I used to blindly believe in a God in the heavens, then I began to believe that God is the energy of the universe. I have my own conclusion now, but I am very interested in hearing others feelings, points of view and philosophy on the subject.
Printable View
I used to blindly believe in a God in the heavens, then I began to believe that God is the energy of the universe. I have my own conclusion now, but I am very interested in hearing others feelings, points of view and philosophy on the subject.
I used to think about God as person... but... things changed... I think god is immaterial thing behind, uncaring. Maybe even not personal... maybe it is just a force.
It could be that we simply can't comprehend him or them similarly like a bacterium can't comprehend us. It could be that there is many, many steps in evolution to close the gap. Blind beliefs are not the way. I feel, that the way is very personal. I feel the comprehension comes with work and personal experience.
An evil villain that re-occurs in a series of books called the scriptures. Not worth the read though, it's full of plot holes.
God is what you want him to be, Heaven is your World your Canvas, God is in your Heart.
I don't belive in hell say If you belive in Hell and you think you are going there you will be in your hell.
Some people who don't want to goto heaven or hell they will be a ghost. God is just a Force depending on what you want him to be.
He could be a dog, human, cat, a tall giant with a grey beard, father of jesus, jesus, you know anything. But everyone's heaven is connected so you can visit their plain.
You basically said exactly how I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazingnyancat
Throughout my experiences in my life, I think we all have a little bit of God in us. When I say "God", I mean a power that is within us that allows us to reach our farthest goals, a part of us that enables us to do the unthinkable. By all of us having that part of "God" in us, we are all connected. Its kind of hard to explain, I hope you guys understood what I was trying to get across lol :D
When I grew up I had to fuse religion and science somehow. I believe there is more than we can measure out there. The best proof is that we discover so many new things even today that we didnt believe in before. For me, god is a kind of power that existed from the big bang on. maybe it is intelligent, maybe just a force, I canīt tell that really...
God is 42
A scapegoat onto which a society collectively projects their fears and desires and the responsibilities they don't want to shoulder themselves.
Nothing I can describe used human concepts and words.
Gods are psychological entities with characteristics and power that are partially determined by the way we think about them. But saying they are psychological doesn't mean they're pretend, they're also intelligent and conscious, in a different way than we are.
Although there's an element of free will in the way our thoughts create and interpret God, its not arbitrary. To the extent that we think about God in a way that is inconsistent with who we are and how our minds work, for instance, then that thought is delusional and doesn't work.
Presumably there is some more subtle intelligence that these myrid interrelated gods are derived from. It expresses itself in those ways, but can also express itself in other ways as who we are changes. That intelligence seems to me to have a will in some sense, though its not the personal will such as may sometimes be attributed to God. The various lesser gods have wills too, which are related to that subtler God and to our wills. I think its not completely right to say that we create the gods, its also true that they create us.
We have some choice in what gods we worship, and in what we mean by worship. To some extent everyone has to work that out for themselves, there's no one way that's right for everyone. In one way or another, everyone worships gods, and the way that they worship is a part of what determines what those gods are. A lot of people seem to want to kiss God's ass, to gain favor and get away with stuff. That isn't my way.
Something like archetypes then? Ok, that makes perfect sense. I suppose believing in a god would activate an archetype or a group of them. An archetype is very real and very powerful, much more so than mere personal thoughts, but only at certain times - usually times of crisis or some powerful emotion. It's like a complex, like a persecution complex for instance. Real or imaginary? Well, it's actually just as real as any other thoughts in the person's head and more powerful than them because it comes from deeper and directs thought and emotion.
This word 'god' seems to me like asghojasdrhoah or pdbddbnjdohaasbndafo. It's nonsense - literally. You can no sense it. It doesn't exist. Only thing you can do is believe it. And a man can believe in anything, so I believe in the word asorgasgoargnawrg more than the word god.
One morning long ago a caveman woke up, stepped out of his cave, sretched, basked in the sunshine, and became self aware. This very first onset of sentience was followed by two breathless observations:
"Shit! I exist!"
"Shit! I'm going to die someday!"
But all of the caveman's wiring to date insisted and confirmed that he must not die. In order to reconcile the fact of his eventual death with his instinctual need to stay alive, the caveman decided that he must somehow survive death, that there must be an existence beyond death.
So he told his cave-family and cave-friends about all this, and, since they had not yet become self-aware, they weren't buying his tale. Frustrated, the caveman decided he needed to make his story more interesting, and from his descriptions were born god, the soul, and, by default, the shaman.
Creatures used in mythology, shown as ones of great power. Can be evil or good, sometimes worshipped. For some reason people worship far more the evil ones though.
So yeah, a normal tale to me. I quite like the Cthulhu mythos actually.
This isn't relevant to the spirit of your post, but I feel like pointing out that the Old Testament Hebrew religion has a strong tribal God but no concept of an afterlife. Maybe the afterlife ideas were introduced later through interaction with Greeks, etc. when they were a part of the Roman Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
More later.
^^ Not so much no afterlife, if I remember correctly, but more a permanent barrier to the afterlife, thanks to original sin. This barrier will only be lifted upon the arrival of the messiah.
Regardless, the Hebrew religion arrived long after that hairy fellow realized he existed; even if you are correct, the rationale for their decisions to omit an afterlife would have had nothing to do with the origins of man's sudden sentient need for something more... indeed, they (the Hebrews) likely needed to explain why they could not have an afterlife (hence original sin, perhaps?).
An ocean of ones and zeros that is searching for the optimal way to order itself.
"A God is a being who recognizes good without evil as a point of reference"
The Adam and Eve story attributes mortality to sin, but this concerns the span and health of a human life, not an invisible 'afterlife' that occurs after physical death. There's no concept of an afterlife, denied or otherwise, anywhere in the old testament. In Ecclesiastes, which is philosophically the most modern of the Old Testament books, the spirit returns to God at death. Then the idea of a physical resurrection appears in the New Testament, but there is no idea of a spiritual 'heaven' afterlife. This seems to have been invented later, and became a standard part of Christian theology, possibly because St. Paul's more concrete Zombie Awakening version of salvation doesn't sit as easily with the modern mind. But the idea of a spiritual afterlife is not in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ Okay then.
As usual your wealth of knowledge outweighs my feeble memory. Indeed, that you know that there is no mention of an afterlife anywhere in the Old Testament is downright humbling. Clearly I've misunderstood or perhaps inadvertently retro-interpreted Judaism; touche.
... still, and as we both already noted, this has nothing to do with the caveman's invention of god, or this thread.
Who or what is God to you?
Daddy!
I find it remarkable that Christians generally know so little about the Bible in some regards, considering that its not really that long, and many of them believe it to be the Word of God and study it weekly. It seems everyone reads it with a theological filter already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ Nice.
Yeah, we Christians are generally just a bunch of pig-headed, blinder-wearing idiots, I suppose. Thanks for the clarification.
For what it's worth, I haven't paid much attention to anything theological for well over thirty years; perhaps when I was familiar with the Old Testament, my post would have been different -- not that it could have though, given those pesky theological filters.
