this? Why would he say this unless he really has some concerns? And arent his concerns valid?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but if this guy, as brilliant as he is, has problems and concerns with this theory, then why would anyone mock little people who are not convinced either?
Tours doubts - ( New Window )
Quote:
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
Al only pasted the first two paragraphs. I linked the entire interview. Please read it in its entirety.
Quote:
In comment 12137737 Big Al said:
Quote:
"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."
Al, very interesting. Perhaps it explains why there were no specifics in that link supplied by Spock
Al only pasted the first two paragraphs. I linked the entire interview. Please read it in its entirety.
If you're referring to the link you provided, I did.
So, if this guy says he cannot see macro evolution from a chemists point of view, do you not take notice of this? Why would he say this unless he really has some concerns? And arent his concerns valid?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but if this guy, as brilliant as he is, has problems and concerns with this theory, then why would anyone mock little people who are not convinced either? Tours doubts - ( New Window )
Spock, you ask if his concerns are valid yet he never mentioned what those concerns are except that he doesn't see how its possible. Since it seems eminently possible to me, and in fact probable, it's difficult to evaluate concerns that aren't described.
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasnt just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense because it sure looks like the suns going around the Earth, and you cant feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later, Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people.
Even when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions what researchers call our naive beliefs. A study by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College showed that even students with an advanced science education had a hitch in their mental gait when asked to affirm or deny that humans are descended from sea animals and that the Earth goes around the sun. Both truths are counterintuitive. The students, even those who correctly marked true, were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree-dwelling creatures (also true but easier to grasp) and whether the moon goes around the Earth (also true but intuitive).
Link - ( New Window )
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
Where they disagree is that the scientists who support the concept of macroevolution look at the VAST amount of evidence for evolution through descent with change, and the entire lack of a single piece of counter-evidence, and say "yup, this happened." They consider the size of the coincidence to be too huge, otherwise.
Tour says, "well, I can't get the mechanisms to work, so the vast amount of cladistic, genetic, fossil and biological evidence, without a single piece of counter-evidence, doesn't impress me."
Where Tour disagrees with the DI crowd is that he doesn't take the next step, to making up evidence the other way. No dinosaurs overlapping with humans. No creation of the Grand Canyon in one big flood.
""
One of the more dangerous notions in modern
Rob in CT/NYC : 11:21 am : link : reply
Society is that every opinion should be respected. "'
(I totally agree with this part above)
""The right to have an opinion and to express it should most certainly be defended at all costs. ""
(most of us agree with this as well)
""However, some opinions are offensive, give rise to harm to various groups, abridge their rights, or even, in some case, damage the fabric of our democracy. These opinions ["should"] be marginalized and ridiculed.""
(here is where I slightly disagree ROB.
we all have the -right- to argue against anything as strongly as we want to or can, but to say " SHOULD"....well that is your opinion, suddenly you are directing society, telling all that they have a responsibility and naming yourself the one who defines what that is.....
in that way you are channeling the fundamentalists in an ironic way
you actually go on from there to suggest that 'opinions' (or do you mean certain people) 'should be' "marginalized and ridiculed" ...which seems like a bit of a bully instinct, as if you don't have enough faith in your own ideas to stand on their own without extending into the marginalization and ridicule of the perceived 'opponent'
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
The only point I was trying to make is simply this- even the qualified experts don't agree. This is not as open and shut as many non experts on BBI would like us to believe. Yes?
And on that account, evolution (there is no difference between micro and macro except time) has that in spades.
know all the important answers, and that all others, including all those really smart and important Jews, were/are doomed.
So, you thought you could "disprove" evolution as a way back there, only that didn't work out so well for you, so you pretend to have a simpler and more benign agenda.
This is why you end up in the liar, hypocrite, anti-Semite and homophobe camp, not because you doubt evolution.
Quote:
accepting his views simply on the strength of his credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. That's the same as some posters here that try to shut off any questioning of coaching decisions by saying "who are you to question his decisions, he's the coach and obviously knows more than you do.
And surely you must understand that there are a multitude of equally qualified scientists that would disagree with him. I would be open to hearing and investigating his "reservations" of only he would tell us what they are.
The only point I was trying to make is simply this- even the qualified experts don't agree. This is not as open and shut as many non experts on BBI would like us to believe. Yes?
On the point of "even qualified experts don't agree", I would say "absolutely", although I would modify it to "don't all agree". The overwhelming majority of qualified experts agree on the validity of evolution theory. Of course there's always differing opinions, mostly on details. This is standard in any scientific field and is a good thing.
Ouch.
granted, I did not read the entire thread.
I would agree to the extent that no scientific inquiry or theory should ever be "open and shut". However there are different degrees of certainty, evidence and confirmation. In the case of evolution these are very strong indeed.
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
BMac: early in the thread some posters stated that this was a vote or no vote single question issue for them.
I would need to see an actual statement Spock made directly condeming some people or other, not a 'perceived logical trail' or some other falderole , before I then turn around and condemn him in turn.
also- if it was years ago, he may have changed, I would not fossilize him to support anyones part in the perceived conflict.
Instead (and this would apply to positions related to conspiracy theories and holocaust denial as well), respectful engagement by reasonable people allows some degree of legitimacy to accrue to their fringe position, which is ultimately the desired goal.
Radical positions crave legitimacy and the engagement of the mainstream.
And lately, he's be relatively smart enough to veil it in couched terms.
You are under no obligation to accept that he's done so, nor to hold it against him.
It's hard relearning who you can safely ignore and those who bring nothing to the table.
Quote:
As I said earlier to a different poster who engaged in a drive-by; at no time did anyone aver that this was the only question one might ask. It just happens to be the question focused on for discussion's sake.
I really like it when people actually read everything in a thread before commenting.
BMac: early in the thread some posters stated that this was a vote or no vote single question issue for them.
You really can't distinguish between intent and single-poster opinion? Opinion that may well be as misinformed as the protagonist in this discussion. Come on, you're taking a vanishingly small sample of statements made and extrapolating that to be the end-all be-all intent of the question. Not at all germane.
Listen, I am a believer in the scientific method.
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
Quote:
So idiotsavant is alligatorpie? Relearning who everyone is again is a bit annoying.
It's hard relearning who you can safely ignore and those who bring nothing to the table.
True...but I have nothing against alligatorpie...although the new idiotsavant was sort of a jackass in his response when I asked what his previous handle was just out of curiosity.
ronnie. (smile)
Spock is also a member of the hate the sin, love the sinner crowd with respect to homosexuality. Tomato, tomato.
Spock is also a member of the hate the sin, love the sinner crowd with respect to homosexuality. Tomato, tomato.
True...he went from active mode to passive mode when it comes to condemning others...so that's definitely progress, no?
Listen, I am a believer in the scientific method.
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
I fail to see any reasonable reading of my post where I suggest Spock denied the Holocaust, or is a conspiracy theorist.
Listen, I am a believer in the scientific method.
In fact, I find its logic joyful and fun, in a similar way to how I find the logic of my faith. No contradictions at all.
I am no expert, but nor am I a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, if most scientists support evolution, that is good enough for me! It seems very rational.
However, I can smell a rat as well, and when people go out of their way to silence a guy like Spock (I have yet to see ANY proof that he is any kind of hater)...I think something else might be motivating people.
ronnie. (smile)
Thanks...as I've said in another thread, your posting style reminded me of someone (not in a derogatory manner...just in style)...so this makes sense.
That is a cheap wind baggy trick.
There is nothing in that post that remotely suggests he was accusing Spock of those things
Pretty much dead wrong. It's called using an example. Give it a rest.
Since my post was speaking directly to fringe positions and how they should be treated by the vast majority, I wasn't left with a whole lot of mainstream ideas, by definition. Get it?
idotsavant, accusing someone of accusing Spock of denying the Holocaust, repeatedly and without evidence, is fairly insulting in and of itself. No one did that.
(not that Spock is, he is not, but you made the correlation, so lets run with it)
In the mean time, maybe because I am not always here, I have never seen Spock say -one word- of hate, but you seem to really hate on him, so...
I see you continue to throw out every card you can find- race, religion, sex, whatever. You don't have to worry- your compadres here all are behind you and support your leadership role in promoting hatred and slander.
Btw, You Are very good at that. Now, hurry off to find a mirror and tell yourself how proud you are.....you small small person.
How do you spell childish? M-a......
very different, actually, since the concept of mens rights does seem kind of silly and weak, and not all that needed.
Come to think of it that is slightly sloppy, like how rob just, got sloppy and happened to use an unfortunate and inacurate example of why and when to ridicule people, an example that, I have learned, was not an accusation.
[quote] As per usual, this where we part ways - in no way was I discussing the rise of facism, and I have spent far too much time explaining a pretty straightforward post that only you seem to have trouble getting your head around. [/quote
It's a rather common occurrence.
It appears you were as good a lawyer as a history and science teacher.
I'm understanding the genesis of the name change.
Rob has the most detailed memory on that, but many of the rest of us recall how awful it was.
Did he change? Yeah, maybe slightly. Now he keeps his most vile and insulting comments to himself a lot of the time--but they still leak out as on this thread. The leaks in turn suggest that maybe he keeps them more to himself, in order to avoid getting his ass suspended or banned--not because he is any more tolerant than he ever was.
Why isn't it okay to agree to disagree? Obviously Neither of us will relent, so why not just move on?
You have been slipping lately.
You have been slipping lately.
Nah.
a silly mistake, but convenient in the millue here.
Rob used the holocaust as an excuse to ridicule Spocks regarding evolution.
perhaps the wrong example, but, again, convenient to the mission at hand.
Don't jump on such a low bandwagon.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
it was about Rob not using the science and instead in his own words using ridicule against Spock.
get over it boys.
and read.the.threads.
it was about Rob not using the science and instead in his own words using ridicule against Spock.
get over it boys.
and read.the.threads.
Because, as I wrote in the same post that you somehow managed to completely misunderstand, there is no amount of science that will change Spock's mind. Do you get it, yet?
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
a silly mistake, but convenient in the millue here.
Rob used the holocaust as an excuse to ridicule Spocks regarding evolution.
perhaps the wrong example, but, again, convenient to the mission at hand.
Don't jump on such a low bandwagon.
No bandwagon jumping here. Your intransigence in insisting that Rob declared Spock a Holocaust Denier smacks of trollism. I can see no other conceivable reason for you to continue to grind away at a patently false statement.
By the way, I also find it remarkable/astonishing/not believable that he claims not to know that a basic tenet of fundmentalist Christian support for Israel has to do with the Rapture. The general concept is Dispensationalism. (link)
Spock claims to study his religion in detail, and he never heard of the link between the support of many (not all) fundamentalists for Israel and the role Jews will play in creating the conditions necessary for the Rapture? Really? That is extraordinarily difficult to believe, and if so, suggests that he is even more ignorant than he has displayed on BBI over the years.
Sorry, I just don't buy that he never heard of this. It was a basic tenet of Jerry Falwell's beliefs, for example. (link)
I'm not saying Spock believes it. However, to suggest that there is no self-interest in the support of many fundamentalists for Israel is remarkable.
Here's a useful test: Do you think those same Dispensationalist fundamentalists love Jews sufficiently to permit their daughters to marry one?
Link - ( New Window )
and, that, in his own words "ridicule should be used" on such people
whereas, the science sophisticates had had a nice thread going, and the ridicule smelled of hate, not discourse.
Quote:
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
Uh, the Garden of Eden and the whole rib thing? Serpent, apple...the Creation Myth...would you prefer myth instead of fairy tale.
You remind me of both my father in law and father as they got older. They got very irritable spewed hatred much like what you are doing. I was just concerned.
You remind me of both my father in law and father as they got older. They got very irritable spewed hatred much like what you are doing. I was just concerned.
Quote:
In comment 12137945 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
This isn't a debate over what flavor of ice cream is better - at it's core, its a debate over embracing a process of scientific inquiry or a fairy tale.
In the process, embracing a fairy tale diminishes some of the greatest thinkers in human history.
specifically tell me what FAIRY TALE I believe in? Thanks
Uh, the Garden of Eden and the whole rib thing? Serpent, apple...the Creation Myth...would you prefer myth instead of fairy tale.
So, because I believe in that as written that makes me some kind of cooks looney, yes?
Please tell me why you can't just say, " Spock, I respect your right to believe the holy bible as you see fit and interpret it literally as you see fit. I don't see it that way, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree."
Why can't we have that dialogue?
Perhaps they'd also grown weary of you bullshit?
Do you still claim that you never heard of the link between love for Israel and Dispensationalism/The Rapture?
as long as my kids are operating out of love and rationality
i have told MY kids they can marry anyone, of any faith, any sex.
and I have told them so - repeatedly.
I just thought the evolution conversation was dilly without the ridicule.
that is all.
Spock was actually engaging in the science fairly well. I dont agree with that part, but it was civil.
and, that, in his own words "ridicule should be used" on such people
whereas, the science sophisticates had had a nice thread going, and the ridicule smelled of hate, not discourse.
I believe you'll find a fair number of people on this thread who will agree with my take and disagree with yours. You very plainly made the accusation and then stuck with it until forced to use sophistry to try to back out of the hole you were digging.
Comments like these are why earlier in the thread I said your existence is depressing. You deny science and spread ignorance (the type of ignorance that is dangerous if the wrong people accept it), and then except people to respectfully disagree.
It doesn't work that way. If you share foolishness on a public forum, you deserve whatever comes your way. If anything, I'd say the second half of this thread has been far too kind to you.
Quote:
Please tell me why you can't just say, " Spock, I respect your right to believe the holy bible as you see fit and interpret it literally as you see fit. I don't see it that way, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree."
Comments like these are why earlier in the thread I said your existence is depressing. You deny science and spread ignorance (the type of ignorance that is dangerous if the wrong people accept it), and then except people to respectfully disagree.
It doesn't work that way. If you share foolishness on a public forum, you deserve whatever comes your way. If anything, I'd say the second half of this thread has been far too kind to you.
This
Now I need a shower...I just agreed with Fekker...;)
Do you still claim that you never heard of the link between love for Israel and Dispensationalism/The Rapture?
I shouldn't answer you here because you wouldn't believe me anyhow, and in fact, I already answered it. But I will repeat what I said, I was surprised by that link you shared yesterday regarding christians supporting Jews so they won't get harmed or something thereabouts. First time reading that garbage.
loved that name.
2) On the other hand, if you look back much earlier in THIS thread, you will find more of his comments about only born again Christians being savable, and other religions being just wrong. .
It's there. I just have no interest in tracking it down. If anyone else wants to, be my guest. But, it simply isn't believable that he found wisdom and kindness over the course of a single thread.
I think you guys know I attend a Synogogue on Sabbath Day. It is a Messianic congregation where Jews who believe in Jesus and Christians worship together. In fact, I take a lot of flack from christians for not supporting Sunday as the Lords Day. The 4th commandment says Saturday, and the only reason I could see as to why it was changed to Sunday was anti-Semitic, so I could not go along with that.
Refer to the poems I posted!
For example, next time this topic appears, I have no doubt that you will ask after the missing link, despite several posters efforts to educate you on the subject.
Does this sound like a guy who is anti- Semitic to you? How many Christians do you know do this? In fact, how many Jews do you know do this?
I'm not sure what your definition of a Jew is, but it seems to me I follow more of the JEWISH customs and rituals than Most Jews.
in NO way equates to any expression of -hatred- in the Christian theology
since we know it can just as easily be ME as anyone...and that the opposite may be very rare indeed.
in my case, very and highly likely to be me, the one not saved, hahahahaha
and in no way connotes superiority, on the contrary.
How is that possible? Even those who don't believe in it are in constant debate about the concept with other so-called Messianic Jews who do.
Maybe some good came out of this after all. Maybe Spock learned about the self-interested nature of many of his co-believers for the first time. I don't believe that, but maybe.
Festivals - ( New Window )
I never said I never heard of dispensationalist. I said I never heard of that article Mahn linked basically connecting Jews prosperity to christians health.
The very essence of faith is holding certain things to be true in the absence of proof. So right off the bat, before a single word is exchanged, you are relegating yourself to a position that is simultaneously both indefensible and undefeatable because you are preemptively removing rationale or thought from the equation.
You incorrectly place the burden of proof on those in favor of evolution (ugh, even typing it up like that, as if it's even up for debate, is nauseating). Still, despite you and those like you stacking the deck against intelligent discourse, you still blindly deny the incredible amounts of proof that already exists (more is certainly on the way as we continue to progress).
With all that in mind, how can you possibly accuse anyone else of being closed-minded? Your position inherently requires a lack of thought. Does the fact that you reference your "beliefs" and "faith" when engaging on matters that are ultimately rooted in truth and not belief mean anything to you at all? Do you.. do you really not get it?
Dispensationalism explained - ( New Window )
The
Great Religions are the
Ships
Poets the life
boats.
Every Sane Person I know has jumped
overboard.
That is good for business
ISN'T IT
HAFIZ?
So, I go back to the basics that work for me- I believe in God's word. If God's word is clear to me, that settles it. The Adam and Eve story seems pretty accurate to me, especially seeing Jesus site Adam in his words (confirmation).
Case closed.
Lost cause.
I think you just defined trolling.
I think you just defined trolling.
Don't I have a right to voice my opinions just as you do? When I see a thread like this and many people mocking christians or religious people because they don't accept evolution, I feel the need to balance out the discussion and keep the bullies from bullying other opinions.
As for the belief, I would roughly tend to believe that when it comes to faith, complexity often hides some sort of bullshit, or something done by people, as opposed to by the divine, so no thanks to dispensationalism.
Its like math. It may seem complex, but the true math may be simplified down to a very short formula, by someone much smarter than me.
Quote:
Then why are you at all interested in this topic? If the case is closed, why ask questions?
I think you just defined trolling.
Don't I have a right to voice my opinions just as you do? When I see a thread like this and many people mocking christians or religious people because they don't accept evolution, I feel the need to balance out the discussion and keep the bullies from bullying other opinions.
You are free to do as you wish - but when you come to a discussion rooted in science with non-science, misstatements, no facts and a statement like "case closed", you should manage your expectations with respect to the tone and tenor of the responses you get.
Why do people say "bye" to a thread and come back a few minutes later?
When evangelicals speak about Jews this way, they shouldnt be surprised if their love goes unrequited. At its core, philo-Semitism has much in common with anti-Semitism. Both approaches view Jewishness as an abstract monolith, and both endow Jews with particular historical roles roles, it seems, that are rarely of the Jews own choosing.
So, as noted, Philo-Semites love Jews not as Jews, but as part of Gods plan. But as I asked before, would they let their daughter marry one?
Then there is Spock's initial claim that he knew nothing about dispensationalism, which he rapidly denied once he outed himself as a practicing Messianic Jew, who could not conceivably be ignorant of these concepts, as Rob and I noted.
Spock : 2/14/2015 8:44 pm : link : reply
In comment 12136631 manh george said:
Quote:
1) I never said ALL fundamentalist Christians believe this, but it's a commonly held belief, and you know it.
2) I am sure I could find vastly better articles, if it were worth my time. They are all over the Net. Thousands of them.
Actually I don't know it, first time I read garbage like that. There you go again, speaking for me when you are not me, which I'm sure you are glad about that. That makes us even.
Spock : 2/15/2015 10:55 pm : link : reply
In comment 12138006 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
Are dispensational. I have no choice to believe what you say, but I am astonished that you have never heard of the concept. It's embraced by perhaps 40 million Christians in the U.S.
I never said I never heard of dispensationalist. I said I never heard of that article Mahn linked basically connecting Jews prosperity to christians health.
Which the article doesn't do, of course. The hypocrisy just drips...
Link - ( New Window )
The interesting parts of this article are as follows:
Don't think it will be as expensive as the "temple" they're building in Minnesota to the football team!
Oh, and to complete the miller, the third season of History Channel's Vikings starts 2-19. Can't wait!
Buddha was an Indian guy not Chinese
Jesus was a Middle Eastern guy not White
The face of Western thought and the face of Eastern thought. And neither of those faces looked anything like the actual faces of those figures. Because marketing.
Religion is a product and demographics were a big deal even back then.
Why do people say "bye" to a thread and come back a few minutes later?
Good question Ronnie. I've done the very same thing myself. There is an irresistible urge to see what is said after you bow out. Then you see a comment that absolutely screams for a response :)
The neurological research demonstrates that empathy, far from being an artificial construct of civilization, is integral to our biology. And when biological intersubjectivity disappears, when the face is removed from life, empathy and compassion can no longer be taken for granted.
I am certainly guilty of this. In fact a few years ago I noticed myself becoming nastier than I wanted to accept, so I took a break from BBI for several months.
Internet nastiness - ( New Window )
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Yes he did. And thankfully, Al Gore provided us with this interweb thingy.
Quote:
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Quote:
In comment 12138132 Big Al said:
Quote:
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Maybe Spock feels that his answer will just open the door to a new round of insults? Pretty sure he said another time that he taught "Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences", whatever that is.
Possibly covered the climate changes leading to the Flood.
More likely Astrology and the evils of the Ouija Board.
Lol Al, why should I now want to tell you or any of you guys anything about my life? It's not like I'm among friends here.
What did you do for a living before you retired?
After taking a day off to clear my head, it still seems clear to me, the voices who speak here bully people to believe as they do. They say they have all the answers and this topic is black and white, open and shut.
What a joke!
I provided a document signed by a ton of credible scientists, including the eminent Dr. Tour, who say they are not convinced, and you guys all dismiss their claims like they mean nothing. To me, this is arrogance and intolerance personified.
Sure you can agree to disagree, but to come on here as a non expert, merely a guy who reads books, and to say the guys who are really qualified, like Dr. Tour and others like him, their opinion and words mean nothing is COMICAL.
Oh, but the way, ever hear of a Nobel Lauriate named Richard Smalley? Well, he was once a staunch evolutionist, but guess what? He abandoned ship and became a voice in the scientific community for ID.
Does his voice/opinion mean nothing too?
So this begs me to ask this question- who in the hell is rob from NYC, Wuphat, Mahn george, etc? Who are you guys that I should consider your opinions higher than Tour or Smalley? What are your credentials again?
Smalley - ( New Window )
Go figure it out yourself- google.com.
2) The vast, vast majority of scientists in the fields closest to evolutionary theory disagree with the few that you cite. Your insistence on relying on that tiny minority, is simply one level of selection bias relying on another level of selection bias.
3) When you show me peer reviewed articles from your buddies, with real data to back up their claims, I will consider your buddies' viewpoint. Until then no need to waste my time.
4) I never desired that you agree with me or the others here. I desire you to think, and to open yourself up to how science actually works. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh wait....
So, fair or unfair, the issue is simply that, if you are going to put yourself out there as a presidential candidate, you have to expect to be bombarded with questions for which the answers might be difficult or awkward for your base. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen, or at least Europe.
Then why should I accept any article written from your experts if they are ATHEISTS?
Tit for tat.
I even wonder how many scientists who support macro evolution are truly born again christians. Just wondering.
Then why should I accept any article written from your experts if they are ATHEISTS?
Tit for tat.
I even wonder how many scientists who support macro evolution are truly born again christians. Just wondering.
We accept what's written if it's been proven to be true with solid scientific experimentation. Christian or not.
Quote:
Why is Spock so reluctant to tell us the nature of the science class he taught?
Lol Al, why should I now want to tell you or any of you guys anything about my life? It's not like I'm among friends here.
What did you do for a living before you retired?
After taking a day off to clear my head, it still seems clear to me, the voices who speak here bully people to believe as they do. They say they have all the answers and this topic is black and white, open and shut.
What a joke!
I provided a document signed by a ton of credible scientists, including the eminent Dr. Tour, who say they are not convinced, and you guys all dismiss their claims like they mean nothing. To me, this is arrogance and intolerance personified.
Sure you can agree to disagree, but to come on here as a non expert, merely a guy who reads books, and to say the guys who are really qualified, like Dr. Tour and others like him, their opinion and words mean nothing is COMICAL.
Oh, but the way, ever hear of a Nobel Lauriate named Richard Smalley? Well, he was once a staunch evolutionist, but guess what? He abandoned ship and became a voice in the scientific community for ID.
Does his voice/opinion mean nothing too?
So this begs me to ask this question- who in the hell is rob from NYC, Wuphat, Mahn george, etc? Who are you guys that I should consider your opinions higher than Tour or Smalley? What are your credentials again? Smalley - ( New Window )
Then why should I accept any article written from your experts if they are ATHEISTS?
Tit for tat.
I even wonder how many scientists who support macro evolution are truly born again christians. Just wondering.
To be "Scientific", postulates must follow the Scientific Method:
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
[url=http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html[/url]
This is Fog a Mirror: the Tenets of, and Exactly what "Actual Real Science" is and does. Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century....
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...
"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical sciencethe evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009
"Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry". If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.
Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place".
Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.
Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."
Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?
Say Goodbye to: Step 1 Observe a Phenomenon, Step 3 Hypothesis , Step 4 (TEST/Experiment).
By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacies) and "Just So" Stories
So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).
Then we have....
Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
Appears to echo Professor Mayr's summation. How can you form a "valid" Hypothesis if you can't predict anything??
You have only 2 Choices as to "How" we are here: "Nature" randomness or Intelligent Design "GOD".
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.
To refute....
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
2. DNA "CODE"/Software---------Design(Intelligence)----------Designer!
a. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
b. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words....How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
Have a Blessed Day
Lol
I'm going to have to reread that post again, but for all these evolution loving brainiacs here who love to debate science, this sounds like science to me.
Eating popcorn.
Quote:
not knowing why the Hindus got creation wrong. Oh well, woe is me.
Go figure it out yourself- google.com.
I guess I could but I was looking forward to hearing from a legitimate authority on the matter. Who knows what I'll find on the internet?
I have been trying to tell you there are two sides to this coin. i can post 1000 articles as to why the theory of macro evolution is malarkey, but you guys won't listen, so maybe ENOCH here will "convince" these guys they are backing the wrong horse on this issue. I wonder if anyone will even rebut his post. He sounds like he knows some science, unlike the so called experts here who read a few books yet have never even looked in a microscope.
Now who are the presidential candidates running in 2016 who are staunch evolutionists?
Predict an outcome, and see how the fossils and genetics comport with that outcome. Find a bona fide example that contradicts the outcome, and the theory has been falsified. These types of sets of observations have then been turned into thousands peer reviewed studies. For some strange reason, tens of thousands of scientists in related fields actually call that science. The same holds for cosmology--patterns in how galaxies and stars form have been studies in exquisite detail. There are still holes in the threories, but the holes keep shrinking
Now, try applying that method to ID, and then to peer review. Good luck with that.
I will once again link the best site that discusses this, for macroevolution, since you are new.
Link - ( New Window )
Not looking for credentials, such as Enoch quoted. looking for peer-reviewed, falsifiable scientific studies. Nothing new there.
Got anything constructive to add to the issue RC?
I didn't think so.
Religion is not testable, and is not open to change in any respect. It is a closed, locked idea that supports itself through circular logic (among other logical fallacies).
Even if macroevolution were falsified, creationism would be no less on the hook for the requisite verification.
In other words, falsifying macroevolution and verifying creationism are two separate enterprises.
Quote:
turn
Lol
I'm going to have to reread that post again, but for all these evolution loving brainiacs here who love to debate science, this sounds like science to me.
Eating popcorn.
The fact that the post sounded like science to you is precisely the problem.
Have a shitty day, Enoch.
As others have mentioned, falsifiability is the key - on this thread alone, conditions for falsifying evolution have been provided (one by Darwin) himself.
Not nearly as random as mutation, I'm thinking...
Have a shitty day, Enoch.
I prefer "Empirical" Science (even though it's redundant)...it lessens the chance of Equivocation (Fallacy).
Circular Logic? How so?
You have a Blessed Day
granted, a lot of the words sound good, unless you happen to know science and scientific precepts.
to me, there is nothing more paganistic than to attribute anything you don't understand to a deity. and it makes matters worse to deny science in an attempt to justify long held paganistic beliefs.
granted, a lot of the words sound good, unless you happen to know science and scientific precepts.
to me, there is nothing more paganistic than to attribute anything you don't understand to a deity. and it makes matters worse to deny science in an attempt to justify long held paganistic beliefs.
This is a Strawman (Fallacy). Can you post where I made an argument concerning Complexity....?
If I did, I surely would have differentiated between: Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC), and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC).
Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes.
Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket". The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.
So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.
FSC = Intelligent Design Construct
"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."
L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.
regards
Simple to complex - ( New Window )
Stop talking to yourself!
And with millions of years, that assumption has been achieved.
Good luck on the notion that anything not experimented on randomly is not a theory, nor proof. It's simply not true.
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?"
it's the age old 'life is so beautiful/complex it must be God' argument, with a lot of psuedo science mumbo jumbo thrown in.
Aside from the fact that it is supposed to be faith. Aside from the fact that the bible doesn't discuss almost ANY of the science that 95% of posters here wouldn't even argue against.
This idea that some folks cannot reconcile their faith without arguing against scientific fact and scientific theory kind of speaks to their lack of faith, IMO.
Ironic.
Quote:
He might as well change his name to it.
Got anything constructive to add to the issue RC?
I didn't think so.
Eh...would it matter if I did? You're about as close minded as anyone on this board, so anything I add will just hit deaf ears. So instead I thought I would just state what I saw as an obvious confirmation bias. But just move along since you only read what you agree with.
Nice work fuckface (spock).
And with millions of years, that assumption has been achieved.
Millions of Years? You're correct it's an "assumption" but more accurately it's Begging The Question (Fallacy) and is well outside "Science's" Purview.
If you disagree, then please Validate any of them....
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
I'd be quite interested to "see" you get beyond Step 1... then once obfuscated----(Invalidating the Scientific Inquiry), I'd like to see the Dependent/Independent/ and Control Variables of your TESTS...along with the Make/Model/Serial# of your Time Machine.
Also "Data" is what you acquire from TESTS/Experiments; not what you use to conjure a Hypothesis.
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
[url=http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm[/url]
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
[url=http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html[/url]
regards
Perhaps you'd like to pick up a statistics book, or a book on data inference? You can point me to the section where 4. is required for data inference. It's not.
Why do you think large scale datasets like PUMS, ACS, AHS, etc. exist? They were not part of any form of experiment, and yet there are still utilized for the whole scientific process.
Again, experimentation is not uniformly feasible. The absence of it does not mean that the scientific process is unachievable or has no basis. Again, that may be 17th century science without the aid of data analysis techniques, but it hasn't applied for at least 70 years.
So much time spent yelling out fallacies (shitty understanding of them too), and yet a basic mis-understanding of the scientific process.
It's also obvious from your post you have no concept of the Law of Large Numbers. You can Wiki those.
Here is a link to Berkeley. That shits on the notion that you need experiments.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b5
Aside from the fact that it is supposed to be faith. Aside from the fact that the bible doesn't discuss almost ANY of the science that 95% of posters here wouldn't even argue against.
This idea that some folks cannot reconcile their faith without arguing against scientific fact and scientific theory kind of speaks to their lack of faith, IMO.
Ironic.
Factually Incorrect. It's actually the opposite but Thank You for your "Opinion".
Biblical "Faith" is:
(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
As opposed to: "Blind Faith"--- belief without substance or evidence; which is strictly admonished against in Scripture....
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Ergo..."Prove all things", I'm actually following the admonishment.
And btw, I love "Actual" science and have a couple of degrees in the discipline.
regards
Fuck me, where did you get those degrees? I don't want to send anyone I love there...
Link - ( New Window )
You could start by supporting your Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)
"Inference" Synonyms: conjecture, speculation, guess, presumption, assumption, supposition.
It's Not Science!
Show the Experiments! ...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
No Experiments.....No Science
I say again: No Experiments....No Science.
Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 2. Please support...?
"WIKI"...you do know that anyone and their sister can post, right? Correlations/Similarities isn't Science.
Science is in the Business of Observing Phenomenon in the Natural World and attempting to ascertain CAUSATION via Rigorous Hypothesis Testing.
Do you have a specific argument?
Seriously? SEE: Dr. Feynman's Assessment above.
Please tell me HOW on Earth something is "Science" without Experiments?
I think you should reexamine punctuation before you tackle a big boy topic like scientific method, you embarrassment to thought.
Well, again, considering that observable evidence not acquired through experimentation, based on correct implementation of statistical techniques, can simulate the results from experimentation, that can be science.
It's apparent you have no concept of what science is. And the more dangerous part is that you are smugly clueless about it.
By the way, perhaps you haven't heard how differences-in-differences, a statistical technique, leads to a causal interpretation? Instrumental variables? Neither are an experimental technique.
You are really, really bad at science. Plus, re-read Feynman. You realize that testable does not mean experimental, right?
Scary thing is...they have the same views, demeanor, and posting habit. So I can see why they are mistaken for the same poster.
Fuck me, where did you get those degrees? I don't want to send anyone I love there...
For One...it's not evolution, from the Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory":
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Secondly it's an Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
"Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
"Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"
It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeatedin short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!
Macro"-evolution or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from Micro"-evolution.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.
Before we get to "Micro" or "Macro" you need to somehow get around....
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!
To refute:
1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words...How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
regards
Funny you call him a troll because the people like you can't debate him. He said he has a couple of degrees, I assume in science. What do you have? High school maybe.
But at least kicker is debating. Maybe Bill2 will rejoin and come to your aid.
Irony: many abused me for not being open to discussi the merits of their science, and now no one wants to discuss science with a scientist because I presume very few really know much first hand.
Oh, and why don't guys like you and Jon just go talk about Kevin Ogletree or JJP on those threads?
Beware the false prophet...
It's also why Creationist "science" is so absurdly laughable.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy."
Bingo!
The article I linked touched on Something similar. Here is a quote from it...
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p.264)
It seems logical to you and me (this my name), but for some reason, not to some here.
Beware the false prophet...
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
Quote:
I never understood the Creationists false distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Link - ( New Window )
For One...it's not evolution, from the Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory":
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Secondly it's an Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
"Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
"Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"
It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeatedin short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!
Macro"-evolution or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from Micro"-evolution.
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.
Before we get to "Micro" or "Macro" you need to somehow get around....
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!
To refute:
1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.
In other words...How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software?
regards
Quote:
Don't abuse yourself of that notion.
Beware the false prophet...
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
Yeah. A Ph.D. in Economics with a concentration in Statistics and Data Inference.
You know, that stuff that isn't "science".
in my last post.
Quote:
In comment 12140415 kicker said:
Quote:
Don't abuse yourself of that notion.
Beware the false prophet...
Btw, since you judge Enoch's qualifications, mind me asking What are your qualifications? He said he had two degrees I presume in the scientific field. He doesn't sound like a lawyer or accountant to me.
Yeah. A Ph.D. in Economics with a concentration in Statistics and Data Inference.
You know, that stuff that isn't "science".
Economics is not chemistry, biology, geology, astrophysics, molecular biology, or genetics.
I would not call you to be my expert witness in a trial regarding evolution. So, who are you to be dissing a guy with two degrees I assume in science (he said in this discipline)? Answer- no one
Full Definition
1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics>
2 : economic aspect or significance <the economics of building a new stadium>
3 : economic conditions <current economics>
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
Swing and a miss. A lawyer takes, at face value, someone's assertion that they have 2 degrees on science? Yeah, no.
Plus, where have I dismissed his views on evolution? You seem to be a poor reader. I dismissed his idiotic assertions on what the scientific process is. Which, of course, is rather easy with any background in data analysis.