Just to clear things up, American Christianity isn't true christianity at all(Not sure if you were referring to america at all lol, just saying in case you were). Americans have changed so much of it and made it to fit them. Doesn't work like that though, so I see where you are coming from. There are very few True Christians in America today, very few who follow the original religion. Today we have so many denominations, Its rather sad. Many christians study the Bible everyday, it acts as a refresher considering the book is 1500 pages long in some formats. Anyone that follows their own religion will indeed make it a big deal in their life , if they are true to that religion that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
The bible can hardly be followed anyways. It's basically just a pick and mix but with ideologies.
I'll leave this here for anyone interested Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon
I'm not a fan of anti-theism, but this website finds some extremely contradictory paragraphs in the bible.
For instance, how did Judas die? Did he hang himself, or did he explode!?!?! :uhm:Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
How did Judas die?
But this is also a fun one: The Brick Testament
well, according to catholic bible he hang himself out of self resentment...
They didn't invent explosives, they didn't know what it means to explode infidels or sinner :evil:. Sorry I couldn't stop myself :)
Sageous,
I think you took what I said too personally. If you were a Christian academic, then I'd think it would be important to you to know what the Bible says or doesn't say about eternal life, since the concept is so central to Christian theology. But you didn't invest your life's effort in interpreting and supporting Christian doctrine, so I don't see the issue.
As far as defending the intellectual honor of other Christians....These are the same people who categorize my gods as evil spirits, and who teach that I am damned and am seducing other people to damnation. If they find my view of them to be offensive, that's a farce, they dish out ten times what they have to take from me. Of course there are individual Christians who are thoughtful and open minded. I'm talking about Christian theology in bulk. There just isn't any way to parse it that upholds the core teaching of John 3:16, as promulgated by Paul, and doesn't at least implicitly depend on the damnation of people like myself or yourself who reject that teaching.
To me it's not about 'winning', it's about progress. If what I said was wrong or irrelevant, that's another matter. It is relevant to me because my faith in God, such as it is, is not coupled to a hope for an afterlife. And historically that has been true for a lot of other people also. That doesn't necessarily undermine the essential point of your post, which is to suggest that God is largely a human concept. But it is relevant to better explaining who God is to me, which is something I hope to get to. I think that a person who metaphorically has an experience like Jonah's believes in God. It's direct, personally real, and not a matter of yearning for immortality.
I don't know much about archetypes, but yes they would be related. A point I would like to emphasize is that the god has actual life and will and intelligence and power, including supernatural power. It does not act merely by influencing human thought and behavior, it can act in the world directly. Though the human mind is an important part of how it acts, and I do not know if it can exist without the activity of human minds. If there is a dependence on human thinking it is not strictly temporal though, the god can reach beyond the lifetimes of his people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I really don't have an overreaching theory about how any of this works, I'm just describing what I think must be true based on what I have experienced. The gods that I have some direct awareness of are a lot smaller and weaker than the more universal ones that I vaguely sense acting through them. It's like a big fractal of spiritual identity. The 'big' gods don't necessarily exercise power in ways we would easily recognize. The're more like intelligent gravity, almost undetectable when dealing with small, individual objects, but producing big results through an accumulation of subtle effects. They don't talk to us in human ways more than they do because it would give us the wrong idea. We'd make an idol out of an image of the experience. Is there a single unified God running through it all? I guess there must be, but I try to keep my mind free of hard beliefs in things beyond what I consciously deal with, so that I don't close myself to discovering more.
In regards to the meditative "who am I" question, which I think is relevant to relationship with God, I think that for now I am the one who must deal with my human experience. As I finish that, I'm stages, then the scope of who I am may change accordingly. But it is important for the scope my awareness to be appropriate for my responsibilities. It is paralyzing if I am aware to too little or too much. This is a large reason for ignorance about God I think. We can't process too many messages at once, and in various ways we're all struggling to face ourselves.
I agree with Sageous about how man invented religion and god when he gained self awareness. It's more preferable also to think that death isn't the end. Whatever the religion and it's elements, it all stems from this.
So I'm an athiest and a nihilist, but I like to follow happiness as a goal in life (happiness is the best thing in the world! :D)
Religions are not what they supposed to be. It changed over time. And who cares. Religion is all about convergence group of people. Differentiation from another group. And when you are part of a large group of believe system, you're simply controlable by this group's believe system to make violence or peace or what ever it's required. All this has roots in evolution of ''us''.
You know, I don't think that happiness is goal in life. It's just a marker whether you are doing right things or wrong things and as well it has roots in evolution of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by LouaiB
Taoism, and Chinese folk religion in general, also does not involve thinking that death isn't the end. But most Chinese folk religion does involve faith in gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by LouaiB
As a nihilist there is an acknowledgment of the lack of inherent meaning to life. That is, all meaning and purpose is regarded as a purely human concept and is essentially indifferent within the greater scheme of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
This does not imply you do not have any meaning to life, there are multiple trails of thought after this that are mostly regarded as equal no matter which you choose. Some argue that any meaning to life should revolve around experience, others note that we should make the most out the positive emotions evolution has provided us.
As Louai pointed out, he chooses to follow happiness as a goal because it's a wonderful feeling. Without a true objective purpose, the next best thing he probably considers is living life as happy as possible.
I follow a similar thought because there's almost no right's or wrongs. We can all agree that a human can make up his own goals based on what he feels best suits him.
I agree with this. Happiness follows the pursuit of an enlightened goal, and helps keep us on the path, but eventually fails as a goal unto itself without some other element. Pure pursuit of happiness would be like flying in fog without an attitude indicator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
The big g God is probably like the Force; its an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together :P. Quoted by a wise man and not by myself.
But really, I think God would be the stereotypical omnipresent being that is everything all at once, kind of thing. But what is "being", and why do we place meaning on something being there such as "God"? I don't go as far as nihilism (although I don't know much about it) but its a mystery to me either way. In a way it seems more practical to pursue things like happiness or whatever goals that are worthwhile and personable, even if they are not a means to an end. Kind of like what Dutchraptor is saying. "God" seems to step in and gain more meaning in discussions like this because it brings things like religions and ideologies, and lifestyles into the mix.
I see that a lot of you bring up points that I also feel are true. I think every civilization and culture has a "Creation Myth" and some of those are more scientifically accurate than others. I also feel that the God spoken of in the Christian Bible and of Judea, is and has been a control mechanism for a few to control the masses.
I think what some call God is in fact the power of the universe. Energy, creation, life, and death are all parts of the world we live in and we still struggle to understand so much of the world around us. God to me is not a magic man in the heavens, God is the "process" of everything in the natural world. Everyone has moments of clarity or a moment of divine grace that leaves them feeling like they have experienced something unworldly. Some call it God or Divine intervention, what ever, but I feel that whether you are religious or not, you are still capable of experiencing extraordinary moments in life. So called Miracles if you will happen to believers and non believers alike.
I also feel, as someone else said...(sorry, I dont know how to use quotes properly on this site)... that God is in the eye of the beholder. It could be a special day or event that gives one a feeling of being in the presence of something profound or a child's birth, a puppy or kitten, a recovery from terminal cancer etc. What ever God is, to me it is not some all knowing man in the heavens that looks down on us all. God may be all knowing, as the process of creation itself is. But how can you pray to the energy of the universe and expect an answer. it is the meditation on the prayer or question that leads us to our answers, not the whim of a so called God.
I guess I'm rambling, but I liked reading everyone's take on this topic.