Good job, counselor.
A quick lesson is how to determine causality when you can't achieve the gold standard of an experiment. Which, of course, is science.
Not surprising you don't get it, but such is the life of someone who's concept of science is stuck in the 15th century.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
He and Spock should ask themselves why they worship so pathetic a god that can't stand up to scientific inquiry.
Idiots Playbook - ( New Window )
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
So...I'm confused. I thought you agreed with him? Clarification, mainly for hilarity, is encouraged.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
Is James Tour, PhD qualified enough for you?
Macro evolution - ( New Window )
However I will say this... Have a great day
Quote:
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
Is James Tour, PhD qualified enough for you? Macro evolution - ( New Window )
I'm not sure a chemist is well-versed in the field of biology, though I assume he did take some introductory courses.
Finding a handful of PhDs that subscribe to your viewpoint (or in this case, give your viewpoint a talking point that it can stretch to fit its need to print an article with an accredited name attached to it) is fine and dandy, but anyone who has studied the field will not use antiquated terms that were popularized when Ford was phasing out the Model T for the Model A.
Again - the distinction is used by those with an agenda or minimal understanding of the field.
They're is nothing to debate Spock - your wrong, and not only are you wrong, your retardation affects children and other people's lives negatively. You should be lambasted, insulted and if you cannot be fixed, removed from the conversation. There's no room at the table of learning for your bullshit. The fact that many here have had the patience to engage you civilly is a testament to their character, and you are wholly undeserving.
Go back to your hole, wait for the end of the days, and when nothing happens upon death but rot, well you won't have any greater realization moment or 'I told you so moment' because you'll be dead.
Your life is a lie, have a nice day.
Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Fuck off.
Seriously though, spock's a fucking lawyer?
How are astrophysicists scientists in your definition, yet not in the opinion of someone you champion?
Seriously though, spock's a fucking lawyer?
Well, lawyer the same that this guy is a lawyer?
Quote:
The Adam and Eve story seems pretty accurate to me, especially seeing Jesus site Adam in his words (confirmation).
Spock, can I have more details on why the adam and eve story seems pretty accurate?
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Seriously though, spock's a fucking lawyer?
Yeah, what are you?
Quote:
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
Memo to Spock- don't talk to a-holes. Stay focused.
Got it!
Ignore on
But none of that is really relevant given that I'm jewish. For that alone, I'm going to hell according to you and your faith and there's not a damn thing I can do it about other than declare jesus my lord and savior.
Quote:
In comment 12140477 Spock said:
Quote:
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
It's not incumbent upon me to refute every fucking lie you link to, you anti-Semitic piece of shit. I could do the same thing, and link to sites that state that Jesus was buggering Mary Magdelene. thirty three years is a long time without dipping the old wick.
Married with Children - ( New Window )
Quote:
how unwelcome you truly are, since it's not getting through to your Jesus-sexual fantasy addled head.
Memo to Spock- don't talk to a-holes. Stay focused.
Got it!
Ignore on
No way it can't be you, right?
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I thought you knew!
You guys keep telling me I'm scientifically challenged and closed minded, so here I am, opening myself up to receive your good word of instruction. (I even asked Enoch but he must have missed it too. )
Thanks and good night
Refute me - ( New Window )
Would you like the chapters to some statistics textbook to help you understand?
It's spock, fying under false colors and cribbing from sources not his own.
Quote:
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I assume now is the time I go into a long discussion of Giardia Lamblia, only for it to be refuted by a long string of well placed buzzwords and a reshuffling of the playing deck.
So I'm going Charlie Kelly here and playing a Wild Card - Nitro nailed it, its Jesus' magic pixie dust.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
I agree that what you propose is a possibility, but it's just too coincidental that spock was getting his ass kicked and good old Enoch suddenly appeared.
So, I very strongly believe this is spock, who has a history of bannings and handle changes, randomly selecting supposed refutations from creationist sites. The fact that there is no internal organization or rigor in Enoch's posts point straight at spock's years of hypocrisy on here.
Ergo, spock and enoch are one and the same. The really sad part of all this is that supposedly spock has children (created without sex, of course) and has turned them into little morons who had no chance from the start.
A very good candidate for a child abuse charge if I ever saw one.
Quote:
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
Hard to say which one damages humanity more in the long-term....
All you have is name calling and dragging through the mud anyone that doesn't agree with your Fairytale Ideology without @ least a semblance of a cogent well thought out argument in defense.
This isn't Rocket Science; if you can't square "Nature" writing Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes (SEE: DNA----"CODE") ....which is Ludicrous Absurdity, what's left??
(Isaiah 1:18) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
His yoke is easy and burden is light...It's Absolutely Free, Paid In Full!! His Name is Jesus Christ...and He Loves You.
Hope it helps
Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution; and
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope. However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I wasn't going to post on this thread. But damn Shep, you nailed it sir.
Quote:
Of the mysterious video tape fame, is it?
It's spock, fying under false colors and cribbing from sources not his own.
That diabolical genius!
Faith
"I believe in this. It works for me. I am glad you other guys found what you believe in and I hope you guys still looking find peace. What I believe works for me and allows me to live the way I want to. I think I am a better man and it helps lead a more compassionate and moral life"
Period. Full Stop.
That answer is accurate, dignified, reasonable, indefeatable, honorable, moral, strong, compassionate and tolerant of others and their beliefs.
The defense of faith is just to say "this is what works for me"
I believe because this helps me be a better man. Not because its more tested, factual, immune to less fallacies, has more or less logic leaps or missing links.
No one...no one can argue with that. Simple. Direct, Valid.
Why in the world would you go to enochville?
Makes me think you don't have faith....you want certainty. You and enoch desperately want certainty in an uncertain world.
Faith is not certainty. It has no need to care about certainty. It is humble not argumentative. Faith is a bet on you. certainty is a search because you are scared about you.
What the fuck are you doing?
You have no need to talk at all if you have faith and just say so.
You for ages want certainty. That and human is an oxymoron.
Stop talking and look in the fucking mirror. Be a fucking man. Either have the balls to say "This is what I believe. It may be flawed. It may sound stupid. It may not be right for you. That's ok. It works for me and my life and that's all that matters.
Faith is the defense of Faith. Period. Always will be true. Always.
Faith does not try to convince any one else by dint of argumentation. A man of faith shows he is a more moral man more times than his failures would have been without his faith. Usually that means a man of faith is humble and shuts the fuck up so he has every bit of energy to get closer to a 49/51 split on life.
You only have a few decades to live. Stop masturbating. Its sophomoric. Especially in public.
Good night and God Bless.
That's a guy I wouldn't mind having a drink with.
Pulling from incredibly dumb websites that advise how to defend and debate and convert? A losers game. And for heavens sake...by junior year of high school you should know that degrees and knowing what you are talking about have nothing to do with each other.
Hint: its not what citations you can pull. its about knowing what matters
please stop. you wrecked the only refuge of dignity the genuine believer has to begin with. "I BELIEVE IT" "It WORKS FOR ME" "I don't need to say one more thing."
Now for three days you have self trashed yourself. its crime to self immolate in public. give it rest. have some dignity
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
Huh? Falsify it???...you don't have anything to falsify (SEE: detailed post on "Macro").
You sure?
Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC(Functional Sequence Complexity)
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29
In other words...Show Stupid Atoms Writing Their Own Software?
Don't know, you tell me? My 10 year old can refute the most supreme evolutionary geneticist <---(that's actually a contradiction in Terms). Scripture tells me that satan is the "wisest" of all creations, his fingerprints are all over it.
Talk Origins?
"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."
/wiki/Talk.origins
What's next, the National Enquirer?
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope.
Need I say more?
Can you tell me the difference between a "PRE"-diction and a POST-diction?
Then this...
Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
And this...
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep TimeBeyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, pp. 116-117
Similarity doesn't = Causation! I can say with equal Scientific Vigor....Common Designer.
You also have BIG problems here...
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more"
"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."
"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".
"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric] Bapteste".
"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".
"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....
"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."
'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....
"Also, "Our analyses have shown that there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"!
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011
All of your points basically fall into a Textbook Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
You have "No Predictions" (SEE: Above) just "ad hoc" rescue devices, the poster children (PE/Convergent et al) the never ending Ptolemaic Epicycles. And "Statistics" is not "Science".
Au Contraire...SEE Null Hypotheses Above.
Ipse Dixit, eh?
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
So a Judge gets to adjudicate "Scientific" Matters, eh? Who's next MADD?
Wonder if he called upon His vast experience presiding over the Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board?
Let's take a closer look...
@ the end of a Trail a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.
Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:
ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".
So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".
ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence IN TOTO.
ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".
If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!
Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)
Anything else?
Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish. I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it. The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest. You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
Good night.
That's what the Pennsylvania judge found. Was he lying? Do you have evidence that the phrase DIDN'T start as a scam designed to end-run the SCOTUS ruling against the teaching Creation Science?
[quote] Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
I spent over 20 years in the military sir (Recon for half of it). I've been lied to either intentionally/unintentionally by everyone from my Kindergarten Teacher, Pastors, University Professors, Military Supervisors...My BS Meter runs on Hyper-Drive 24/7, You tracking? I said NO MORE!! So then I went and found the answers for myself.
If you want to believe what other people (with initials behind their names) tell you to believe without employing your own Due Diligence then.... you get what you get.
I have these same "discussions" with many from the Hallowed Halls of Academia daily...and I get the same responses; They call me names!! Why? Because they have No Argument.
They screwed up an Educated Me lol...Biochemistry, and taught me how to research...I'm their Huckleberry!!
Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy). It's not gibberish, it's right as rain.
Say What? I spent an hour answering every single remark in your post sir...you're about 3 degrees from sincerity with this.
Biblical Faith is defined as Substance and Evidence (SEE: Hebrews 11:1). You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith. There is No Confirmation Bias...it's the exact opposite! Everything is filtered through my own personal crucible...not much gets past the first obstacle.
They didn't teach me sir...I was way ahead of 'em. Propaganda, eh? Yea, been to that school.. got a Truckload of T-Shirts!
regards
Whatever you may believe, one of the tenants of judeo-christian thought is that God created man in his own image.
The atheist would disagree with that, man has no connection to anything but nature ...........that our curious and intelligent nature comes from a series of evolutionary processes that allow us to think in the abstract, to give us the much higher brainpower over every other living thing on the planet, to examine and discover the world and the world through testing and come up with reasonable examinations for why the natural world works the way it works.
So back to the beginning of this post, why would such a God give us this gift to explore this creation (hyothetical) if not to understand it? If in fact we were meant to deny science, what is the point of giving us this ability? This abiilty to question and probe into the nature of Creation was given to us by this creator........was it not?
Evolution is not really an open question. Genetics, fossil records, and a whole host of scientific disciplines, serious people doing serious work, have all essentially come to the same conclusion.
In that sense, to deny reasonable science is to deny the very gift those that believe in him must by extension believe he gave us.
So, atheist and theist can argue about why these scientific facts are what they are, but facts are what they are.
I have no idea whether or not some form of God exists or not, I am confident nobody else does either.
Oral Gargle U.
Duh!!!!!
Bill2, have you read any of the crap your drinking buddies have spewed out my way? They don't want my faith as an answer.mthey want SCIENCE.
If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, read Michael Behe's books. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Hugh Ross is good too.
Have a great day, BBI haters. (You know who you are.)
I don't know the numbers, but there are very few people who actually don't believe in the science. But we rant on and on about it.
Even less who take the literal view of the early part of the bible.
As for the nuances of the intelligent design vs no design question, that can really be discussed with civility, which bar sadly seems to have not been met just above.
What is at hand here?
I am going to suggest, this fits a broader trend. I suggest one can see this trend in the national dialogue:
I.e., people go absolutely batshit crazy and want to talk for hours (or do 4,532 TV or 3,456 radio news shows on the subject) when they find people, facts and injustices etc, that seem to fit the prevalent narrative view and reinforce the rejection of the ideas that are not accepted in it. In many if not most of these instances I actually do agree with the premise of the media attention stories, as here, I do believe in the science.
That is not the point. Its that the choices of subjects and attention fit into trends.
For example, true facts about injustice in our history and current events...facts that certainly should be known about and understood, are covered again, and again, and again, in media, in the schools, on the speeches, to an absurd degree, while
Conversely, those other important facts and stories about our culture and history ..the ones that however, that don't jive with the prevalent narrative and its goal of shutting down certain millues, are flatly ignored.
So it is with this thread:
"Gee - gather round and see the freak, this proves the prevalent narrative!"
Seems to be the sentiment in many except the few dissenters.
yada yada yada, It is too bad, because, because - without all the name calling, the other bits were interesting and informative.
and- any name callers, regardless. of . which. side . they claim, seem more like the barbarians than those they claim to stimey.
Taint?
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Quote:
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Sir, please show some respect to a scientist with multiple degrees and 20 years in the armed services. He single handedly and successfully refuted thousands of others scientists when it comes to the scientific methodology.
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
What's funny is the lengths that folks will go and the intentional lies they will spew to get rid of what they perceive as a threat to god's unemployment fund.
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
Quote:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
Software, hardware, DNA, RNA, blah blah blah...
You use a lot of scientific words and cite a ton of sources yet say pretty much nothing of substance. Just stop.
But yelling at science to provide proof while you stand behind a "God" figure is questionable on a good day.
Quote:
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Thanks for your Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy). Can you show where?
Then can you tell us "Your" understanding of Science...?
Thanks
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Quote:
In comment 12140985 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
Software, hardware, DNA, RNA, blah blah blah...
You use a lot of scientific words and cite a ton of sources yet say pretty much nothing of substance. Just stop.
Hmmm. I performed a reading level assessment on the post you replied to using SMOG Grade and Fleschh-Kincaid Index and it averaged roughly 5th Grade.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
regards
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Heh.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
regards
Haha...I admit that I'm probably mentally challenged to some degree. I mean, I did join the Marine Corps...so that explains it. Since you used your irrelevant military experience as something of a credential in an earlier post, what do I get as my prize for doing the same? I mean, I was in the military, so I must have a valid point, no?
But it's rather sad that you come here to back up your boy Spock when you're not even a fan of the Giants. And in doing so, you've done a banged up job of providing nothing of substance beyond trying to obscure the weakness in your (and Spock's) argument through use of long diatribes. It's a known tactic used by those, who can't clearly and concisely articulate their points.
Nah, nothing effing weird about that. Not at all.
And it was the suspicion behind my 2/17/2015 4:02 pm post.
Regards.
Quote:
I'm curious if you a NY Giant fan?
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Ummm...the Patriots are champions?
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
In response to some dumb bitch making comments about how Sandy Hook was/may have been a false flag event, this jackass commented:
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
Link - ( New Window )
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
Seriously?
Great horse to back, Spock.
Quote:
Hmmm. I performed a reading level assessment on the post you replied to using SMOG Grade and Fleschh-Kincaid Index and it averaged roughly 5th Grade.
Either you have some serious reading comprehension issues or cognitive dissonance is ruling the roost.
regards
Haha...I admit that I'm probably mentally challenged to some degree. I mean, I did join the Marine Corps...so that explains it. Since you used your irrelevant military experience as something of a credential in an earlier post, what do I get as my prize for doing the same? I mean, I was in the military, so I must have a valid point, no?
But it's rather sad that you come here to back up your boy Spock when you're not even a fan of the Giants. And in doing so, you've done a banged up job of providing nothing of substance beyond trying to obscure the weakness in your (and Spock's) argument through use of long diatribes. It's a known tactic used by those, who can't clearly and concisely articulate their points.
Seriously...what kind of a scientist is Enoch that Spock keeps referring to him as a scientist?
And if that fucking dude was a Marine, I will choke someone.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
I'm curious if you a NY Giant fan?
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
You mean you typed my handle into google and tracked me down !! Astonishing. Scotland Yard should be calling any minute.
Does the mere fact that I don't change my handle tell you anything?
Spock's a good man and spent some months on the receiving end of what you just been through. Tactically, a wise move...wouldn't you say?
So now that your done super sleuthing the inconsequential irrelevant background noise....much like being overly preoccupied with where the bear came from while getting mauled.... Type in: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software" and see what it says, report back with the answer.
regards
Quote:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
If you actually want to engage in debate, you should at the very least do as you ask of others first. Specifically you haven't addressed kicker's posts to you which refute all of your creepy pasta that you've been posting. Your breach of ediquitte by not responding to him point by point is like jumping straight from "Dog dare" to "Triple dog dare" which at the very least is disappointing and leads me to believe that any points that you can't refute you'll either ignore completely or attempt to misdirect with more pseudoscience.
So, no. It isn't my turn. It's still yours.
I do admire your skills when it comes to debating this topic, tho. Although I find them to be intentionally disingenuous, it's obvious you've had plenty of practice masking your untruths in such a way as to appear as "solid science" to most lay people. Funny that once you run across someone that recognizes it for the bullshit it is and refutes it with logic and evidence that you stop interacting with that person and ignore the evidence. Does that make you feel like you "won"? Or are you motivated more by the praise you receive from others when you "win"?
That's cute.
But yelling at science to provide proof while you stand behind a "God" figure is questionable on a good day.
He is right though... Evolution has not be proven and you can't prove it in this argument. However while he keeps spouting Evolution is not a science because it can't be proven is wrong. It is a scientific theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[6]"
Thus the scientific theory of evolution is absolutely science, but not proven science. You are confusing the two. What you can prove is almost all the stories in the bible are made up. It is funny because as the church and bibles hold strong that everything happened as written in the bible... Some like Enoch and Spock like to branch out and say... Oh wait the world is millions of years old and the reason things were brought forth were because God programmed the DNA on each and every living being. That things don't mutate and evolve on their own. What is there proof of that? DNA is dumb atoms so some man up in the sky obviously wrote the code.