I persuite these "enlightenment goals" which I described how I think they are classified above. Persuing them equals happiness. So if you think that these goals are our goals in life, you are right, they are, but I follow them for the halla of it! In the end, it IS our motivation for happiness that fulfilled these goals ! (Sneaky mind, knows how to manipulate us to advance it's race ōvō )Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
* Moved to R/S
If this was truly a Religious thread, I would have put it here myself.
a character created to control the majority by giving them false hope.
God to me is: a three-letter word that seems unusually tricky to define.
Spoiler for "big long thing:
I think beliefs (or even ideas or notions) about the existence or non-existance of god can say a lot about a person and how they experience the world. I find though that very narrow interpretations of the word can be less descriptive or insightful in this way.
At this point in my life I would say, hesitantly, that any god I could believe in would be a kind of incomprehensible intangible kind. Not supernatural or anything, just invisible.
Like air. Or truth. These are words things humans essentially made up to describe concepts to other humans. Words like life and love and truth are similar I think. Joy even, sadness even.
They exist only as we perceive them.
I see god as maybe... whatever stuff the universe it made of that causes it to do what it do baby. When I pray I am essentially giving thanks to the universe for existing, so maybe my idea of god is the universe itself.
I don't feel I have to call it god usually, but if I were to make associations with the word this is more or less what comes to mind.
That and the way the film Dogma portrays God. What a reality that would be.
Completly off topic, but am I the only person who finds it ironic that only athiests/non believers visit the religion thread regularly? XD
Call it what ever you like. Just know this....
I originally posted this in Beyond Dreaming but someone just moved it here. :pope:
So back on topic HeWhoShapes....Who or What is GOD to YOU?
"Who or 'What' is GOD to you ?"
Humanity - collectively not individually
We are the culmination of 13.7 billion years anti-entropic cosmic evolution; not to be mistaken or construed as some form of existential purpose, however the recognition of our potential significance. I must state that due to the lack of evidence of other intelligent forms of life within the universe; I do not believe it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to postulate our sole existence as sentient beings.
Imagine if this is the case ...
We are the universe perceiving itself ... the universe aware of it's own existence and in regards to the human experience - we are like some kind of existential substratum. I state this because it is irrefutable that we are inextricably apart of the universe; atomically ... well according to our current understanding. The antiquated version of god is fatuous with it's many attributions which could not be possible to ascribe to humanity, however ponder long enough we do share some.
This is rather an arbitrary opinion and we all are cognizant of our own ignorance, but who knows right - perhaps truth is ineffable.
This is so interesting choice of words 'blindly believe' like you were ignorant before, but now you have your 'own conclusion' (and this goes for others having the same view) I think you were better off on your first premise of God as an actual being! Anyone who says this I see as having gone backwards! Brainwashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
I'm quite cynical of people who think they have it all figured out, particularly when they oppose scripture. It's the ultimate form of disrespect to what has been established and written in blood throughout the centuries. That's my 'feelings and point of view, and philosophy' lol. It's not really any good having 'feelings of philosophy' as much as pure objective strength of faith that is given to you by grace alone.
Call me deluded....but if anyone needs a good wake up call.....I'd only be too glad to be the one to give it to you, and anyone else that falls down this pantheistic ditch of apathy and intellectual sloth.
I know about evil. I know the secret spaces that it hides behind, and the way that it hides. Evil is so cowardly the way it tries to hide behind lies and all kinds of crap! I take pleasure on shinning a light on it. If you think black magic is harsh or bizaree, you have not seen what it's like for something to come so directly from the king without the nonsense. No amount of sorcery can compare with the sheer terror that the Lord can bring.
The Word is a done deal. It's not disputable, it's not reversible, it's not erasable. It's just inevitable.
http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/...ps51961495.jpg
Well that was weird.
Thank God, I feared I wouldn't find a single weird post in this thread. Now the question is, who am I thanking this to? :huh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
are you cynical of yourself?Quote:
I know about evil. I know the secret spaces that it hides behind, and the way that it hides. Evil is so cowardly the way it tries to hide behind lies and all kinds of crap! I take pleasure on shinning a light on it. If you think black magic is harsh or bizaree, you have not seen what it's like for something to come so directly from the king without the nonsense. No amount of sorcery can compare with the sheer terror that the Lord can bring.
Blind belief is what most children of religious families grow up in. So yes, it was ignorance until I became of an age and mind set to come to my own conclusions. I very much like tropicalbreezes question to you. Are you cynical of yourself? Do you have it all figured out or do you STILL blindly follow what others tell you?
It really cracks me up at this point in my life to imagine and angry white bearded man with a book of everyone's wrongs and rights written down for quick reference so a punishment or reward can be doled out. What is more hilarious is to sit straight faced when a religious crank/ crackpot seriously explain what GOD is and how they know it to be true. Now I wont disrespect someone who believes it and chooses to live their life with that belief, because it is after all that persons prerogative. However, I wont be shamed for my belief either.
So it was written in blood, so it must be true right?
Actually, this person looks like a troll, just signed up and all so I'll just leave it at this.
When I was in college I took a Humanities course and the final was a paper where you had to choose a leader of some sort and expand on the qualities you felt made them a good leader.
At the time I think I was still calling myself an atheist. But in private I was reading all kinds of religious...literature, scripture whatever you wanna call it. Because it interested me, the effect this idea of god(s) has had on humanity over and over again. It's called by many names but, like it or not, I feel it is diffcult to deny the impact it has had.
So I wrote my paper about what I called "Jesus as a Revolutionary". Because to me he seemed like the most unlikely yet most obvious choice. I liked that he challenged what he saw to be corrupt, at a time when much less I imagine was punishable by death. He refused, in a sense to fall in line. Jesus did things that were downright scandalous.
And the thing I enjoy most about Christianity is this idea, about a regular guy that somehow changed the world. He wasn't a god, he was a human being. Born into a world full of black and white and little else, as I see it.
And he had this crazy idea that heaven is now...not some physical place, not some future afterlife. I think that perhaps it was this idea, more than the man behind it, that eventually changed the world.
The fact that scripture depicts him as paying the ultimate price for it makes sense to me, and so does (to an extent) the apparent desire for believers to see him as more of a god-like figure than a human one. But I feel this desire obscures the truth somehow.
I don't need for him to be born of a virgin, or rise from the dead...I dont even need for him to be the "son of god" in order to appreciate something about his story. Whether it's 100% fictional or not.
The idea of god is, to me very similar in that I recognize that it is essentially what I, and countless other people make of it. And I suspect that this is at least part of the reason why humans seem so endlessly fascinated and also completely at odds about what "god" means.
Some folks might prefer to leave the concept of god outside the equation entirely, but I prefer discussions such as this where variance is not only allowed, but also appreciated.
/likes this entire thread
Very....and more cynical of me than I am of you. I don't trust myself to save me that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze
What about you, do you think highly of yourself in comparison to people like me?