Let's take a virus for example. Virus change and mutate as they are exposed to different elements right. That is why somethings that kill virus will no longer be affective because the Virus adapts and changes. How can that be when the Virus is dumb? Obviously according to you God is up there writing the software?
#TeamSpock - ( New Window )
Quote:
google Enoch2021. Spock recruited from another forum, and apparently being a fucking jesus freak as well as troll is his full-time job. This is what he does...scary, but true.
You mean you typed my handle into google and tracked me down !! Astonishing. Scotland Yard should be calling any minute.
Does the mere fact that I don't change my handle tell you anything?
Spock's a good man and spent some months on the receiving end of what you just been through. Tactically, a wise move...wouldn't you say?
So now that your done super sleuthing the inconsequential irrelevant background noise....much like being overly preoccupied with where the bear came from while getting mauled.... Type in: "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software" and see what it says, report back with the answer.
regards
You grossly overestimate your own abilities. Maybe on Christian sites with a degraded level of intelligence due to inbreeding do you warrant any consideration - here, in case you haven't noticed, you are being laughed at for your posts, and now the fact that you are a truther reveals all we need to know about your "thinking".
Maybe fuck off and take Spock with you back to what I can only assume is Christian Mingle?
Quote:
In comment 12140985 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
#1- Man was created from dust, not Monkees. (although I've always suspected that Peter Tork could be the second coming)
#2- The thousands of years old book told me so. And of course, that book is the confirmed word of god because in the book god says it's his word. (He also says that wimmin should keep their pie holes shut and be subservient- so it's got that going for it too.)
Once you accept the truth of 1 and 2, the next steps are abundantly clear.
You must set about showing to the world that evolution can't possibly be true.
No evidence will ever matter because of 1 and 2.
Define Scientific Evidence? Please provide some..?
Then, can you speak to:
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ??
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software...?
3. The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing...?
regards
If you actually want to engage in debate, you should at the very least do as you ask of others first. Specifically you haven't addressed kicker's posts to you which refute all of your creepy pasta that you've been posting. Your breach of ediquitte by not responding to him point by point is like jumping straight from "Dog dare" to "Triple dog dare" which at the very least is disappointing and leads me to believe that any points that you can't refute you'll either ignore completely or attempt to misdirect with more pseudoscience.
So, no. It isn't my turn. It's still yours.
I do admire your skills when it comes to debating this topic, tho. Although I find them to be intentionally disingenuous, it's obvious you've had plenty of practice masking your untruths in such a way as to appear as "solid science" to most lay people. Funny that once you run across someone that recognizes it for the bullshit it is and refutes it with logic and evidence that you stop interacting with that person and ignore the evidence. Does that make you feel like you "won"? Or are you motivated more by the praise you receive from others when you "win"?
He moved on without answering me when I asked him to define a term he used "same kind of organism". He has a problem when anyone takes him off his script.
Exactly.. I pointed this out yesterday. He is just cutting an pasting from an old argument he has had many times before. He isn't actually answering anyone's questions. He is just putting the next post up for people to see.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
A plea for a "bulldog that God made" to assist with those pesky "NY Jews".
Wowza.
Also - some read this aloud without cracking:
"Point me to the best scientific anti evolution website you know. It has to be written by qualified scientists."
From Spock to Enoch2021 asking for his help on BBI:
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
ps. Point me to the best scientific anti evolution website you know. It has to be written by qualified scientists. Thanks.
Enoch2021's reply to confirm that he joined and will team up with Spock:
Don't really know of any single website that is "anti evolution".....you have AIG and CMI that have Credentialed Scientists.
Just email me when they start the shenanigans and we'll get to cases :thumbsup:
Spock giving Enoch2021 a handjob as his appreciation:
But here is a copy of the address of the thread I participated in. Enjoy the read. Of course, I am Spock.
http://corner.bigblu...2&thread=510213
It may be possible to add a comment, I'm not sure. You can try.
HEY ENOCH IT IS BACK UP. GO GET EM!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't make this shit up...pure awesomeness.
Quote:
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
Darn New York Jews....
Quote:
They closed that thread because it got too ugly- mostly against me-but I was hoping you would come to my aid, with your background. When a similar thread opens I will notify you my email.
The website is called bigblueinteractive.com if you want to become a member now. Trust me, the discussion will pop up again soon and I want you ready this time. I am not lying, there was not one other opposing voice who stood up but mine.
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
Thanks Enoch,
Spock out
Wow... Let me help you here... I am not a "NY Jew" ... You sir are a complete dick
God makes people to defend him on internet websites. But fuck those starving kids.
Actually, that does sound in-line with his historical arrogance.
And fuck anyone who suggested that Spock's not an anti-Semite...
The "science" being spouted isn't actually science; you're still a bigot; and you're being supported by one of the worst scum on the planet, a Sandy Hook truther.
Bravo, Spock, bravo.
What a massive loser.
Heh.
I thought lawyers typically vet the "experts" they hire? Whoops.
He was, in fact, lying to his Christian brothers and sisters over there, since there were other people voicing opposition.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
Quote:
In comment 12141144 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I'm curious if you a NY Giant fan?
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
Thanks for your measured and well thought out response.
Technically, I'm not discussing "Religion".
Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through practices, ceremonies, rituals, et al. A Preposterous Presupposition IMHO.
Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" person to ever walk the earth; Ergo, Christianity is not a "religion".
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Quote:
You are the type of bulldog that God made just for websites like that.
God makes people to defend him on internet websites. But fuck those starving kids.
Actually, that does sound in-line with his historical arrogance.
unfortunatley that's lost on people like spock..
Quote:
You are the type of bulldog that God made just for websites like that.
God makes people to defend him on internet websites. But fuck those starving kids.
Actually, that does sound in-line with his historical arrogance.
You would think rather than making someone a bulldog for football websites like this, God would just you know prove he exists to all this discussions would all be relevant. I mean it is said on the 7th day God rested right... Well apparently God has been resting for millions of years. I guess Dinosaurs where trial and error and once he made 2 humans that some how made the whole world he was like my job is done... No need to go back there.
regards
Saving one lost soul at a time, huh? Very noble of you.
Please, tell us your view on the Holocaust, Sandy Hook and 9/11? Pretty please?
It is treally possible to be a dumb ASIAN military guy? It's like an enigma wrapped in a paradox and shrouded in a conundrum
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
Same with politics. Everything the Democrats do is destroying our country... No everything the Republicans do is destroying our country... No actually this stupid fighting between each other instead of finding a way to work together without holding everything one party says to be true is destroying our country. How about we just get rid of parties and vote on pure issues where Democrats and Republicans a like aren't forced to back issues of their parties. Where we can work together to make this place better rather than this mess we have now. Try and work to better this country instead of fight all the time.
Quote:
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
Quote:
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
Yeah "Bible study" and "cut and paste 101"
Quote:
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
What a cunt.
Quote:
In comment 12141377 Amtoft said:
Quote:
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
Astrology is one. What is the second?
Oral masturbation.
Quote:
This line:
Quote:
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
What a cunt.
You're just a NY (NJ?) Jew cursing him out.
Zero coverts
Hundreds who think that hypocrites and liars give Christianity a bad name.
What we should have SAVED is all that wasted time.
An anti-semitic cunt
Quote:
NY Jews? Who writes that?
An anti-semitic cunt
You're not saving yourself with these attacks.
Repent, sinner, repent!
Quote:
This line:
Quote:
This is a NY Giants website, so as you can imagine, many NY Jews cursing me out because I will not relent by telling them there is only one path to God and it runs through Jesus.
What a cunt.
Quote:
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Saving one lost soul at a time, huh? Very noble of you.
Worse than useless, actually. Tragic would be the proper term.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
Speaking of starting with "false premises".....
I started with "PROVING" that evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory". Which nobody to this point has even attempted to refute....because it's irrefutable.
So how is it false....?
And can you name "all the world's great scientists" that I have indicted?
Scripts, eh? From known Liars? And you can support these Baseless rants? Define Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)?
I don't think the folks @ the Discovery Institute are Young Earth Creationists...the figure heads still stick to the "Billions of Years" Mantra.
Are you a STD (Soft Tissue Denier)?
Are you aware that there have been Hundreds of Documented Cases of SOFT TISSUE in fossils "Dated" from 80 Million Years to the current Record Holder: 550 Million Years?!! ...
550 Million Year old Russian "Beard Worm" Soft Tissue...
The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.
Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224239, 2014
This is quit interesting...
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
Can you explain these...
There are only 4 possible conclusions that can be drawn based on the above evidence (I have Thousands more):
1. Humans Lived with Dinos.
2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)
3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."
4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".
Go ahead....?
regards
Quote:
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
Yes, Kelvin.
We even have Jesus riding a dinosaur!
Quote:
In comment 12141198 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12141144 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I'm curious if you a NY Giant fan?
We have had fans of other teams post here so I'm not implying it is a prerequisite or anything, I'm just curious.
Too Funny. I'm originally from the Home of The World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!!
Always liked the Giants however... especially when they beat up on the Cowgirls. Tell Cruz to stop flashing that Illuminati sign...the Salsa can stay, hope his knee heals up. Beckham is scary good.
Beef up that defensive line, draft some Linebackers, O-Line---start over.
regards
Well as a Christian myself I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is and since you like football I would recommend as a new member that you consider adding something to some other threads and get to know some other members, and they you and more importantly the tenor of the forum itself.
Technically religious threads are against the forum rules and while we are occasionally given some latitudes I believe we should try our best to respect that. I am reluctant to but will sometimes post specifics about my beliefs but usually only if I think something specific about the bible or my faith is being completely misunderstood or misquoted in attempt to at least better clarify for those that may be interested in the difference, or if asked something directly from a member but even then I try to remember what the rules ask of us and keep it short and to the point. Long debates on religious or political themed topic is clearly not respecting the rules of the forum and I think we should respect that as hard as that may personally be for some especially because while not always ironically it is often those that are against any form of religion that seem to initially bring up the topic.
Thanks for your measured and well thought out response.
Technically, I'm not discussing "Religion".
Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through practices, ceremonies, rituals, et al. A Preposterous Presupposition IMHO.
Jesus Christ was the most anti-"Religious" person to ever walk the earth; Ergo, Christianity is not a "religion".
Quote:
I would suggest that simply coming here just to argue this is likely not as beneficial as you may believe it is
Let's say @ some point ONE PERSON who has been deceived comes by this thread and says "wait a minute" let me check into these issues further... then comes to the realization and reckoning of "GOD"...and is SAVED. Would my efforts have been worthless?
regards
Well here is on man's opinion. Christianity is a missionary faith and the verse most quoted to reinforce that is the bible that is often referred to as "The Great Commission": "Go therefore and make disciple of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.. Matthew 28:19
So after much study here is my understanding. The Greek verb translated as "Go" is actually not a command but a present participle(going). I interpret it to mean more "as I go through my life". So then it falls more on me and how I conduct myself, treat people etc and to do so in a way that honors Christ and may open communication to where talking about my faith is discussed because someone may ask or have a genuine interest and not me running up to strangers and forcing myself on them. Basically Christians because of their love of Christ should desire to live in a way that helps spread His message instead of simply setting aside a few hours scheduled to do so like one other thing on their to do list.
This doesn't mean I don't respect certain individuals who feel called to spend a life in the mission field trying to help others and spread the gospel. One of them most sincere compassionate Godly men I have ever met is a missionary to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He and his wife had a true love for the people there and dedicated their entire lives to helping them. They never had children because their lives were often in danger and they felt committed to stay there. He is in his eighties now, she has passed away but they have been inspiring for me to get to know if only briefly.
I guess what I am saying is there are those who truly have the heart of a missionary and commit to it. However I think most Christians should strive to the best of their abilities live their lives for Christ as they go through their daily lives and let God work on peoples hearts rather than forcing anything on them.
Personally I try my best to live in a way that honors God yet I am far from perfect and certainly make my share of mistakes and too often fall short but I try and live faithfully.
And part of that life for almost twenty years now has been posting on this forum. I hope that amongst the thousands of sports, food, movies and countless of other topics I have respected others beliefs yet still represented my faith in a way that those that know me at least understand it a little better even if they don't agree with it and if as a result anyone has ever maybe sought to learn more for themselves terrific, but I don't need to know that. I don't have to win an argument nor do I desire to keep any type of notches in my belt for that type of thing, I'll give the glory to God.
So now we know for sure, he's a young earth creationist who claims to really believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
Quote:
I am not interested in voting for someone who can't use their brain enough to find a non-mutually exclusive interpretation of both sides...e.g. Evolution is a fact, but God had a hand in it...and the literal interpretation of the Bible is not even close to a fact.
There is always the right way of saying things without undermining everyone. In the end, people should do their best to be honest and disclose their beliefs, of course, but this US vs. Them, black and white shit is the reason so many can't stand one side or the other, or in my case, can't stand either.
Same with politics. Everything the Democrats do is destroying our country... No everything the Republicans do is destroying our country... No actually this stupid fighting between each other instead of finding a way to work together without holding everything one party says to be true is destroying our country. How about we just get rid of parties and vote on pure issues where Democrats and Republicans a like aren't forced to back issues of their parties. Where we can work together to make this place better rather than this mess we have now. Try and work to better this country instead of fight all the time.
yeah, it's like it's more important to try and convince people that the other side is the entire problem, instead of actually working on the issue. It's the natural evolution of the culturally-ingrained system I guess, but sweet, buttery jesus, can't we have some pragmatism and commons sense anymore ? It's very disheartening.
Quote:
an old teacher of mine taught me that if you start with a false premise, and disguise it fairly well, you can prove almost anything.
Enoch didn't even try to hide it: He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science. With that starting point, all of his conclusions are pretty easy to reach. Then, of course, he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute, which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
It's a disgusting and smelly witches brew, not worth responding to. I fell into the trap of responding a couple of times before I saw what his game was. It's a nasty game, part of the sad and insulting history of the transition from "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design."
And he's not even a Giants fan. What a waste of bandwidth.
Speaking of starting with "false premises".....
Quote:
He started with the false premise that what all of the world's greatest scientists in a dozen or more disciplines are doing isn't science.
I started with "PROVING" that evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory". Which nobody to this point has even attempted to refute....because it's irrefutable.
So how is it false....?
And can you name "all the world's great scientists" that I have indicted?
Quote:
he tied in scripts from the known liars and troublemakers at places like the Discovery Institute
Scripts, eh? From known Liars? And you can support these Baseless rants? Define Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)?
Quote:
which gives you dinosaurs walking with humans.
I don't think the folks @ the Discovery Institute are Young Earth Creationists...the figure heads still stick to the "Billions of Years" Mantra.
Are you a STD (Soft Tissue Denier)?
Are you aware that there have been Hundreds of Documented Cases of SOFT TISSUE in fossils "Dated" from 80 Million Years to the current Record Holder: 550 Million Years?!! ...
550 Million Year old Russian "Beard Worm" Soft Tissue...
The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.
Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224239, 2014
This is quit interesting...
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
Can you explain these...
There are only 4 possible conclusions that can be drawn based on the above evidence (I have Thousands more):
1. Humans Lived with Dinos.
2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)
3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."
4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".
Go ahead....?
regards
Oh, wait...
Link - ( New Window )
Where'd you get Genes?
How about people who believe Soft Tissue: Muscle, Collagen, Blood Cells et al can last for 80-550 Million Years?
and...
Ink/Paper/Glue/Graphite/Bindings authoring War and Peace?
regards
Quote:
don't need to contribute to the gene pool...
Where'd you get Genes?
How about people who believe Soft Tissue: Muscle, Collagen, Blood Cells et al can last for 80-550 Million Years?
and...
Ink/Paper/Glue/Graphite/Bindings authoring War and Peace?
regards
Quote:
to come back... He basically just cuts and pastes from another argument he already has had, but when he gets question or pointed out he ignores them and just goes to paste post 3... then paste post 4
But he has 2 degrees!?!?!
Dinosaurs wrote War and Peace?
He's more like the dog chasing a car. When he catches it, and discovers that it doesn't exist outside his imagination, he sits down, scratches his fleas, and licks his ass.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
Quote:
don't need to contribute to the gene pool...
Where'd you get Genes?
How about people who believe Soft Tissue: Muscle, Collagen, Blood Cells et al can last for 80-550 Million Years?
and...
Ink/Paper/Glue/Graphite/Bindings authoring War and Peace?
regards
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
But what you've actually shown is that you have no understanding of science at all. Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
Thanks for your Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy). Can you show where?
Then can you tell us "Your" understanding of Science...?
Thanks
I sure could. I could do both those things. But you're not looking for an explanation of science or how it works when a hypothesis isn't directly testable. You are ascribing a definition of science of your own creation and then using it to attack evolution. You're looking for any holes you can use to make room for God and a way to signify that there's a possibility that the stuff you have been taught isn't bullshit. So that would be a waste of my time.
I'm sorry that your beliefs aren't supported by evidence in any way. But it's not my job to extract your head from your ass.
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
So everyone knows what he is?
Is this an ironic award?
So everyone knows what he is?
That's kind of my role here...
Quote:
we can pin this thread to any of Spock's posts here?
So everyone knows what he is?
That's kind of my role here...
So....
You're Spock's other bulldog?
As an owner of a bulldog, they actually can't lick their own ass. What kind of God would let that happen?
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
The difference is you are have pre-written your response without focusing on what is said. You aren't having a discussion you are just inserting the next cut and paste. The funny thing is as you continue to ignore people that show how wrong you are in regards to science is you actually think you are making a difference. Your argument may work on a radical site or a christian site, but you come to a football speaking crazy and expect people to just see the light. The problem is you aren't even listening to people thus what you wrote many months ago is going on deaf ears. Enjoy though and sorry you same... Like exactly the same word for word... argument didn't work here
He has a tongue that would make a Komodo Dragon gasp in disbelief.
Don't bother Jon; it's just a bunch of empty pages.