@ acatalephobic,
Interesting how you came to feel about Jesus. I feel similar to you. I don't care about where he came from and whether he was risen or even if he will return. I think for the time he was a great psychologist. The power or ability to forgive others as well as oneself was a major break through in turning people's lives around. Now I may be wrong about the Religious Law's before Jesus came and absolved man of his sins, but I think that the early Bible made it so extreme for people to be acceptable and therefore given to the promised land, that many gave up and never tried to better themselves. Once someone was seen as immoral, there was no hope, they were an outcast. I think that Jesus teaching saved a lot more people than just being saved in the sense that they took the Lord and the word of God into their hearts etc., etc., Even self forgiveness is a big deal when looked at in the context of psychology today. Many a depressed or addicted person fell to those depths because of personal guilt or shame and found their way out because the BELIEVED they were saved by the blood of Jesus, by the knowledge that all they had to do is ask and they would be forgiven. Such a powerful tool then and now.
That being said, I still cannot fathom the continued belief of some, not all people that there is a man in the heavens watching our every move. That seems so much like Santa Clause. "You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout, I'm telling you why" well we all know the song. Its creepy to think how similar it is to the God of the Biblical world.
Perhaps, and this is just speculation on my part that the Genesis, or creation myth of the Bible and the use of the name of God was for lack of another word. Maybe over the centuries people made the description of God something other than what was originally just a name for creation or the mysterious universe as many of us in this thread have commented on.
i don't know you well enough to draw a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
:chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
From now on.....:rolllaugh:
It's okay, I already knew the conclusion drawn. That's why I said it before darkmatters. The ability to Predict something however is a sign of intelligence rather than delusion. Though don't let me spoil any laughter. Ceratin types of conflict I even enjoy :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze
what you typed has nothing to do with what you quoted.
is that your intent? to start conflict? or do you feel like your being attacked? otherwise why bring that up?Quote:
Ceratin types of conflict I even enjoy
Judging from the kind of posts he's been making and he fact that it says "Offensively Lucid" under his name, I'd say that's a good bet.
hmm. wish I had of wrote that down before you said it. cause I was pretty sure that was the next thought too. You want to start conflict meh meh, you said you enjoy it. nah nah.Quote:
Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze
Maybe the conflict happens because I'm christian and some are not. Could it be a reason for conflict? It should be. I enjoy having faith. Perhaps some here enjoy attacking that faith with statements like "Jesus was just a man" and "the myth of the flood and creation". I couldn't care less cause I know my science as well as my litrature. And any errors to be pointed out? I'm grateful.
Offensively Lucid is just a jest about how easily people are offended these days by simple facts and basic common sense. Ofcourse you take it as a statement that I'm trying to be offensive. Really it's just my sense of humor though nothing I actually have, including my humor, is going to please you one bit. That's probaly what I enjoy most about it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Actually, I only said it's a good bet. And hey, I was only kidding anyway, but then again I like the fact that I offended you. No, just kidding. Not really though…Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Ok, enough fun. I've hit my quota of troll feeding for the month.
Unfortunately your existence does offend until you accept Jesus. Does that offend you that I'm offended. Are we going into a rap battle like eminem you find me offensive I find you offensive for finding me offensive. You got an answer for everything and that's what I like about forums. So much to talk about. You are lucky a christian even enters haha. When one does, they are a troll derp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Uuii - a religious fanatic, how sweet - thanks for the unwitting propaganda against fundamentalist Christianity - well done!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
So what to do, if confronted with an "incorrigible" atheist like me? Is it enough for you to wait until I die, being convinced, that I will roast in hell, or would you consider helping the process along a bit? How about people making it their life's purpose to try and deconvert other people?
Like Richard Dawkins, say? Are such a life's fruits maybe the Evil you hate so much as to open a thread about it?
If you had the power to do to him whatever you wanted to - what would you do?
Write more history with the ink of blood?
^:evil: lol
I just found a real marvel - Deanstar - what do you think of these two lovely ladies and their brand of Christianity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSbfs32yCU
Hello sweety. I'm not a fanatic, your reality has just warped me into a fanatic. Scary for you. Cause I'm pretty harmless.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Richard Dawkins is like that kid in class that just doesn't want to accept what science really is, and tries to make his own history and science based on his delusions. Telling monkey stories and all sorts of unverified nonsense. His main argument is something about the toothfairy in comparison to God. The role of Richard Dawkins is to make you feel better. I find him a central figure of amusement almost as if he was a commedian. He's ridiculious. If I could do anything to Richard Dawkins, I would put him in the naughty corner and tell him to read the bible and to have a good think about it. Better?
umm...what else did you meantion. Something about hell again. I can't say if you are going to hell sweetheart....that's not my role. Do I want to see you suffer. Ofcourse not. Expecially since you are a woman because I like women.
Yes I Hate evil. Really do hate it. I should make that more clear. Other than that I love what is Good with equal passion.
So glad you asked. First let me tell you what I think of the hippie guy. A illogical rambling closed minded anoyyance that does not really belong in a true scientific community. The other ladies sadly know better than he does. Yes they are agressive and short on patience. This I can understand! It's tiring to go day in day out, dealing with these types of argumentative failures. It really does get to you. This is what caused them to picket those signs. I personally would not take this agressive approach, and I find it a bit insensitive. And that's saying a lot considering what I am like on forums even. But I would never go so far as to picket "God hates fags". Many gay people have been saved from homosexuality later in their life and found Jesus. So this is very simplistic to picket that and also hurtful to picket at funerals. I think this type of church has some issues. It's sticking to the right bible, and the right doctrine, this I love. But what I don't like is their lack of tolerance and message of wrath. That is saying a lot considering my type of temper. Everyone is different. Everyone has faults. If everyone understood things perfectly it would be a perfect world. This Church doesn't represent how I would treat people or follow the scriptures. But I would get along with them quite well because they are much closer to the truth than you understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
This thread has gotten a little off track, but I welcome different perspectives. Hoping to get back on track with Who or What is God to you.
I just want to address what I see as an important argument, so wait a sec.
He mentioned something pretty weird in that video, about the verse 2 men in one bed. One taken and the other left. This is fairly interesting because two men in one bed is not very common at all and yet that is the example used for it. Is this an endorsement of homosexuality? I would say it's actually a metaphor for something fairly significant. It's saying that even someone who you think would be a sinner, they can be seperated and are seperated in a definite way. There is a secret here that most people miss. And he did not interpret that correct. There is a doctrine in the bible that clearly condems homosexuality as a sin.
The other verse he asked about was "Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left" and his main point here was who grinds at mills anymore....What this guys utterly fails to consider is from the beginning Jesus makes it clear he is speaking in metaphor to his disciples. This means when he says things like those who believe in the bible will be as those who built their house on rock and when the storm came the house remained. Now that's not saying that people who believe in the bible litrally are going to build their house on rocks! It's called a parable, and in the time of Jesus, women did grind at a mill. That's why he said it to them to give them a parable of understanding. I think he did it on purpose to filter the real christians from people like that hippie guy. Who can't even understand basic context of things because he has a insanely warped mind.
I don't think this is really off topic because it's about my view of God in relation to the video. It's very on topic.
Deanstar, I have heard you in your many comments, but when it comes to the topic of the thread, you only say you know that there is a God. Why are you side stepping the topic. I would like to hear you out on this, but none of us has anything solid from you on topic to read, ponder, accept or refute.
Also, I would add that I will ask Ophelia to lock this thread if it becomes very obvious that you are just trolling and intending to disrupt this thread for your own amusement, which is what it looks like right now.
I would ask Ophelia to lock you for even insinuating another member is being abusive without having any basis for your claims. Why would I troll a subject that is close to my heart you fruitcake. I'm sorry if the conversation doesn't go as you planned but not everyone wants to hear what you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
What do you want me to bring to the table? Because there is litrally a million different things to talk about, one of which I just did, and it's very obvious to me that God does exist. Someone has faith when they have been given it through grace. It disturbs you doesn't it.
Deanstar - I appreciate your different perspective and your fervor regarding your aversion for "hate", however you could eschew from condescension of others with antithetical opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I'll post this "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." -Christopher Hitchens
Well, actually yes. Thread starter has the right to set the parameters of a conversation. And kadie had done so. If anybody can't follow those simple requests, he/she is advised to find another thread that fits better to what he/she wants to talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Oh, and no name calling.
Thank you all, carry on : D
Having faith doesn't mean god exists. It's just a kind of nice feeling you get when you think you're saved from oblivion and sadness... Or in other words, heaven!
Who doesn't want heaven?! Well I do... I was religious and faithful before! I tell you, it's a wonderful feeling, but when I discovered LDing and actually became happy, I decided to accept reality. I always had my doubts about god, and I also discovered that everyone religious does too, given that they know the science behind why god's current way of existing and the story behind it is illogical.
I just hope you don't let the heavens stop you from being happy and enjoying life!
^ So faith could also be a matter of just accepting fate without a "God" involved. In this sense again, if the Universe and its "process" is really what we consider "God" we can still have faith that things will happen in a matter that they were meant to without calling to a "GOD" for divine resolution.
Wait, did that make sense?
faith means that you know about something without needing evidence of it. Most people that are confused about the definition of faith, think that it is impossible to know something without evidence. But that isn't true. Faith doesn't mean a delusion. It means something known in confidence enough to not have it proved. Where as some people have thought of it as a weakness. It's actually something that is a strength and a virtue. It shows your competance.
For example, we can't prove that the law of gravity will always be consistent in an experiment, or that it will always have the same effect. Because at any moment a new experiment could provide some new information about it with changes in circumstance.
Even so, if you jump off a building, you have faith that you will hit the ground (unless you think you are superman) That's your faith in gravity. You have faith in gravity not because it's a 100% certain, but because your internal code and experience just tells you it's true.
Faith in Jesus Christ is the same way in that you don't need a scientific experiment to believe Jesus is the son of God. The knowledge is given to you by his testimony and others and by understanding history and prophecy too, and is a gift of grace. In the same way the knowledge of gravity was given to you through the gift of sir isaac newton ironically by an apple falling on his head (or whatever the legend is haha)
If you really didn't have faith in anything, you couldn't even have faith in science because that too is a method based only on observation. Even the idea that nothing is certain couldn't even be held with any accountability. You would litrally be an anarchist. There is no such thing as fact without a degree of faith in it. The difference with someone who believes in Jesus Christ is they have the most evidence to support their claim. Someone who believes in evolution has to account for a lot of illogic and believes in theories that have already been falsified like natural selection and 'the big bang' or 'the billions of years old earth' (why is magnetism still left at rate of decline) and even one animal evolving into a another type of animal (has never happened before cause it's not realistic).
There are two definitions of faith.
One type of faith is belief in the absence of evidence or even contrary to evidence. This is the definition of faith that is most often applied to religions.
The other type of faith is based on trust and/or prior information. In the case of gravity, we have prior information that it has an effect on objects with mass. If we drop an object, we can expect that it will fall to the floor. We can repeat this hundreds of times and expect the same result. When we jump off of a building, we can expect that we will fall to the ground. We trust, based on evidence.
And evolutionist trust in the geological columb based on circular reasoning and because they made it up contrary to actual geology found lol. And they trust in transitional fossils just because they said so, not because they can date it properly without an insane error rate (its not uniform), or even demonstrate that it is transitional.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Also many laws in physics can't even allow the big bang, planets spin in different directions (cant happen if it came from a big bang) and the law of entrophy means the sun is burning out faster than it could have existed billions of years ago. The moon is crazily co-incidental to be there and no scientific reason for it (it didnt bounce off the earth). It's all so plainly unscientific. Even in dinosaur bones there is soft tissue, which is impossible for a million years old. The grand Canyon cannot have evolved over millions of years either without the water going uphil. So all you got left for the explanation of fossils and geology as we find it is a global flood. You have noahs boat found, we found the ark of the covenant. Historical artifacts and thousands of manuscripts to support the litrature of history. None of this matters to evolutionist because they just don't want to believe. Not because they have any sensible reason for their theories.
There is a lot of man made religions and nonsense. But all those religions clearly seperate themself when it comes to Christianity because as a religion Christianity is basically charity in Jesus Christ. It's doctrine is vastly different to all the other man made religions, and there is no way you could say that there is any resonable evidence against Jesus Christ. Atleast not for scholars.
The only type of other faith is blind faith. That's a faith you have in something when it's contrary to what we can observe and know. That's exactly what we see with evolutionist. They are presented the facts that contradict their theory, and it does not matter to them. Blind faith. You can't have a chicken without an egg, or a seed without a tree, because DNA is a closed system and the complex ecology of the earth doesn't allow for a linear evolution and that's not what we find in nature. There is no record of civilizations older than even a few hundred thousand years. Dating methods prove erroneous. Not even one invention of science is even based on evolutionary theory. All inventions are from intelligent design. Since all records point to a young earth and universe (we can't even observe a planet or star forming, let alone at a realistic rate) it would be completely ridiculious to assume evolution theory is not merely dogma. All this is without even mentioning the bible cause usually non believers just say "well anything christian is not relevant" and they dismiss every person who says something as a christian if it goes against their theory. Same as any creationist is not allowed to be scientific 'just because'. The most illogical people in the world and also the most rude and irresponsible is without a doubt atheists. Just looks at people like ricky gervais or Jim Jefferies and you will see not only their foul mouth and distasteful humor, but also how wrong they are with their actual facts and information, and rational is obviously not present in these types of people.
I think there are too many science errors in your post for me to pick through in a reasonable amount of time. I will say, however, that if there are errors in scientific findings, scientists will find them, and not those who throw around the term "evolutionist" like it's a word that is used in serious academic discussions (it's not).
I'm coming up on my last year of majoring in biology and I have no idea what you mean by "DNA is a closed system."
sociology teachers that science and techology (which I done a course in) cannot be objective in a system that is based on culture that directs it's agenda towards capitalism based on profit. This is why you don't have cars without expensive fuel, or cures for critical diseases. Your assumption that science is neutral is just wrong in that context (Technology is a cultural product not something objective).Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Everyone that does biology mainly has to be an evolutionist or they get criticized. Same as anyone in say communist russia gets criticized if they were not for communism! It doesn't prove anything. Just my common sense alone tells me that what we now know of DNA and the complexity of a cell is far too great to have happened by accident. Sperm needs and egg. Chickens need an egg. Plants need a seed. Everything needs it's DNA blueprint. This couldn't be more obvious. The fact your biology class has blinded you to this basic thing, just goes to show your intense indoctrination. Also your idea that 'evolutionist' isn't a real word is a part of that indoctrination. Not everyone believes in evolution, expecially if they are properly educated with a desire to know what's real.