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Appears so.
Yea.
Quote:
Is that a term scientists actually use
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Appears so.
Quote:
Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism?
Yea.
Wait I thought they were all just dumb atoms? How can they react to things if they don't have someone programing the software?
Quote:
Is that a term scientists actually use
Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism/
Appears so.
Quote:
Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism?
Yea.
gards
What is "the same kind of organism" Is a wolf and dog the same kind of organism? Is that a term scientists actually use?
I did not ask for a definition of organism. Try some reading comprehension and define the phrase that you used
Giving just enough credence to his comments to keep up the illusion that he is having a rational, reasoned discussion.
Not helpful to any of us. You can't disprove gobbledygook except on its own terms. 2 gobbledygooks > 1 gobbledygook.
In comment 12141572 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12141483 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
For instance...?
So if I already prepared/saved many points on a particular topic... for let's say: the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, and the subject comes up...I should disregard what I've already written and "Recreate the Wheel" and type it all over again...just so it's not "copy and pasted"?
Define Resource and Time Management?
Really? Please show one case "Specifically"....?
Are you referring to the name calling?
For instance....?
How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of
Is English your first language?
Jeez, Spock. Great job introducing this piece of work to the site. He's really someone to hitch your wagon to. Just do me a favor and if you ever meet him in real life, don't drink anything that he offers you.
The article he quoted from New Science that emphatically stated that Darwin was wrong did NOT even state that Darwin was wrong about evolution, but rather that the concept of an evolution "tree" was incorrect - that it was closer to an evolution "web".
His entire premise is flawed anyway. He keeps going back to the bullshit semantical argument that something isn't technically "science" if it can't be experimented on. Guess there's large portions of astronomy that aren't "science" if that's the case...
I wouldn't hire Spock as an attorney if he has to find an expert witness.
Yea
Yea
Sorry, I figured the link with "BIOLOGY" answered the question.
What's next, are:
Flies and Peanuts the same Organism?
Bacteria and Walrus'?
Goats and Lamprey Eels?
Bats and Tigers?
regards
I literally fucking remembered learning it in 9th grade science class (had a great teacher), so when I researched the topic a little more, I wasn't surprised to find a ton of studies backing this concept up.
NY Jews?
I'm shocked beyond belief.
And they don't like to be told that they are condemned to a an eternity of fiery damnation?
Cheeky bastards.
Lets kick it off with: I learned there were varieties of Jews. Not quite sure where NY Jews stack up with other Jews, but it sounds like not well.
Link - ( New Window )
If he would answer questions posed to him and actually have a conversation, then I can see the value of having him here. But if all he is going to do is copy and paste gobbledygook in an attempt to hoodwink some moron (ala spock) to believe in his craziness, then what use is he?
In comment 12141572 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12141483 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Just copying and pasting...almost shotgun style posting.
Can you briefly explain how "copying and pasting" Information impacts the Veracity of the Information?
Are you saying if a teacher writes on a chalkboard..."CODE only ever comes from an Intelligent Agent" is good to go but later, emails the class by "copy and pasting" the same exact phrase...it's then suspect? !!
Can you articulate the rationale please?
Thanks
Quote:
The difference is you are have pre-written your response without focusing on what is said.
For instance...?
So if I already prepared/saved many points on a particular topic... for let's say: the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, and the subject comes up...I should disregard what I've already written and "Recreate the Wheel" and type it all over again...just so it's not "copy and pasted"?
Define Resource and Time Management?
Quote:
You aren't having a discussion you are just inserting the next cut and paste. The funny thing is as you continue to ignore people that show how wrong you are in regards to science
Really? Please show one case "Specifically"....?
Are you referring to the name calling?
Quote:
speaking crazy
For instance....?
Quote:
The problem is you aren't even listening to people thus what you wrote many months ago is going on deaf ears.
How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of
Quote:
Enjoy though and sorry you same... Like exactly the same word for word... argument didn't work here
Is English your first language?
Oh fun you finally responded to what I wrote. I had previously written about your saying evolution wasn't science with no response. Like many others have done you have ignored them.
My favorite part of this...
"How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of"
Ummm you wrote this on another site that is time stamped. You do realize that right? This isn't me using some kind of mind powers. This is me seeing you post the same exact thing from months ago.
Not responding to stuff... How about when someone says you say atoms are dumb and that they can't just program themselves, but then say "Organism- An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal." ... I am sorry but can organisms react, reproduce, grow, etc without someone programing it? See once you answer that that things can change or evolve without some higher power programmer keying in all the data you can see where there is an issue with your comments. You are being very obtuse.
As for Crazy talk that isn't really an insult to me. It is commenting on the manner in which you speak. An insult would be like you're a jerk.
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
You don't?
It's in that book in which it is written that god says that the book is god's word. So there ya go. Confirmation that not only does god exist, but his words are in the bible. It says so in the bible.
Duh. I don't see what's so hard for you fools to grasp.
Quote:
Evolution hasn't been proven. I get that, but to say it has no science is wrong. While it hasn't been proven it also hasn't been proven to be in correct, but the bible on the other hand has been prove to be false (fallacy) ...
If you want to believe that the bible as written is correct with all the information you have available to you then you are going to get people calling that crazy talk. If you want to say evolution doesn't exist prove it isn't possible. Just like you can prove there was no miracle creation of the earth in 6 days in which God said let there be light and the sun popped up and we had an earth full of life starting with Adam and Eve in a garden. Just like no arc was built to handle 2 species of every species on the planet for some great flood... then all those species repopulated the earth from just the 2 of them. I mean you don't really believe that right?
You don't?
It's in that book in which it is written that god says that the book is god's word. So there ya go. Confirmation that not only does god exist, but his words are in the bible. It says so in the bible.
Duh. I don't see what's so hard for you fools to grasp.
And 'round and 'round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.
Funny how that seems to happen. I guess the name calling took precedence.
Well there are many "stories" (and epicycles) to Darwin's Fairytale with the Tree of Life being One...So I just chopped that down.
Go back and review the post regarding the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes where I take the "web" as they say, and chop that down.
Semantic Argument...How So? Ya see sir, to be "Something" that something has to have the Characteristics of that "Something"...so it can "BE IT", Make sense?
See a Banana grows on trees, can be green/yellow, is chalk full of K+ and a mixture of complex and simple carbohydrates, and a Good Source of B6. If you freeze those Bananas it destroys the B6. That's what makes Bananas...."Bananas".
It's how we differentiate between Tumbleweeds and Texas Toast.
To be "Science"...it must Display certain Characteristics and follow it's Method, like the Scientific Method:
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through EXPERIMENTS and observation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
See the Consistency? EXPERIMENT is the Quintessential Attribute of and what makes Science, "Science". Without it...it's not Science.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to ZERO EXPERIMENTS?
You said it, and it's more like all of it!! You're getting the hang of it...
Cosmology may look like a science, but it isnt a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable EXPERIMENTS, and you cant do that in cosmology.
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 31718481850, 2007.
Anything else?
Keep beating that drum. By the way you keep beating the same drum, I can see that you're probably not very good at convincing people, who aren't blithering fools like yourself.
Go away already.
And 'round and 'round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.
passed down from generation to generation until they could write it all down verbatim. OK My question is did God proofread it and edit it to makes sure they got all down as he wanted it written?
passed down from generation to generation until they could write it all down verbatim. OK My question is did God proofread it and edit it to makes sure they got all down as he wanted it written?
Of course he did.
Excepting the parts that I don't like.
That thing about polyester really pisses me off. Luckily, that was a man-made mistake.
Because we like the abuse? Or are bored on this shitty hump day? You pick.
Nope. Us enlightened folks can show you the way, though.
Send me 10% of your pay and we'll call it even.
I also have a money back eternal salvation guarantee: If you don't go to heaven, I'll pay back all of the money. Just let me know (and provide two forms of ID and a notarized death certificate.)
So far I'm batting 1.000- no complaints.
Anyway:
1) No, you didn't chop shit down. You cherry picked a statement from an article to give a false impression of what the actual thesis of the article was, then presented it as fact by resting on the "laurels" of the publication - when in fact, the publication didn't even suggest what you implied it did.
Quoting an article that says Darwin's tree is wrong, to try and prove evolution is flawed - while the article is simply saying that a web is more of an apt comparison than a tree.
What's funny is now you're disagreeing with the premise of the article YOU YOURSELF QUOTED AS EVIDENCE! So you took a line from an article that disagreed with your entire premise to try and portray something different than the article intended. Cherry picking.
Anyway, in terms of the semantics - clearly you're either fucking retarded or absurdly deluded, but most likely both. What kind of idiot posts literal definitions from a dictionary when someone is telling them they have a semantical argument that has no bearing on the actual content being "debated"?
Again, you took up a paragraph and big red lettering to prove me correct that your argument is entirely based on semantics, and simply doesn't go any further then WELL IF ITS SCIENCE HOW COME WE CAN'T DO AN EXPERIMENT HUH???
Now you're trying to argue with me the astronomy is not science. So what is it, genius? And here's the real question: regardless of what you call astronomy, are the conclusions drawn from astronomy accurate?
Because if the answer is yes (hint: it is), then it proves that whether or not you call evolution "science", the marriage of observed data when combined with the analysis of the models and data sets shows that this is how live formed and evolved throughout the history of the Earth.
Your argument is that of a petulant little child: "well you can't experiment on it, and technically you have to experiment on something to call it science so nu uhhh it isn't science".
And then you double down on this by saying "well you can't experiment on parts of astronomy so that's not science either, nu uhhhh".
I mean shit, we can't experiment Einstein's conclusions on gravity. So what's next, that's not science?
Here's an obvious response to your retarded arguments: whether or not you call it "science", theres a plethora of evidence that shows that this is the mechanism by which life progressed and evolved throughout Earth's history.
You are literally saying nothing other than "you can't experiment on it so it's not science", ignoring the fact that the length of time to observe the entire process is the very reason that we cannot run what you would consider a satisfactory experiment. Your conclusion is that if we cannot run a perfect experiment (even if the limiting factor is just part of the fundamental properties of what is trying to be explained), it's not science.
It's an idiotic argument and you deserve to be ridiculed, along with others of your ilk (lol ilk).
Also would love to hear your thoughts on Noah's Ark and Sandy Hook out of morbid curiosity. Just want to see how truly stupid you are.
Well maybe if you read my first post in which I systematically "Step By Step" Illustrated the point. Nobody on this thread has challenged a single aspect. If I missed one...please repost it.
"How many months ago? Do you have Special Mind Powers that we're unaware of"
Ummm you wrote this on another site that is time stamped. You do realize that right? This isn't me using some kind of mind powers. This is me seeing you post the same exact thing from months ago.
Yea. Is it possible I could have written it before the Time Stamp, let's say YEARS before it?
Nope. They all have DNA, Correct? DNA is a CODE...CODE only comes from a Programmer. Follow?
Replicating and Passing the "CODE" on doesn't Preclude the Fact that it was PROGRAMMED in the First Place.
Obtuse?? Do all living things have DNA? Is DNA a "CODE"? "Variation" is built into the "CODE".
regards
Do all living things have DNA? Is DNA a "CODE"? "Variation" is built into the "CODE".
regards
Say obtuse one more time!
They don't use any experiments, either. Simply observations that confirm or deny their theoretic work, just the same as evolutionary biologists and the like.
So give us The Word: are they scientists?
Like a code? Yes. EXACTLY LIKE A CODE? no.
DNA writes itself over and over all the fucking time. This process is exactly why we can't have just one flu vaccine and be fucking done with it. The damn thing changes all the time precisely because it it sloppy in reproducing itself.
YOU SUCK AT UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THIS.
Yea. Is it possible I could have written it before the Time Stamp, let's say YEARS before it?
Nope. They all have DNA, Correct? DNA is a CODE...CODE only comes from a Programmer. Follow?
Replicating and Passing the "CODE" on doesn't Preclude the Fact that it was PROGRAMMED in the First.
Obtuse?? Do all living things have DNA? Is DNA a "CODE"? "Variation" is built into the "CODE".
regards
My mistake you did actually respond. I apologize as you have missed so many other specifically about what scientific theory actually is.
Regarding your first response to me... you did not systematically step by step prove anything. You were challenged many times including what is and isn't a science and you missed it. Just because you type it doesn't make it true.
You second point... exactly what I said. You are taking your responses from a previous time and using it now as if you are getting the same responses which you are not. Thus pasting that old arguments is not valid in what people are saying here. I said it was written months ago and I was not wrong. Not sure why you thought that makes me have mind powers or whatever you said.
DNA is not software. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. It is stored "as a" code. However DNA can and does change. Things mutate and changed over the years and when you expand that out to 100 millions of years things change greatly. You aren't saying that God created the human DNA "code" right? That he was up there going Hmmm... what should I program now... Oh right humans, but I am not going to use it until millions and millions of years after the earth is born. I mean I thought he had that all wrapped up in 6 days and was like man I need a day off. Which is it? Is the bible wrong? Just answer that one question... IS THE BIBLE WRONG?
I bet that gets ignored.
Can we get to 1000+ posts?
Quote:
is going to be awesome.
Lets kick it off with: I learned there were varieties of Jews. Not quite sure where NY Jews stack up with other Jews, but it sounds like not well.
Just think of the difference between bialys and bagels.
How else is god gonna take care of the Jews?
So people can stand in a church and say things like, "it's all part of God's plan" and "he's in a better place" or "he's with God now".
Answers to Nonsense - ( New Window )
What about the Jews? - ( New Window )
He will just ignore responses such as these:
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
Which is basically what kicker and others told him early on.
If you're not correct, deflect!
Or just ignore.
Anyway, 32, athletic, smooth, about 7", I am a bottom, but can discuss - email me!
Tend to prefer some ethnic flavor, but thinking not a lot of diversity among the scared white guy community.
#WorthyChristian - ( New Window )
Just wanted to say baaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha.
Look like his cock got blocked.
Likely a frequent occurrence and possible culprit for his masturbatory posting habits.
Quote:
Hey, new to site - Spock and Enoch invited me - the three of us Skype a couple of times a week, mostly naked, usually involving weird insertions. Not much for the whole jesus lie you simps have fallen for, but like the repressed homosexuali vibe I am picking up.
Anyway, 32, athletic, smooth, about 7", I am a bottom, but can discuss - email me!
Tend to prefer some ethnic flavor, but thinking not a lot of diversity among the scared white guy community.
#WorthyChristian - ( New Window )
Yup, as predicted. Spock is alerting the forces of light that there's evil to be stamped out on BBI.
This calls for a song!
Link - ( New Window )
More of a "holy shit" war.
For Enoch and Spock - ( New Window )
Name calling, eh? Pull up Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques and see where your playground charades fall out...Right @ the Base; A "Tell" for No Argument ("as if" we needed them). Thanks for the Multiple Illustrations in your post
Cherry Picked...What 6 Quotes? I didn't actually need it to imply anything. I dashed to pieces Darwin's "Just So" Stories with my first post...this was barely palpable background noise. It's also not the only SOURCE I posted.
Anyway...
What's even funnier is you thinking this is some kind of an argument
Back to your "Conjured" Semantics again I see (I understand, what's left?)
Can you please elucidate the semantics here...
Experiments are an Indispensable Part of the Scientific Method.
Science is defined by it's Method. Please....?
Ya see, In Science... we Observe Phenomenon in the Natural World and the attempt to ascertain CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.
Hypothesis --------> Experiment
Hypothesis is an "If This....Then That" or "Not That" (Null's).
The "If This" (Independent Variable)..."Then That" (Dependent Variable)...it's called the Experiment.
Is there something that's particularly confusing here???
How did they arrive @ their "Conclusions" ?? No Experiments-ee....No Science-ee
How Life formed eh? Start Here...
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
2. Show How Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...?
(Hint: it's not) Models aren't TESTS...What's your Independent Variables, the Glue or the Color of the Poster Board?
"Data" is gained FROM Experiments.
Show the "History" of the Earth...? Provide the Make/Model/Serial# of your Time Machine please...?
Yes we can. The general theory of relativity states that Gravity affects Time; that is, the closer you are to a Mass the more TIME will slow down. You ready....
First, what is "TIME" is it Physical or is it a "CONCEPT"? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red? So it's a "Concept". Can you bend, dilate, or warp a "Concept"? "Freedom" is a Concept can we dilate that? Sounds like a Reification (Fallacy) to me. Let's continue, a Thought Experiment to TEST the theory..
Ok, Lets use Gravitational Clocks... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were. We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top. We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster?
Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again. Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped! Because there's no Sand entering the bulb. Which "Clock" is moving slower? Define Falsified?
Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation.
They're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention". They're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.
A Football Field is 100 Yards...is the Football Field Yardsticks?
Additionally, can someone post ONE SOLUTION to any of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more Masses? I thought you had to have @ least 2 Masses for Gravity?
Define MatheMAGICS?
Then ahhh, maybe trying to divine CAUSATION of "Unobserved Past Events" (Stories) is not "Science". I didn't invent the Scientific Method...See Francis Bacon et al.
My conclusion is... that if it doesn't follow the Scientific Method; perhaps, it's not Science to begin with.
Sir ahhh, by proxy of your beliefs (Materialist/evolutionist)....you believe that the Universe Created Itself from Nothing and Ink/Paper/Graphite Molecules can Write Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes.
I'd have to Object Your Honor on the grounds that my accuser may be spending too much time with Grandpa's Cough Medicine.
Moreover, fyi....the Validated EXPERIMENTS of Quantum Mechanics have Literally taken the Materialist's World View to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned it Senseless.
Anything Else?
regards
The Jewish interpretation
The Christian interpretation
Spoiler alert: the Jewish interpretation kicks ass!
So if DNA is not Software, please show on DNA Proper: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase....?
And if it's stored "as a" CODE...how on Earth is it not Software?
You also have some major problems here...