What's natural selection, just extinction of species. What's genetic mutation, just damaged DNA. What's virus adaptation in Microorganisms and species within a certain type of animal, Just genetic variations of some limited felxibility under controlled conditions nothing more. You got nothing litrally nothing. Anything evolutionist do insert in textbooks is a known old fraud (like that fetus example) and the rest are just assumptions.
P.S (pathetic really how lurkers here click 'like' not based on any logic just because it's to do with going against God or whoever posted it at the time.)
What I mean by "scientists will find them" (the errors) is that scientists are the ones doing the actual work; they're the ones running experiments, collecting data, and publishing the results. If you have two experiments that are related, let's say Experiment A yielding Result X and Experiment B yielding Result Y, and if you, as the scientist, find that the two results don't match up given the parameters of the experiment, you may have found an error in Experiment A (or you could have messed up somewhere in Experiment B, but let's assume the former).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Contrast this with an outsider merely looking at the results. They might be able to comment on it, but what else? What could they provide that shows an error? They could certainly point to previous studies, but then they're just using science to combat science, which brings us back to my point.
The term "evolutionist" is not used in serious academic science. You know what it is used in? Science vs. religion debates. And I've yet to see those who accept evolution by natural selection describe themselves as "evolutionists." It's a loaded term often used by creationists to make evolution look like another dogmatic "-ism." It's a show of bad faith (excuse the pun).
It would just be impossible to be a modern-day biologist without accepting evolution. It is such a well-supported and expansive theory that it is the foundation of all of biology. You couldn't really do any kind of work in biology without utilizing evolutionary ideas.Quote:
Everyone that does biology mainly has to be an evolutionist or they get criticized. Same as anyone in say communist russia gets criticized if they were not for communism! It doesn't prove anything.
It's nothing like not being a Communist in Russia. Being a biologist while rejecting evolution goes beyond mere difference in opinion. It's a rejection of the foundation upon which your work is built. The crux of any criticism aimed at biologists who reject evolution would likely be: so why are you here? Why are you bothering to do work in this field? If you reject what is essentially a fact, what could you possibly offer?
This is why we don't rely on pure common sense in experiments. Intuition can be useful, but it can also be completely incorrect. Yes, if we looked at the cells that make up our bodies, our common sense would tell us that statistically, it would be overwhelmingly unlikely that such cells would have appeared by an accident of chemistry. But our cells aren't an accident of chemistry. They've been developing over the past 3-4 billion years, gradually building upon themselves, and certainly increasing in complexity.Quote:
Just my common sense alone tells me that what we now know of DNA and the complexity of a cell is far too great to have happened by accident.
Except I find nothing to disagree with about sperm and eggs being necessary for sexual reproduction, or chickens needing eggs to develop, or plants needing seeds to produce offspring, or life needing a DNA blueprint. I don't know what you're talking about here.Quote:
Sperm needs and egg. Chickens need an egg. Plants need a seed. Everything needs it's DNA blueprint. This couldn't be more obvious. The fact your biology class has blinded you to this basic thing, just goes to show your intense indoctrination.
I didn't say it's not a real word. I said it's not a term used by scientists in any kind of academic discussion. Like I said earlier in this post, it's mainly used by non-scientists trying to discredit their oftem misinformed views on science/scientists.Quote:
Also your idea that 'evolutionist' isn't a real word is a part of that indoctrination. Not everyone believes in evolution, expecially if they are properly educated with a desire to know what's real.
Natural selection is the idea that organisms which have certain traits may be better suited than others in a given environment. Organisms that have traits which benefit them may be able to beat out other organisms when it comes to finding mates or acquiring resources (food, mainly). Those organisms will have a greater chance of reproducing and giving that trait to their offspring. That trait may then spread out more in the ecosystem. Thus it has been naturally selected.Quote:
What's natural selection, just extinction of species.
The only time we'd call mutated DNA "damaged" is if it experience external trauma, such as being hit with radiation. In comparison to your parents, you have loads of genetic mutations. Most aren't harmful, but they're there. It doesn't make your DNA damaged, just different.Quote:
What's genetic mutation, just damaged DNA.
No idea what you're trying to say here.Quote:
What's virus adaptation in Microorganisms and species within a certain type of animal, Just genetic variations of some limited felxibility under controlled conditions nothing more.
Again, literally no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
You got nothing litrally nothing. Anything evolutionist do insert in textbooks is a known old fraud (like that fetus example) and the rest are just assumptions.
That is the most funny response I have read in a while. I know scientist do work. That is obvious and I am a researcher too. My point is science is not objective in this western culture with a monetary system where the rich rule. Journals are peer reviewed based on agendas owned by people. Understand how many patents are on inventions that threaten the wealthy and their power base? Thousands of inventions shelved. You know the most frustrating thing about talking to someone like you? You have to state obvious things into oblivion until time is just wasted because you just can't accept things as they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I'm sorry you don't like the term evolutionist. It's probaly because such a thing is embarassing to have to admit. Science doesn't debate religion, or it wouldn't be science.......lolzQuote:
The term "evolutionist" is not used in serious academic science. You know what it is used in? Science vs. religion debates.
You should maybe check out a few books.Quote:
It would just be impossible to be a modern-day biologist without accepting evolution.
How about to learn about biology in order to understand things better, that is generally what education is for. Evolution does not have any monopoly on anything, it's just a pushy religious idea that superstitious people want to try and put in the scientific community to hold back it's progress.Quote:
The crux of any criticism aimed at biologists who reject evolution would likely be: so why are you here? Why are you bothering to do work in this field?
I can stop you right there, if you are not using basic logic and common sense. You do not belong in any scientific field. You must use it. Intuition has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if it did intuition would definitely say evolution is wrong anyway.Quote:
This is why we don't rely on pure common sense in experiments.
I'm talking about how does a tree evolve without a seed. Picture not having any trees. There is no seeds to go with it. How does a seed suddenly generate it's DNA without even a tree. How does a chicken birth itself in a egg without a chicken. Your idea is pretty ridiculious.Quote:
I don't know what you're talking about here.
I am in the scientific field and I'm using the term ok. Many others do too. Like it or not, you have a belief in it.Quote:
it's mainly used by non-scientists
You don't have to define it. We know what it is. Why does homosexuality still exist with natural selection. Why isn't the earth uniform in life why is everything so diverse natual selection should make everything the same thing. But if you have nothing to begin with how can you even select from anything. I don't think I can make up a more nonsensical theory if I tried. Maybe you have never thought about how insane it is cause you just go by what authorities want you to believe.Quote:
Natural selection is
Mutations are errors, and the reason they arn't harmful is those types of errors are not even significant enough to even be measured as anything cause when we pass on our genetics it's the same.Quote:
In comparison to your parents, you have loads of genetic mutations. Most aren't harmful, but they're there. It doesn't make your DNA damaged, just different.
you make less sense than I doQuote:
No idea what you're trying to say here.
you don't need to keep saying it, just respond to the things you do understand. Or just, ask some questions.Quote:
Again, literally no idea what you're talking about.
Really? May I ask at which institution or university? What is the main topic of your research?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
We will never achieve perfect objectivity, but utilizing practices such as peer review helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peer review actually aids in making sure that those who are trying to advance an agenda do not have an easy time at it.Quote:
My point is science is not objective in this western culture with a monetary system where the rich rule. Journals are peer reviewed based on agendas owned by people. Understand how many patents are on inventions that threaten the wealthy and their power base? Thousands of inventions shelved.
Patents and inventions are a completely different topic, and not one I care to discuss right now.
I'm "stating the obvious" because you don't seem to have any understanding of how science works despite your claims that you're a researcher who does work in "the scientific field." Like I said earlier, I'd like to hear about your work.Quote:
You know the most frustrating thing about talking to someone like you? You have to state obvious things into oblivion until time is just wasted because you just can't accept things as they are.
I don't see why it would be embarrassing to admit that I accept what is a solidly supported natural phenomenon. I don't feel any kind of embarrassment, though I do feel like you're trying to weasel your way into my psychology even though it's not at all relevant. And for that, you should feel embarrassed. It's not respectful.Quote:
I'm sorry you don't like the term evolutionist. It's probaly because such a thing is embarassing to have to admit. Science doesn't debate religion, or it wouldn't be science.......lolz
Excuse me for restating the obvious, but I don't like the term because it is often only used by those who are pushing an anti-biology agenda.
It would be better to read a paper in a journal if I'm looking for somebody's work in biology. I know what kinds of books are written by people who deny evolution (even if they have a history in studying it, i.e. undergraduate and/or graduate degrees from accredited institutions). They don't often have anything of use in them.Quote:
You should maybe check out a few books.
The thing about working in biology while rejecting evolution is that you can't actually do any work. I mean, you could, but your results wouldn't make any sense and you likely wouldn't get anywhere. All you would have is data and no way to interpret it.Quote:
How about to learn about biology in order to understand things better, that is generally what education is for. Evolution does not have any monopoly on anything, it's just a pushy religious idea that superstitious people want to try and put in the scientific community to hold back it's progress.
I didn't say you can't use common sense. I said you cannot wholly rely on it. Not all solutions are intuitive.Quote:
I can stop you right there, if you are not using basic logic and common sense. You do not belong in any scientific field. You must use it.
Intuition is practically the same thing as common sense.Quote:
Intuition has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if it did intuition would definitely say evolution is wrong anyway.
Things like plant evolution are covered in an introductory class. Refer back to your class notes if you still have them. If not, look up plant evolution. If you really are a researcher, it is truly embarrassing that you're asking me these questions.Quote:
I'm talking about how does a tree evolve without a seed. Picture not having any trees. There is no seeds to go with it. How does a seed suddenly generate it's DNA without even a tree. How does a chicken birth itself in a egg without a chicken. Your idea is pretty ridiculious.
Which field? At which institution? I'm calling your bluff.Quote:
I am in the scientific field and I'm using the term ok. Many others do too. Like it or not, you have a belief in it.
Your posts suggest otherwise.Quote:
You don't have to define it. We know what it is.
Because heterosexual couples keep having kids, and because whatever causes homosexuality is probably not strictly related to pure genetics.Quote:
Why does homosexuality still exist with natural selection.
Natural selection shouldn't make everything "the same thing." Life on Earth isn't uniform because certain organisms fill ecological niches better than others. Thus, you get diversity.Quote:
Why isn't the earth uniform in life why is everything so diverse natual selection should make everything the same thing.
I'm not arguing that life had "nothing to begin with."Quote:
But if you have nothing to begin with how can you even select from anything. I don't think I can make up a more nonsensical theory if I tried. Maybe you have never thought about how insane it is cause you just go by what authorities want you to believe.
Errors do not necessarily equate to damage, is my point. The reason some aren't harmful is because amino acids do not require just one combination of nucleotides. For instance, there are 6 codons that code for serine. There is room for error.Quote:
Mutations are errors, and the reason they arn't harmful is those types of errors are not even significant enough to even be measured as anything cause when we pass on our genetics it's the same.
Only because you don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
you make less sense than I do
If I say I don't know what you're talking about, then perhaps you should rephrase your question/statement.Quote:
you don't need to keep saying it, just respond to the things you do understand. Or just, ask some questions.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread.
@ Blueline-Your take on this nonsense is much appreciated, but I fear it is a lost cause.
Hopefully this thread continues in a respectful and enlightening manner true to the topic. I'll be away for a bit. :)
^^ I hope you won't be away too long, Kadie, and that the direction this thread was forced into didn't sway you from starting more; your thoughts are most refreshing and welcome on these forums.
Speaking of thoughts: I am once again astonished at your patience and tenacity, Blueline!
So am I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Central Queensland University. I do psychology. But I'm in 3rd year. That means by now I have read many papers and done a lot of research assignments (one is due soon) on varies topics to do with psychology but I have also done sociology courses with it in my first year (which has given me the insight to understand the NON objective aspects of the science community) Next year I'll have to do a major research project. Other than this you don't need to be doing a degree to research things. You can also research things on your own without an institute believe it or not. You have your own mind, and you need an ability to critically think to do any kind of research.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I guess you are not familiar with some of the fraudulent work that has been put through peer review in the past? It's unfortunate but it does happen.Academic Fraud and the Peer Review Process :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle BastiatQuote:
We will never achieve perfect objectivity, but utilizing practices such as peer review helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peer review actually aids in making sure that those who are trying to advance an agenda do not have an easy time at it.
I'm not saying that science is not a good tool. But people have motivations for abusing all sorts of things, including the scientific method for their own agenda's, mostly profit or funding, or to push some political view. You are suppose to be objective, it doesn't assure that everything will be neutral, that would be unrealistic. If things were neutral then the world would make sense, and we wouldn't have such corrupt politicans would we.
You are being childish because 'evolutionist' is just a term to describe those that believe in evolution. That term used by many writers of my subscribed textbooks even.Quote:
you should feel embarrassed. It's not respectful.
I can tell then you are not familiar with the wide array of litrature, see what a degree teachers you partly is how to think about things in your own way, the idea is not to go simply off what someone says, but to think about why they are saying it and to put the pieces of the research together in a way in which you can draw your own conclusions. This is what research is about it's not about coming to pre-concieved notions about what someone else already concluded. There is many out there that question all sorts of things. Including the theory of evolution. You are living in a bubble in which you imagine that everyone accepts evolution. They don't. I certaintly don't. Even some of the greatest biologist have concluded (to clear their conscience from selling out) that evolution has to be nonsensical after they have carefully considered their work.Quote:
It would be better to read a paper in a journal if I'm looking for somebody's work in biology.
This is ridiculious, You don't need to interpret the data from the perspective of evolution. In psychology there is many different angles that you must interpret it from, Cognitive, behavioural, socially, emotionally, psycho-analytically, developmental, spiritually. Biology isn't even evolution focused it suppose to focus on what happens to the body, the brain, the nervous system ect. Evolution is just a dogma that you theorize about. Has nothing to do with the study of the facts.Quote:
The thing about working in biology while rejecting evolution is that you can't actually do any work. I mean, you could, but your results wouldn't make any sense and you likely wouldn't get anywhere. All you would have is data and no way to interpret it.
When I do my assignments or write any reports. I have to have some idea of the litrature, and I have to know what is out there, and what the theories are, and what is proven and not proven, before I can correctly write about it to get a decent grade.Quote:
I didn't say you can't use common sense. I said you cannot wholly rely on it. Not all solutions are intuitive.