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
Where'd you get DNA from?
Mutate?? Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information. About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information". It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).
DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information". In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.
evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts. hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)
Question: If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???
Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect? Yea, ok.
It's probably the reason why Drosophila, after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!! AND IT'S STILL A FLY!
Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253
"My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be selectable; 3) biological noise and survival of the luckiest overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate."
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')
And Please Validate these Fairytale Millions of Years...??
Well if HE didn't, the Stupid Atoms did it themselves. What's your choice??
Begging The Question (Fallacy) "Millions of Years". SEE Above: (Validate Fairytale ect)
Nope. You are
And wrong again. @ least your consistent.
Anything Else?
regards
Can we make that happen? Eric?
I smell a podcast.
As I posted early in this thread, the Universe we live in is so large it's incomprehensible.
That being said, why not stop the name calling, antagonistic pictures etc. and agree to our own beliefs.
There is no reward, hope of conversion and probably no chance of investigation by people who have their minds set. Let's agree to disagree and wrap this damn thread up.
Thanks!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2011/11/28/i-wont-agree-to-disagree/ - ( New Window )
If this is the best that these idiots can put forth, I'm sadden that their mission of enlightening us heathens will never succeed.
He's likely studying The Flinstones to follow the copypasta being spewed on this thread by his bulldog prophet.
The Great Gazoo just entered the scene and is really putting the Young Earth Theory into manageable terms - its all magic created by a supernatural being to benefit a specific man with a caveman-level intellect.
As I posted early in this thread, the Universe we live in is so large it's incomprehensible.
That being said, why not stop the name calling, antagonistic pictures etc. and agree to our own beliefs.
There is no reward, hope of conversion and probably no chance of investigation by people who have their minds set. Let's agree to disagree and wrap this damn thread up.
Thanks!
Meh, a jackass Sandy Hook truther and someone who obviously has been pulling this bullshit line of argument for a long time (from his presence on other forums) isn't interested in agreeing to disagree or whatever the fuck else people want to think that this trash wants out of this discussion. And if I was a practicing Christian, I would be insulted that this asshole is on my team. Fuck this guy.
He's reading up on handle changing. Again.
Nope. You are
Well I at least respect you for not ducking the question. I thought for sure you would bypass it. I was going to be really annoying and just keep posting it.
I am shocked that in this day and age you can believe even half of what the bible has in it. You can't speak about any kind of science and then say the bible has it right. If so please explain Noah's Arc... 2 of each species all on one boat during a world flood that killed everything not on the boat. No person in the world knowing, how many species we have, how impossible it would be to build up each species with only 2 of them afterwards. Shoot we are having trouble now with certain tigers trying to keep them around. How can you justify telling everyone here that they are wrong and that evolution is false, but then swear that you believe this story or as you like to say... Fairytale?
As for the other things you wrote... You like to use terms loosely when they suit you, but then are quick to point out in others it isn't used correctly.
Software: the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them.
DNA is not a software or code that has been programmed. To try and use this to make a point to an extent is fine. You want to say ok look here is how I want to show my argument. When someone explains why that isn't the case you keep saying God had to program all the codes and wrote the software your example loses meaning. DNA is not a programming code writing with software. There was not a programmer. Your proof of what you say is ... Well atoms are dumb so it had to be God is not actual proof. That is just you saying words. You can not prove there is a God that created heaven and earth... And like millions of other planets, stars, sun, galaxies, etc. Not sure why he did all that just for us humans. Seems like over kill if you ask me. Anyway you can prove that many of what was said in the bible is fallacy 100%. The book you swear by and use as your reasoning that evolution is not possible. If you would have said I think the bible was stories put together for people to read, enjoy, and live by then maybe you would have something. At least then you wouldn't a boat that miraculously fit every single species on it... Sorry 2 of every species on it.... Then those 2 of every species by miracle repopulated the entire earth. If God could make that happen wouldn't it have just been easier to you know... Wipe everyone out and then recreate them from scratch again... Sorry reprogram them again?
Wow. Just speechless.
Running to a Sandy Hook Truther to defend your anti-Evolution beliefs. That's as low as it gets. Lost a lot of respect for you Spock. I was actually feeling a little bad about everyone jumping down your throat, but I'm enjoying the hell out of it now that you've associated yourself with a Sandy Hook Truther piece of human garbage like Enoch.
You aren't saying that God created the human DNA "code" right?
Well if HE didn't, the Stupid Atoms did it themselves. What's your choice??
Can I have any other alternatives? Gee, I hope so.
The question is, with whom could he have scored those points? Not with BBI, and surely not with God, whomever and wherever she is. I actually found a picture of the truther troll, before he evolved.
I don't "duck" semi-rational questions, I may miss a few due to logistics.
Sir you believe stupid atoms can create algorithmic cybernetic coding and decoding schemes or ink molecules authoring books and the Universe Creating Itself from Nothing (among other numerous basic reasoning atrocities).
Then you have the audacity to critique what others believe?
How so....?
It's Noah's Ark, not "Arc"...he wasn't welding. He didn't take 2 of every "Species". "Species" was a term coined a couple thousand years later (Aristotle coined it I think), it's a man-made construct. It has @ least 50 different definitions just over the past 80 years and 3 currently.
The Bile uses the term "KIND"....7 pairs of clean and 2 pair of every unclean boarded the Ark
As I said above, you have a Rubber Ruler with "Species" to begin with. Also, a Large Percentage of current "Species" are found in the OCEAN so you can subtract them. Subtract Viruses and Bacteria. Your numbers are dwindling @ light speed.
As mentioned previously, there's alot of "Variability" built into DNA to begin with. For Eukaryotes, some Genes can "CODE" for over 3,000 different Proteins (SEE: Splicing). In the Fruit Fly (Dscam), a single gene can CODE for over 38,000 different Proteins. DNA contains CODES within CODES within Millions of Sub-Folders of CODES...it's quite mind-boggling.
I don't think so. For Instance....?
I didn't say "Computer" I said Software, sir. The Subject Matter Expert Dr. Craig Venter PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) said it was "Interchangeable" with Computer Software. Email and Lecture him lol.
You're using a "CODE" ----and Software (They're Mutually Inclusive) right now! It's called the English Language it's Semiotic. Does the word with the letters CAT = a Cat? lol. When you're playing with one, is "CAT" spelled out on it's fur? It's just a Pre-Arranged/Agreed Upon convention of "SYMBOLS" (Alphabet---CODE) for communication and meaning. Go to Germany and tell someone you have a "gift" for them.... and watch them run to the nearest Polizei Station or Konk you over the head...it means "POISON"; They have a different "CODE"---Software.
Same Concept with DNA...it's a Language.
Are you serious? You post this same nonsense again after I just drug this through the mud? Go ahead and drag yourself out of 19th Century Science and come join us.
So the Genetic CODE is not a CODE, eh? Define Obtuse...?
Here's a Test, stop by a Biochemistry Department or a Genetics Lab get everyone's attention and say this out loud with some vigor. After they stop Belly Laughing, don't be surprised when Security shows up. Go ahead and try this...report back, when you get released.
Can I offer some advice and to 99% of the folks posting. Educate yourself before speaking with authority on subjects.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--- Abraham Lincoln
regards
Since DNA is LIKE code it is LIKE software.
Software is written by humans.
God must have written DNA.
This is the argument of a child.
I think I can do better.
Birds are like planes, they can fly.
Birds must be planes.
Humans pilot planes.
God pilots birds!
We must cease the killing and consumption of gods commuter aircraft immediately!
Naked shorts?
Agreed - he really penetrated the hard issues.
So who gets the bigger belly laughs, or the longer time in a padded cell?
There is no need for humans to totally reconcile belief with science, it is apples and oranges, to suggest so is another classic BBI false dichotomy:
However, I still enjoyed what you did there and laughed ought loud.
He doesn't understand how the science works, therefore godidit.
There's nothing he's posted that actually refutes anything that's been demonstrated by established science, just attempts to poke holes. This is called anomaly hunting and is the hallmark of conspiracy theorist thinking.
A useful term for all the blithering shite he's posted is PRATT. Previously Refuted A Thousand Times.
Good advice, you should follow it.
[quote]Since DNA is LIKE code it is LIKE software.
Factually Incorrect. DNA is not "Like" a CODE it is a "CODE", it's called the Genetic "CODE"---Heard of it? ....
And...it's not "LIKE" Software it is SOFTWARE (CODE and Software are Mutually Inclusive Terms)...
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
Savvy?
"CODE"---Software is Created by an Intelligent Agent, every single time, Without Exception.
DNA---CODE/INFORMATION/SOFTWARE is the sine qua non of LIFE.
Therefore GOD.
The "meaning" can be deduced by a "Child".
Birds are like planes, they can fly.
Birds must be planes.
Humans pilot planes.
God pilots birds!
Seek Assistance Immediately
There is no need for humans to totally reconcile belief with science, it is apples and oranges, to suggest so is another classic BBI false dichotomy:
However, I still enjoyed what you did there and laughed ought loud.
I actually think belief in the creator and science reconcile quite well as long as you recognize what Bill2 posted re:men, their bias, and translation issues over thousands of years. It's when you decide to take it literally that you have problems (and ironically, even the fundies go through all sorts o mental contortions to not have to actually follow the parts they don't like- much like the mental contortions you're reading coming from Spock and Enoch).
Anyway- I don't really care what your beliefs are as long as you're not pushing them on me, filling my kid's head's with tales of magic, trying to teach them said magic in a public classroom, or denying or infringing on the rights of others.
Quote:
Well I at least respect you for not ducking the question. I thought for sure you would bypass it. I was going to be really annoying and just keep posting it.
I don't "duck" semi-rational questions, I may miss a few due to logistics.
Quote:
I am shocked that in this day and age you can believe even half of what the bible has in it.
Sir you believe stupid atoms can create algorithmic cybernetic coding and decoding schemes or ink molecules authoring books and the Universe Creating Itself from Nothing (among other numerous basic reasoning atrocities).
Then you have the audacity to critique what others believe?
Quote:
You can't speak about any kind of science and then say the bible has it right.
How so....?
Quote:
If so please explain Noah's Arc... 2 of each species all on one boat during a world flood that killed everything not on the boat.
It's Noah's Ark, not "Arc"...he wasn't welding. He didn't take 2 of every "Species". "Species" was a term coined a couple thousand years later (Aristotle coined it I think), it's a man-made construct. It has @ least 50 different definitions just over the past 80 years and 3 currently.
The Bile uses the term "KIND"....7 pairs of clean and 2 pair of every unclean boarded the Ark
Quote:
No person in the world knowing, how many species we have, how impossible it would be to build up each species with only 2 of them afterwards.
As I said above, you have a Rubber Ruler with "Species" to begin with. Also, a Large Percentage of current "Species" are found in the OCEAN so you can subtract them. Subtract Viruses and Bacteria. Your numbers are dwindling @ light speed.
As mentioned previously, there's alot of "Variability" built into DNA to begin with. For Eukaryotes, some Genes can "CODE" for over 3,000 different Proteins (SEE: Splicing). In the Fruit Fly (Dscam), a single gene can CODE for over 38,000 different Proteins. DNA contains CODES within CODES within Millions of Sub-Folders of CODES...it's quite mind-boggling.
Quote:
As for the other things you wrote... You like to use terms loosely when they suit you, but then are quick to point out in others it isn't used correctly.
I don't think so. For Instance....?
Quote:
Software: the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them.
I didn't say "Computer" I said Software, sir. The Subject Matter Expert Dr. Craig Venter PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) said it was "Interchangeable" with Computer Software. Email and Lecture him lol.
You're using a "CODE" ----and Software (They're Mutually Inclusive) right now! It's called the English Language it's Semiotic. Does the word with the letters CAT = a Cat? lol. When you're playing with one, is "CAT" spelled out on it's fur? It's just a Pre-Arranged/Agreed Upon convention of "SYMBOLS" (Alphabet---CODE) for communication and meaning. Go to Germany and tell someone you have a "gift" for them.... and watch them run to the nearest Polizei Station or Konk you over the head...it means "POISON"; They have a different "CODE"---Software.
Same Concept with DNA...it's a Language.
Quote:
DNA is not a software or code that has been programmed.
Are you serious? You post this same nonsense again after I just drug this through the mud? Go ahead and drag yourself out of 19th Century Science and come join us.
So the Genetic CODE is not a CODE, eh? Define Obtuse...?
Here's a Test, stop by a Biochemistry Department or a Genetics Lab get everyone's attention and say this out loud with some vigor. After they stop Belly Laughing, don't be surprised when Security shows up. Go ahead and try this...report back, when you get released.
Can I offer some advice and to 99% of the folks posting. Educate yourself before speaking with authority on subjects.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--- Abraham Lincoln
regards
Of course you don't understand what I am saying. First I have never said I believed in evolution and definitely know the Bible in a made up fairytale. You don't know what I believe in. I believe that you can't prove there is a God and that is a fact. Things in the bible are impossible and why you think dumb atoms which isn't the only other option is a much worse option then some all power software coding programmer chilling in the sky as much more believable is beyond me. You can't dispute that you have proof God exists and I have already said you can't prove evolution. However evolution makes a lot more sense. Even you with your... Arc Ark who cares you know what I meant much like I know when you wrote "Bile" I know you meant BIBLE... Even with your Ark story you say there are lots of variables written into DNA so you can try and explain the lack of feasibility of that story. So Lions, Tigers, and Bears all just jumped on the boat and were like we cool. Then those bears for example as you put it hold many variables that allowed them to then what? Choose what kind of bear babies they could make? You can't expect people to find that a viable argument. 2 Grizzly bears are not going to make a freakin Polar bear.
When I say it isn't code I mean from the terms you are applying it with software. It isn't some software code and language isn't a code either. Not in the sense you want to use it. You can break many things down to trying and make them fit. You are trying to generic everything down because when it is complex nothing you say makes any sense. Where do you get this stuff from? If you wanted to say it is our genetic coding ok I get that. You want to say God created our genetic coding you can't prove that, but at least that would make more sense then God was a software programmer writing code. That DNA is code and God is writing the programs out for it. That is just dumb to use more than just as an example, but has been your repeated belief as fact. I mean it is good to know that you think of God as nothing more than a software coder. I am sure some programmers will find their jobs much more important around you.
The fact you want to argue with me the word species which is widely used rather than explain how you can fit all of that on a freaking boat speaks volumes. That is what you do which is deflect. Oh well take away sea animals (guess God didn't hate the sea animals), virus, etc and now it is hardly nothing. And you know a House fly can just turn into a fruit fly if it concentrates really hard! So what like 12 animals in your boat? Lets just do basic African animals where there are over 1100 mammals alone. That is just African, just mammals. Not including the thousands and thousands of other animals, insects, birds, etc. Elephants for example, Hippos, Rhinos, etc etc etc... You want to say Noah really got all those African mammals over 1100 times 2 because he brought a male and female on a wood boat he built. Now to build a boat that big just for the African animals out of wood... How many years would that take and how big would it have to be to hold the size and weight of just the African mammals do you think? Before you answer that if you are going to answer that Noah started building the boat at 480 yards old and finished at 600 years old you then believe in vampires or something. I mean that whole fairytale of this story is a joke to try and pass off as an actual possibility. It would be like me saying hey Enoch I wrote in a book I jumped 497 feet straight up in the air when I was 253 years old while juggling a Rabbit, a Walrus, and chainsaw... Sadly if that was in the bible you would be here trying to say oh yes it is true. This is just one of the extremely horrible stories that you want to pass off as possible. It isn't and it doesn't take a scientist to know that. It just takes common sense.
Quote:
So basically the argument for a creator is:
[quote]Since DNA is LIKE code it is LIKE software.
Factually Incorrect. DNA is not "Like" a CODE it is a "CODE", it's called the Genetic "CODE"---Heard of it? ....
And...it's not "LIKE" Software it is SOFTWARE (CODE and Software are Mutually Inclusive Terms)...
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
Savvy?
Quote:
Software is written by humans.God must have written DNA.
"CODE"---Software is Created by an Intelligent Agent, every single time, Without Exception.
DNA---CODE/INFORMATION/SOFTWARE is the sine qua non of LIFE.
Therefore GOD.
Quote:
This is the argument of a child.
The "meaning" can be deduced by a "Child".
Quote:
I think I can do better.
Birds are like planes, they can fly.
Birds must be planes.
Humans pilot planes.
God pilots birds!
Seek Assistance Immediately
Again, it's the logic of a child. I don't expect you to see it.
regarding the evolution / faith part of the discourse you could do it in "social studies" instead of science class, and as long as the educator if careful to represent that there are a variety of views, I think kids are smarter and more sceptical than we think, not worried.
+++++++++++++++++
''RE: very well done and funny cam
Cam in MO : 8:46 pm : link : reply
In comment 12142259 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
luckly, there are very few -if any- people that want to rely on that sort of thing for faith.
There is no need for humans to totally reconcile belief with science, it is apples and oranges, to suggest so is another classic BBI false dichotomy:
However, I still enjoyed what you did there and laughed ought loud.
I actually think belief in the creator and science reconcile quite well as long as you recognize what Bill2 posted re:men, their bias, and translation issues over thousands of years. It's when you decide to take it literally that you have problems (and ironically, even the fundies go through all sorts o mental contortions to not have to actually follow the parts they don't like- much like the mental contortions you're reading coming from Spock and Enoch).
Anyway- I don't really care what your beliefs are as long as you're not pushing them on me, filling my kid's head's with tales of magic, trying to teach them said magic in a public classroom, or denying or infringing on the rights of others. ''-
here is a short pull out from a faith based web site that has pages and pages on this. I have zero idea here, but even they say that the analogy has limits (referenced site below in text):
"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have home addresses for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs! -
See more at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.IoVpS05k.dpuf""
Hopefully it follows him on here for another 10 years.
The Rich Houstons of Christian Mingle?
I think you're misreading that. He doesn't care if people buy his shit. The arrogance and narcissism mean that he knows he's right and we're just too stupid to realize it.
How sickening.
This other guy...did not help Spock.
The only thing more reprehensible than a Newtown Truther is a 9-11 Truther. That was Spock's idea of a "bulldog"???
It's over for Spock. He'll eventually be back under a different handle, but once he's sniffed out, this thread will quickly be linked, and it will start all over again for him.
No more "my Habs" in the spring. No more "my Dodgers" talk in September and early October.
Spock is finished here.
How sickening.
This other guy...did not help Spock.
The only thing more reprehensible than a Newtown Truther is a 9-11 Truther. That was Spock's idea of a "bulldog"???
Am I on your ignore list? WTF?!?
I can see some advantages. " it was not me...my software code made me do it. What you don't believe in SOFTWARE CODE? I don't know what to tell you. You are not looking at the right Internet forums. How else do you think the crack and the blondes got in here?"
Where can I learn more?
I can't help it...it's the way the Code is written.
You think I am talking nonsense?
Well you are wrong. First you need to stop yelling about the blondes and read the Bible. Then I'll bring in the Enoch to get you to understand the rest.
Yes...that's right...it's like that acid trip when Bob keep yelling "it's like one big software program dude"
I'm the victim here. I didn't write the Code.
You're going to burn
Stop oppressing me
War on my beliefs
where is your evidence?
Achoo! It's dose dam chromasobes.
- Lightning hit a shit puddle at the exact right moment creating life on Earth against astronomical odds
- Aliens came down and spiked that shitpuddle to give us the fuel to create life
The 3rd one's looking pretty good right now
All I see is life-destroying alien civilizations in movies, maybe there are life-creating aliens out there who plant their seeds across the galaxies. So far from us in space and time but not in terms of genetic code.
Enoch, you seem to talk about how we needed a programmer to create that code. Well, I think an organic form like an alien being from another galaxy is a more likely "creator of the code" for Earth than an omnipresent being that controls all of us.
Also schnitz, Newtown Truthers are worse than 9/11 Truthers.
What a truly amazing thread. I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad one, but it sure as hell is something.
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
Quote:
OMG, Enoch!
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
I can't believe they're real people.
Quote:
OMG, Enoch!
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
That's as close as Spock gets to a "thanks for nothing". He saw what happened and bailed on the thread....
Egg creams?
or if they actually showed up for their duty
Quote:
In comment 12132698 Chef said:
Quote:
between Man and Chimp.... but there is never douche-baggery missing from BBI...
Man is not descended from chimps so that statement makes no sense.
The chimp to man connection is comical enough, but imo, the primordial soup to man wins first place for absurdity.
Predicable.
And both.
Quote:
A "man" came into this world, performed countless number of miracles including raising people from the dead. He then willingly went to the cross to die a horrendous death, and then rose from the dead to prove he is not just a man.
This man then went on to confide with hundreds of friends before he beamed up to heaven. The proof of his life, miracles, and resurrection are all documented better than any book of antiquity.
Does that really come off as fiction to people?
Absolutely it does, and the funny part is that no one knows who actually wrote this excellent documented book
There is no evidence/none/nada of Moses writing anything in the bible. There is a claim that those are his words made by whoever wrote it, but zero proof of that
He's in for such a surprise.
He's in for such a surprise.
LOL..Yeah i am, been on vacation down in Mexico. it is getting really good, but i Will stop doing it for now.
Actually, it was mary magdalene who snuck out on the 3rd day. Jesus left on the 4th as not to rouse any suspicion.
Just think if God added the special sauce
It's like a Stephen King novel. The first 50 pages are tedious, but once you're past that, it's gold.
Quote:
OMG, Enoch!
Wow, what just happened there? I knew you were a Bulldog in the way you could argue issues, but you managed to make me look kind and gentle compared to you. Ha
I guess they didn't appreciate your "this doesn't pass the test as science" argument. Oh well.......
Anyhow, I was criticized for not talking enough science, which admittedly is not my area of expertise, so I brought you in knowing you have several biology degrees and have plenty of time on your hand being retired. But I had no idea it would turn out this way. I guess they don't want to talk YOUR SCIENCE.
I don't see how I could add anything to that conversation so I might as well avoid it. All they want to talk about with me is how much I hate Jews. I'm weary of that dialogue. Let them think what they want.
I apologize for getting you involved. I'm not sure you are enjoying the conversation. I was really hoping to read some good scientific debate like Bill Nye vs. I forgot his name, but it never did happen. Thanks for trying. I owe you....I think.
Spock out
PS what is the Sandy Hook thing all about?
Delusional
This is exactly what I was waiting for. Nice to see that even after a total failure, spock thinks that his/Enoch's argument was a success. That's definitely delusional.
Think Enoch's going to answer that?
I just pictured Enoch in the Matrix after reading this post. Question is, did he take the blue pill or the red?
OK with it? Religion encourages it. What tree did Eve's apple come from? The tree of knowledge. Think about that - our original sin was a quest for knowledge.
I just pictured Enoch in the Matrix after reading this post. Question is, did he take the blue pill or the red?
He will be asleep soon.
Who knows, it may end in something positive. He may just fade away or he may keep his mouth shut on his overt-religiousness. One can hope.
1) thanks for pointing out the clock experiments as if I didn't already learn about them in high school science class. the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity on a planetary scale (didn't even say relativity, which you brought into the discussion). So the experiments you referenced proved it on a.... "micro"level. You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated on a "micro"level and can be extrapolated to a macro level, you stupid fuck (though as it's been explained before, there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
2) you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
3) yes, you are hanging on semantics. how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
4) you really believe the ark story? what a moron. that concept of a flood is an archetype that has been used throughout countless religions and cultures, but yours is right because GAWDDD said so. plus you're actually dumb enough to still believe it.
5) stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies and the fact that you use them as if they're fool proof only highlights how delusional you are, and how far you have to contort your "arguments" to make sense.
6) by the way, the format of your posts and the RANDOM capitalization and STRANGE sentences comes off as if you're typing on shrooms. too bad you couldn't learn how to fucking put together a coherent thought or format basic text while you were busy getting your "biology" degrees.
7) how do you get a nun pregnant? a: dress her up as an altar boy.
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions? a: he's always pointing both ways.
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey? he wasn't very good, he kept getting nailed to the boards.
(to the people on BBI that are religious but whom are worthy of respecpt, such as steve in ky: I apologize in advance for those jokes, but if there's ever a time to pull them out, it would be to make enoch2201 feel uncomfortable. to balance it out, here's an indian joke:
what time is it in india? a: 7-11 on the dot.
damn, that post was cathartic.
Translation. They got the goods on me in my own words and there is no way I can continue to try to hide the fact anymore that I am an antisemitic bigot. I need to run away and hide rather than be a man and admit what I am. Darn it. It is checkmate.
Some of those Lebron James free agency threads broke 100 pages, I think.
I mean all of those strive at the living practice level for consistent practice of humility, tolerance, patience and compassion for others and community.
That takes a lot of hard self examination and emotional intelligence.
Which of the following concepts does not fit: humility, tolerance, compassion, community, emotional intelligence, self examination, aggressive debate using bad science?
1) Adhering to a Messianic "Jewish" cult that sees no role in the world for Jews who don't convert;
2) Believing that non-converted Jews only have a role in Israel in generating the preconditions for the Rapture; and
3) Insisting that believers in God, including Jews, who do not see the light and accept Jesus as their personal savior are doomed to hell...
might be considered a little offensive. Then when he brings in his pit bull and describes BBI as being filled with "NY Jews"....game over.
Personally, I don't much give a rat's ass about Enoch, he was a hired gun who shot his load and will fade away.
But Spock, by contrast, should be permanently banned from imo. The only possible reason to keep him around is so the next time he raises his head above the fortress wall, we can shoot it off.
I hate using the gun metaphors, but they fit in this case.
Link - ( New Window )
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
I personally don't want spock banned either since he provides such awesome entertainment. However, when you bring little to the table and actually bring a rampant troll to the site just to back your idiotic ass up, I think that can be construed as something worthy of banning.
Quote:
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
I always love your brand of lovin', Ronald. What it lacks in girth and depth, it makes up for in being for "long time."
It's not the size of the boat that matters but the motion in the ocean and the longevity. Just ask my wife...HEYYOOO!!!
I was just relating a thought (mostly about my narcissistic self and how I think).
Quote:
Should posters on BBI be banned for what they say on other websites?
I personally don't want spock banned either since he provides such awesome entertainment. However, when you bring little to the table and actually bring a rampant troll to the site just to back your idiotic ass up, I think that can be construed as something worthy of banning.
He's just trying to figure out what materials that he's used in other forums that he can copy and paste to bludgeon us with.
I still want to know about his thoughts on Sandy Hook.
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
He's just trying to figure out what materials that he's used in other forums that he can copy and paste to bludgeon us with.
I still want to know about his thoughts on Sandy Hook.
Sandy Hook Questions Still Haunting Us Part 7
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
LINK - ( New Window )
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
Riveting.
regards
Sandy Hook Questions Still Haunting Us Part 7
You're a breathe of fresh air...critical thinking appears to be a lost art.
1. The woman in the interview said the car doors were open, Chopper footage reveals the doors were closed.
2. 3 MSM outlets said that all the weapons were registered to Nancy. AR 15 is already illegal in the State of CT... how can she register an illegal weapon?
3. When & Pics of the 600 kids evacuated along with 600 parents coming to pick them up.
4. Church of Satan East Coast Hub = you guessed it Newtown CT!!
regards
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
"Hello, Sandy."
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
I can't, because even if there is such a thing, I doubt a being capable of creating billions of advanced creatures really cares about one of them making a few jokes.
That's the difference between those of us with critical thinking skills and people who think there's someone up in the sky who gives a flying fuck what we're doing every second of the day.
But CODE - PROGRAMMER!
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Cheers!
lonk - ( New Window )
Quote:
"NY Jews" on BBI isn't necessarily racist. One can simply use it as a description. It is true. I suspect there more than likely is a higher population of posters on a NY Giants fan site that are both from NY and Jewish.
That said, when you consider the history and beliefs of the source and the context in which it was posted- He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt (that it was used purely as a description and innocent).
The reason I bring it up is because a few days ago I described an Asian guy as, "Asian" and was told it was racist. The exact quote was, "The Asian guy that works up front on C-Shift, I forget his name."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making awesome racist jokes at work. It just really irks me when someone says I'm being racist when I'm not even trying.
Knowing you and how you think, that Asian comment was racist...REPENT, YOU RACIST PRICK!!!
Love you?...;)
Shouldn't that be, "Lepent, you lacist plick!"?
My buddy Spock reviewed it, and he's a peer.
Therefore, god.
Alternative tests have been formulated.
He's a dimwitted truther twat.
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Step 2) Join BBI
Step 3) post stuff
Step 4) make friends and/or make enemies
Step 5) repeat steps 3 & 4 for 20 years
Step 6) See a doctor get check for fossilization
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
Quote:
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Quote:
I don't know if enoch is still reading this thread and I know that nobody is even replying to his nonsensical, rambling, delusional bullshit, but I don't want him to think he got the last end on me.
And you think this post helped your cause? It's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.
Quote:
the point is that you cannot test einstein's theories on gravity
If you CANNOT TEST IT...then How is it a Scientific "Theory" in the first place?
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So, let me guess: It's still Science ENOCH!!!! right? geez
Quote:
You know, the same way natural selection has been replicated
They "Replicated" Natural Selection, eh? is it "Natural Selection" squared? Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection....? Where exactly is it located?
Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial and a Tautology. To postulate "Natural Selection" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
All "Concepts"!
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Quote:
there isn't really a delineation between micro vs macro evolution).
uh huh... besides this, and a Stamp on the Forehead Equivocation (Fallacy):
Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883887, 1980.)
I have serious doubts you know the difference between just the words "Micro" and "Macro".
Quote:
you're the only idiot who thinks astronomy isn't science.
So if I show you a Peanut and put a sign over it that says, "Turtle"...the Peanut is a Turtle?
And I don't "Think" I KNOW and I've PROVEN it Step by Step over 30 times on this thread.
Quote:
yes, you are hanging on semantics.
So the Peanut is still a Turtle? Your little "semantic" argument is in the dustbin along with the other 100 or so feebly contrived conjectures you spewed here.
Quote:
how about this for a novel thought: I don't give a fuck if you call evolution science or not, it's clearly the way life has evolved on this planet, regardless of whatever the fuck your deluded brain wants to call it.
I have a novel thought, stick to "Political" science or Cake Decorating Threads where ill conceived conjured Baseless Assertions and "guesses" are not only tolerated but solicited.
Quote:
you really believe the ark story? what a moron.
ahhh sir, coming from someone who believes....
1. Ink Molecules can Author Books.
2. The Universe Created Itself From Nothing
3. Stars and Planets coalesced "Naturally".
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (given enough TIME)
Which Directly Violates:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
What's Stupefying.... your Platform is "Science". It's like cutting off your Legs to Prevent Athlete's Foot!
Quote:
that concept of a flood is an archetype
Yes, I wonder where the Literally BILLIONS of fossils came from.
Can you explain the fossilization process, stepwise please...?
Quote:
stop using a stupid analogy like "code" and "program". these are imperfect analogies
Still grasping eh? Tell ya what, go ahead and email Dr. Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) and lecture him on his "Stupid Analogies"...
"Life is a DNA Software System"
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
"Life is basically the result of an Information Process, a SOFTWARE process, our GENETIC CODE is our Software".
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)
Or Schedule a Podcast so you can educate him and we can listen in.
Quote:
7) how do you get a nun pregnant?
8) why can't you ask jesus for directions?
9) did you hear about the time jesus played hockey?
Jokes, eh? Can you imagine kneeling before The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE giving account for this?
Quote:
damn, that post was cathartic.
It was feebly contrived with the effort no more than that of a clumsy child.
Which is "Cherry On Topped" with the refined scholarly playground barrage of name calling, cursing, and jokes.
Riveting.
regards
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
And I seriously hope spock never returns either.
Quote:
write that if it was considered crossing a line
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
It's HeadHunter. Do you need anything else explained?
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
Quote:
In comment 12143447 Headhunter said:
Quote:
write that if it was considered crossing a line
How does that not cross a line? That's pretty obviously a shitty thing to write.
It's HeadHunter. Do you need anything else explained?
I need a lot explained...
Not on this subject, just generally.
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
lol!
We are all glad that you are retired, largely for the fact that you can't influence anyone, though it's not the only reason.
Quote:
In comment 12143386 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Quote:
In comment 12143414 Headhunter said:
Quote:
or hoping that something very very very bad happens to people who post? I mean like for example I wrote that I'd laugh if Peter in Atl suffered a massive coronary on his next key stroke? I'd never write that if it crosses a line. Please advise
Are you saying that what you said about Peter didn't cross a line?
Peter probably deserved it anyways.
Let's be honest, if he said that about almost anyone else on here, you'd probably say it crossed a line. Which is kinda my only point, to point out HH's shittiness.
Peter can be a dick to some people but he's hardly the worst offender on BBI. Being a dick is like a prerequisite to sticking around on BBI.
Wishing death on people? Maybe crossing a line a little bit?
Quote:
In comment 12143366 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
Another happy graduate of Oral Gargle University.
Quote:
In comment 12143366 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143129 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see that you are checking up on this thread.
You figured this all by yourself? Just kidding.
Do you have a coherent argument to support what you believe sir?
Or
More name calling, jokes, cursing, and pseudo-science??
regards
Hi. I will tell you what degrees I have and from where if you do the same. I will admit that I am not a scientist.
I don't care from where or what "degrees" you have sir, it's Painfully Irrelevant. I've known PhD's that couldn't tie their shoes and Infantry Grunts who could outwit Napoleon.
It boils down to: can you SUPPORT what you say either Scientifically or Logically or both. It's what separates critical thinkers from village idiots.
regards
science degrees and this validated what you said. I would not have asked except you guys provided some information but not all. You appear to be hiding something.
Thanks for the No True Scotsman (Fallacy).
Do you have anymore logical fallacies to support your arguments?
Thanks for you Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy)
PROTIP: Fallacies....are Fallacious.
regards
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
Quote:
In comment 12143444 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143386 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Quote:
wants a truther. No one wants a Creationist "scientist".
Thanks for the No True Scotsman (Fallacy).
Do you have anymore logical fallacies to support your arguments?
Quote:
We are all glad that you are retired, largely for the fact that you can't influence anyone, though it's not the only reason.
Thanks for you Baseless "Opinion" (Fallacy)
PROTIP: Fallacies....are Fallacious.
regards
Yeah. I hope you meet some of the unfortunate victims of Sandy Hook, and give them your thoughts on it.
Spock ought to blow Eric as part of his apology for bringing him here....certainly won't be the first time Spock has had a cock in his mouth.
Quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
And of course the obvious- how can that statement even relate to evolution in your view? You've been creepypasting for the last two days about how you can't create an experiment for evolution, therefore it's not science. But then to support that claim you post a quote saying that if a theory doesn't agree with the experiment (not even possible for evolution according to you), that the theory is not valid....
I'm not sure what hurts my brain more: the dumb shit that you post, or that you actually believe the dumb shit that you post.
Mr. Bungle : 2/17/2015 8:26 pm : link : reply
PIZZA FOR EVERYBODY!!!
some of the comments just above, really failing the whole civility test
Damn, what a milestone.
OK,OK...I just need everyone's full name and address, so I know where to send the pizza.
Can you make the standard high school essay of five to seven paragraphs ( one states your thesis. Three to five support it. One summarizes it). The shorter the better. No citation or quotes. In your own words and not borrowed from any previous thing on the Internet or a text.
That should be easy and it is on every upper half college entrance application.
And this is how he spends his time. Why not just buy a gun and blow your brains out if this is the rest of your life - being a colossally ignorant douche.
To where they are now:
Pizza that is.
having been away, it's just; ......listen to yourselves, the bitterness and anger, holy moly.
and this is from someone (me) who does not question the science unless its refuted according to scientific method, and, to be honest not having a fucking clue about the details of all this.
aaaaand , I have to say I will probably find a cool and scientifically legit book on genetics, evolution and the origin of life to read after seeing this thread,
But the TONE here has gone a bit into the gutter.
Quote:
In comment 12143467 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12143444 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143386 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Does not agree with experimentation extrapolated to no experimentation.
Absolutely Stupefying!
Real slow ok.... he said if "it" (That's the Hypothesis) doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong.
Well if you don't have an "EXPERIMENT"/TEST.... it's still a Hypothesis and will forever be one until it is TESTED!
If it can't BE TESTED as in "HYPOTHESIS TESTING" (ahh "Science") it means it's not a VALID HYPOTHESIS; Ergo.....NOT SCIENCE.
Next block of Instruction: How to make a sandwich.
regards
That damn little inconvenience...
8, 7, 5, 10, 12, 2.
The hypothesis is that the values don't follow a linear trend. Enoch's contention is that there is no way to test this.
Such utter stupidity. Minor statistical tests are widely available. Perhaps you even learned about a student's t-test in high school?
here are some quotes for the thread:
It's weird not to be weird.
― John Lennon
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14
Rebel children, I urge you, fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother your glory.
― Russell Brand
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
― Albert Einstein
-goodreads.com-
having been away, it's just; ......listen to yourselves, the bitterness and anger, holy moly.
and this is from someone (me) who does not question the science unless its refuted according to scientific method, and, to be honest not having a fucking clue about the details of all this.
aaaaand , I have to say I will probably find a cool and scientifically legit book on genetics, evolution and the origin of life to read after seeing this thread,
But the TONE here has gone a bit into the gutter.
And so you're here because?
Quote:
Quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
Obviously it has confused you. His statement is true. All he is talking about is a theory that is disproved by an experiment.
He is not saying anything about whether or not an experiment is a necessary part of a valid scientific theory.
Good try, though. Although I think my 9yr old would have needed less help understanding these things.
And of course the obvious- how can that statement even relate to evolution in your view? You've been creepypasting for the last two days about how you can't create an experiment for evolution, therefore it's not science. But then to support that claim you post a quote saying that if a theory doesn't agree with the experiment (not even possible for evolution according to you), that the theory is not valid....
I'm not sure what hurts my brain more: the dumb shit that you post, or that you actually believe the dumb shit that you post.
My word people.
Well, somewhat correct. You can't get to a Hypothesis because you can't get passed the 1st Step of the Scientific Method.... You know, the thing that makes science, "Science".
Then this...
Do you have a point here or do I need an abacus?
That's because "evolution" is not even a theory or scientific (SEE: First Post).
And that's not what Dr.Feynman said, he said if the Hypothesis doesn't AGREE with Experiment it's "Wrong".
Can you tell me how you can VALIDATE any aspect of the "theory" of evolution without a Valid Hypothesis....so you can TEST/EXPERIMENT it?
Call Berkeley
regards
He was told to come here by spock (who should also be given the heave ho for convincing a troll to come here and troll) to troll.
And he isn't here for Giants football--he's here to be an asshole troll.
Ahh...same old, same old at BBI.
When an outed Anti-Semite's recruited bulldog is a Sandy Hook truther, the conversation being in the gutter is actually a step above where those two normally reside.
Quote:
In comment 12143504 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143467 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12143444 Enoch2021 said:
Quote:
In comment 12143386 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
One more time, as you seem to never address your very basic mistake regarding science and the scientific method (other than more creepypasta and putting your finger in your ears):
Quote:
Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.
Berkeley, eh? lol They say that so the can stupidly push there little UN-TESTABLE "Just So" Story fairytale evolution to the willfully ignorant masses
This ends it...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)
Is there something here that Dr Feynman said that is particularly confusing?
What do you suppose he would say to a "Postulate" with ZERO EXPERIMENTS!!!!
And by the mere fact I would even have to post this "ONCE" is testimony to your 13th Century Alchemy education and adherence to Incoherent Fairytales.
Science without Experiments is like Water without Hydrogen. Preposterous Absurdity is insulting to Preposterous Absurdity.
Sir I can safely say that you (and the vast majority of people on this thread), and Berkeley..... wouldn't know what "Science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
regards
If Feynman agreed with your extrapolation of his statement, he would have said so, but he did not.
What extrapolation might that be, pray tell...?
Does not agree with experimentation extrapolated to no experimentation.
Absolutely Stupefying!
Real slow ok.... he said if "it" (That's the Hypothesis) doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong.
Well if you don't have an "EXPERIMENT"/TEST.... it's still a Hypothesis and will forever be one until it is TESTED!
If it can't BE TESTED as in "HYPOTHESIS TESTING" (ahh "Science") it means it's not a VALID HYPOTHESIS; Ergo.....NOT SCIENCE.
Next block of Instruction: How to make a sandwich.
regards
He was told to come here by spock (who should also be given the heave ho for convincing a troll to come here and troll) to troll.
And he isn't here for Giants football--he's here to be an asshole troll.
Ahh...same old, same old at BBI.
But he's tolerated here, as in not banned, even though this is a nest of vipers. This matched against what happened to the poster who made a lighthearted joke on old Enoch's home base. I ask you, who is tolerant and who is not?
rather than all the juvenile name calling
rather than all the juvenile name calling
Eh...good on you for your moral high ground. I would suggest you depart this thread if it bothers you so much. Or do you just like to see your typing as some kind of an indication of your civility? Because honestly, no one cares.
That damn little inconvenience
Non Sequitur (Fallacy).
"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It's tantamount to saying: Except Hydrogen is not needed to form H2O.
that damn little inconvenience
regards
What a non-sequitur logical fallacy is.
What a non-sequitur logical fallacy is.
That and the fact that he rejected wikipedia as a source earlier - I assume senility is preventing him from being logically consistent, even on just one thread.
headhunter haha, 'evolved,' I see what you did there
idiotsavant : 3:39 pm : link : reply
but hey, I love knowing that there are at least SOME people who reject current thinking, even though, on this subject, I do not...so far...:
here are some quotes for the thread:
It's weird not to be weird.
― John Lennon
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
― Jiddu Krishnamurti
Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14
Rebel children, I urge you, fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother your glory.
― Russell Brand
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
― Albert Einstein
-goodreads.com-
Fallacy
Test
Experiment
Software
Code
And
Regards
This is fun
There you have it.
Come on. This is the thread that keeps giving in a slow off season time.
This is a semi-private space.
Yes, it is generally open to the public, but that openness is at the whim of Eric since it's his website.
Free speech arguments are only relevant when it's a government attempting to suppress speech.
Never mind the fact that Ronnie wasn't attempting to suppress your speech at all -- merely suggesting that if you don't care for the tone of the conversation (which by suggesting that the tone is unpalpapable and that it should cease, you become a hypocrite) you need not read nor post.
This is a semi-private space.
Yes, it is generally open to the public, but that openness is at the whim of Eric since it's his website.
Free speech arguments are only relevant when it's a government attempting to suppress speech.
Never mind the fact that Ronnie wasn't attempting to suppress your speech at all -- merely suggesting that if you don't care for the tone of the conversation (which by suggesting that the tone is unpalpapable and that it should cease, you become a hypocrite) you need not read nor post.
In other words, point your high horse in the opposite direction and ride on.
Lets call it the so-far available most consistently sound and data filled explanation of a lot of directly observable and tangible phenomenon . Not every phenomenon. moment of life is not in evolution...its a different phenomenon
Now what?
Please now come up with with a more consistently sound and data filled explanation of a lot of directly observable and tangible phenomenon?
Thanks
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Repeat.
Was that so hard?
Enoch2021 27 March 2014
Quote:
.
Patiently waiting for Spock to arise and resurrect himself.
I've heard that takes a couple days.
"Fuckin' force that shit."
Jesus (Matthew 19:4)
"Fuckin' force that shit."
Jesus (Matthew 19:4)
Interesting gene pool.
Experiment: Analyze genomes of multiple species and compare.
When you find that chimps and human genomes are more alike than humans and dogs, find other species and repeat.
Wow, this is really hard to think of experiments that fit even enoch's limited thinking abilities.
Quote:
Except experiments are not needed to hypothesis test.
That damn little inconvenience
Non Sequitur (Fallacy).
"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It's tantamount to saying: Except Hydrogen is not needed to form H2O.
that damn little inconvenience
regards
Wiki is now acceptable?
Funny.
This is from your 6:21 PM on 2/17...
Rob is right; senility is a motherfucker.
Quote:
Smokey, this isn't Nam, this is resurrection - there are rules.
Spock can now walk on water in his home town of Buffalo. See other thread recently started.
Link, thread title?
Link - ( New Window )
Hypothesis: If evolution is true, the fossil record should match the geological strata (eg. older fossils in older strata)
Experiment: Dig up thousands of fossils from around the world in different strata. See if older strata contain more recently evolved species (eg. there should only be mammals in newer strata).
Repeat.
Was that so hard?
Well that's a Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming The Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
regards
[] bullshit bullshit lots of words that means nothing bullshit bullshit staunch belief that noah's ark actually happened bullshit bullshit garbage trash garbage lots of words no substance misquoting people who completely disagree with what he's saying and taking their words out of context to prove a point
[/quote]
You are a fucking moron. By extension, I feel like a moron for being the only person to continue knocking down your sandcastles of bullshit. Listen, I know you've been breaking a mental sweat jumping through mental hoops and acting like a brainwashed fool, but try to follow along...
1) nice job ignoring the entire point of my first point. Einstein's theories on gravity/relativity are something you claimed were science in your previous post, because you can run an experiment on them.
Once I point out that the experiments were conducted on a smaller scale and not applicable to a planetary scale without extrapolating the results, now its not science? again, semantics - you can call it whatever the fuck you want, but if its properly explaining the mechanisms by which nature works, it's science. What you're essentially trying to say is that it's science on a small scale because it's observable, but we cannot call it science on a larger, planetary scale, because we can't just make a fucking planet and test it's gravitational pull.
2) you can keep clinging to a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers), there are situations in which it isn't applicable - such as parts of astronomy.
3) Natural selection has been replicated in instances where a population group has been isolated from another population group, then developed different characteristics over periods of time. this has already been observed.
And guess what, that's taking a MICRO level observation and applying/extrapolating it to a MACRO level. The same way the experiments with clocks in airplanes has been extrapolated to a larger level.
Also, yeah, I'm an econ major who had to sit through a ton of microeconomics and macroeconomics courses, so I'm pretty familiar with the difference between the two of them, dumbass.
4) Again, you cherry pick bullshit to try and make a point. The conference you referenced, which occurred in the 1980s, was a question of whether microevolution and macroevolution were separate entities.
Let's take a closer look at Lewin: First of all, what he's saying is that there isn't macroevolution - but in the way biologists use the term, not the way idiots like creationists do. In the actual scientific community, contending that macroevolution doesn't exist DOESNT' mean that it's not possible; it means that evolution occurs at a different scale with no boundary between the two. Macroevolution in biology = evolution of organisms at a higher taxonomic level.
Anyway, since you quoted Lewin, let's finish up his thought...
By the way, Dr. Ayala, who was namedropped in your Lewin quote? He vehemently denies ever making his "generous admission".
In fact, let's see what Lewin himself thinks about creationism vs evolution, and what your FELLOW CREATIONISTS BRO think of Lewin (considering you cherry picked an argument previously to prove a point from an article that doesn't even SAY evolution didn't exist, though you implied that...)
Lewin literally ended that article saying that he wanted to do his part in providing ammunition "for those who directly confront the creationists."
Yup, that's right. The guy you fucking quoted literally wrote an article a few years later saying that creationism has absolutely no scientific basis. And this is the fucking guy you think backs up your statements?
And let's take a look at the conference you cited...
The fucking people at the conference you quoted immediately lamented that morons like you would try and cite Science as a way to fight against evolution, and the guy you quoted is starkly anti-creationism
Stop cherry picking shit out. The rest of your post is trash also. Your peanut/turtle analogy is trash and doesn't warrant an explanation.
IF ANYONE GOOGLE SEARCHES ANYONE YOU CITE, YOU FIND THEY ALL DO NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM!
Yes, these...
Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organisms original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.
Edwards, N.P. et al., Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1722):320918, 2011.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Mary Schweitzer PhD
"but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex." ---- Scientific American, October 2012
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink (Dr. Phil Wilby Paleontologist).....
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
"Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found."
Live Science, New Burgess Shale 'Mother Lode' of Amazingly Preserved Fossils Discovered in Canada
I've got about 80 or so more.
How old are those Dino's again...80-550 Million!! lol
I gotta bridge for sale...you interested?
regards
Thanks Wuphat and CTC!
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
Just grab a snippet!
Was it getting to you that the thread wasn't about you anymore?
[quote]a dictionary definition, but it's already been explained to you that just because that is the common definition of science (one that's literally used to teach middle schoolers)
And you still can't understand it.
You're in dreamland.
Read this slowly...
"In a review of Defending Evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001), a book highly recommended by such eminent evolutionists as Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould ... [and] Eugenie C. Scott, Morris (2001) concludes that their defense of Darwinism fails because...it focuses almost exclusively on defending micro-evolution (what creationists call adaptive variation), whereas it is only macroevolution that creationists reject in the first place. Essentially only three pages of the book (pp. 117119) are devoted to defending macroevolution, and the concluding sentence of this section simply complains that it is unreasonable to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the normal procedures used in historical science research. That is true of course, but then why call it science? (p. 1)
Morris, H., How not to defend evolution. Back to Genesis 153:1, pg 1, September 2001
Can you please proffer a "Mechanism" for Macro-evolution please...? Should we wait?
Let's start off by you explaining the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes (Single Celled Organisms) with Transcription and Translation (Before you jump all incoherently into Multi-Celled Organisms) ?
Yes and...lol? I didn't quote him for his beliefs/Faith, I quoted him for his expertise on Macro to Micro. 99% of the time, I use atheists/evolutionists for support (Hostile Witnesses are the Best). Don't really care what he "BELIEVES" only what he can "PROVE". Savvy?
EXACTLY, ain't it KOOL?
Thanks for Illustrating using a Hammer to put out a c4 Fire
regards
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Quote:
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
His preferred theory doesn't pass the giggle test of sane society, but he seems to have plenty of time to try and cast doubt upon the methodology, evidence and conclusions of legitimate scientists (you know, the ones he believes are the work of the devil).
Quote:
In comment 12143940 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzers work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzers work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzers research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bibles account of a recent creation."
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.
A renowned scientist like Enoch would never do that.
And.....? Does she like Blue-Berry Pie also.
Did those "Creationists" manipulate these...
Maybe if she stopped "clinging" to the Fairytale "Millions of Years" that a 2nd grader would laugh @ people might be more receptive, eh?
regards
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Time is a mechanism, eh? Is that your final answer? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red for us?
Let me ask you, does Entropy, speaking to 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), Increase or Decrease with TIME?
So you're saying the change in Allele Frequency can turn Bacteria into Giraffes? Please, the floor is yours....?
regards
The Earth is not a closed system.
I at least hope that Spock is giving up the balloon knot to Enoch for all the time he has spent here...
Quote:
what cdesign proponentsists call micro and macro evolution is time.
The scientific community that understands what they fuck they're doing just call it all evolution.
Because it's all the same mechanisms.
Time is a mechanism, eh? Is that your final answer? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red for us?
Let me ask you, does Entropy, speaking to 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), Increase or Decrease with TIME?
So you're saying the change in Allele Frequency can turn Bacteria into Giraffes? Please, the floor is yours....?
regards
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
And someone actually let this guy carry a firearm in the military? I'm surprised that he didn't accidentally off himself with how challenged he seems to be.
Why would you believe he was in the military? He's full of shit on everything else he posts.
Oh, I forgot, the earth is only 7,000 years old, so that's only an illusion God created to fool cosmologists.
Or do you have another theory on that? (Can't wait.)
Get rid of this toilet stain already.
And no names needed right? We all know who IM referring to.
Best part is that he's probably feeling like some sort of martyr. Like Jesus. Only more of an unoriginal clown.
If so, what is he doing on a football message board that supports a team you're hes not a fan of?
Sorry to end my sentence with a preposition. IM sure that weighs heavily on his defective brain.
If so, what is he doing on a football message board that supports a team you're hes not a fan of?
Sorry to end my sentence with a preposition. IM sure that weighs heavily on his defective brain.
Well, Christians are the most persecuted species on this planet, and so to protect their numbers, they must band together.
If so, what is he doing on a football message board that supports a team you're hes not a fan of?
Sorry to end my sentence with a preposition. IM sure that weighs heavily on his defective brain.
Light reading material turned up earlier in the thread linked below.
Pay extra attention to the "...so as you can imagine, many NY Jews.." part of the troll recruitment.
Link - ( New Window )
and- mea culpa, I did not bother reading all the psycho truther bullshit, why would you?
You wished death on me you fucking cunt.
Quote:
That Spock and this deluded whack job aren't the same person?
If so, what is he doing on a football message board that supports a team you're hes not a fan of?
Sorry to end my sentence with a preposition. IM sure that weighs heavily on his defective brain.
Light reading material turned up earlier in the thread linked below.
Pay extra attention to the "...so as you can imagine, many NY Jews.." part of the troll recruitment. Link - ( New Window )
Wow. That's completely absurd. NY Jews?
Both Enoch and Spock should be banned immediately.
Where are the mods with the hammer?
Being a piece of shit is the norm for you.
He's a thin-skinned dish-but-can't-take pussy.