Psychology doesn't do 'plant evolution' mainly because it's not relevant. They might do it in biology to try and explain how plants exist. But it doesn't prove they evolved and it's actually impossible to scientifically verify the theory. I could easily write something to falsify the theory of not only plant evolution, but any sort of evolution that claims to explain how everything got here, cause there is many things that make the theory impossible. Sorry that you have believed a lie for so long. You have probaly invested a lot in it and it's hard to let go of.Quote:
Things like plant evolution are covered in an introductory class. Refer back to your class notes if you still have them. If not, look up plant evolution.
If sexual orientation isn't purely genetic and if social agency plays a role in what we become. Then natural selection couldn't account for what we decide. Your theory of evolution is invalid. lolz.Quote:
Because heterosexual couples keep having kids, and because whatever causes homosexuality is probably not strictly related to pure genetics.
There could be no ecological niches, if everything wasn't created in a way that is dependant on everything else. You can't have linear evolution in a diverse ecological system in which everything relies of each other to operate. Clearly you didn't understand what I asked in the other post about it.Quote:
Natural selection shouldn't make everything "the same thing." Life on Earth isn't uniform because certain organisms fill ecological niches better than others. Thus, you get diversity.
That's funny because evolution can't be a theory unless you started with nothing else you believe in something that was created.Quote:
I'm not arguing that life had "nothing to begin with."
I know what you are trying to say, and it's based on the idea that DNA can somehow mutate itself into improved productively. An idea so ridiculious that even after billions of years time it would be highly highly unlikely given DNA's complexity and what we do know today about genes.Quote:
Errors do not necessarily equate to damage, is my point. The reason some aren't harmful is because amino acids do not require just one combination of nucleotides. For instance, there are 6 codons that code for serine. There is room for error.
I think you are the one that is clueless, and not me.Quote:
Only because you don't know what you're talking about.
I guess I could rephrase my question to why you give yourself the title of "Terminally Out of Phase" it sums up your understanding, logic, and thinking pretty well.Quote:
If I say I don't know what you're talking about, then perhaps you should rephrase your question/statement.
I think that if you say you're a researcher in a field of science, you should clarify whether your research is limited to assignments in undergraduate-level classes or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I know it happens; my argument was never that peer review is perfect. I'm saying that given its faults, peer review is still a useful and necessary process. I should note that in the Joe Salerno article you linked, it mentions that JVC discovered Peter Chen's fraud on their own, which I find encouraging.Quote:
I guess you are not familiar with some of the fraudulent work that has been put through peer review in the past? It's unfortunate but it does happen.Academic Fraud and the Peer Review Process :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat
I'm not saying that science is not a good tool. But people have motivations for abusing all sorts of things, including the scientific method for their own agenda's, mostly profit or funding, or to push some political view. You are suppose to be objective, it doesn't assure that everything will be neutral, that would be unrealistic. If things were neutral then the world would make sense, and we wouldn't have such corrupt politicans would we.
Steve Novella has some solutions to making peer review even better: NeuroLogica Blog ŧ Is Science Broken?
It's a term that has been hijacked by fundamentalist religious groups. I rarely see biologists use it in its normal meaning for that explicit reason.Quote:
You are being childish because 'evolutionist' is just a term to describe those that believe in evolution. That term used by many writers of my subscribed textbooks even.
Most of what you wrote here is entirely irrelevant to this conversation (such as telling me what the purpose of a degree is even though I graduate in May), so I'm going to focus on the following:Quote:
I can tell then you are not familiar with the wide array of litrature, see what a degree teachers you partly is how to think about things in your own way, the idea is not to go simply off what someone says, but to think about why they are saying it and to put the pieces of the research together in a way in which you can draw your own conclusions. This is what research is about it's not about coming to pre-concieved notions about what someone else already concluded. There is many out there that question all sorts of things. Including the theory of evolution.
No, I know people write all sorts of things questioning every topic under the sun. That isn't what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that if I'm going to refer to somebody's work in biology, I would look for articles they've published in journals, because that's where the data will be. So if they have anything that might suggest evolution is, say, entirely incorrect, I would look at the data to see it matches with the interpretation in the author's conclusion. I wouldn't bother reading the work of what could just be some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, sending a manuscript off to a publisher who just so happens to be very accepting of certain types of books.
Except I'm not assuming that at all, and from none of my posts could you extract that assumption.Quote:
You are living in a bubble in which you imagine that everyone accepts evolution. They don't. I certaintly don't.
Who are these greatest biologists?Quote:
Even some of the greatest biologist have concluded (to clear their conscience from selling out) that evolution has to be nonsensical after they have carefully considered their work.
Why do I care about how things are done in psychology if I'm talking about the necessity of evolution in biological research?Quote:
This is ridiculious, You don't need to interpret the data from the perspective of evolution. In psychology there is many different angles that you must interpret it from, Cognitive, behavioural, socially, emotionally, psycho-analytically, developmental, spiritually.
Not only is this not true just at face-value, but I could look through my university's course catalog and show you the emphasis that is placed on evolution with regard to nearly everything in biology.Quote:
Biology isn't even evolution focused it suppose to focus on what happens to the body, the brain, the nervous system ect. Evolution is just a dogma that you theorize about. Has nothing to do with the study of the facts.
If biology isn't evolution-focused, then my genetics professors, my zoology professors, and my ecology professor (who also teaches a 400-level course called Biological Evolution) are going to be unemployed pretty soon.
What does this have to do with running an experiment?Quote:
When I do my assignments or write any reports. I have to have some idea of the litrature, and I have to know what is out there, and what the theories are, and what is proven and not proven, before I can correctly write about it to get a decent grade.
Then don't waste our time by pontificating on things you know nothing about.Quote:
Psychology doesn't do 'plant evolution' mainly because it's not relevant.
Why do you think so?Quote:
They might do it in biology to try and explain how plants exist But it doesn't prove they evolved and it's actually impossible to scientifically verify the theory.
So do it. You would be first in line to receive a Nobel Prize. You've let us know that you don't understand biology, so I'll call your bluff again. I await your paper.Quote:
I could easily write something to falsify the theory of not only plant evolution, but any sort of evolution that claims to explain how everything got here, cause there is many things that make the theory impossible.
Enough of the armchair psychology. Any more and I'm ending this conversation.Quote:
Sorry that you have believed a lie for so long. You have probaly invested a lot in it and it's hard to let go of.
What does "natural selection couldn't account for what we decide" mean?Quote:
If sexual orientation isn't purely genetic and if social agency plays a role in what we become. Then natural selection couldn't account for what we decide. Your theory of evolution is invalid. lolz.
All life dependent on each other in some way, so...Sorry, what's your point again? Rephrase it differently and perhaps I'll grasp the meaning. And provide a definition for "linear evolution" while you're at it. I think you're trying to use biology terms, but doing so incorrectly, so you're ending up not providing any coherent thoughts.Quote:
There could be no ecological niches, if everything wasn't created in a way that is dependant on everything else. You can't have linear evolution in a diverse ecological system in which everything relies of each other to operate. Clearly you didn't understand what I asked in the other post about it.
What?Quote:
That's funny because evolution can't be a theory unless you started with nothing else you believe in something that was created.
I'm sorry, can one of the other people reading this thread tell me what he's saying? I don't know if he's missing crucial punctuation or something but I just can't figure out what his point is.
DNA does "mutate itself", sometimes producing traits that are beneficial to its organism. And it can do that through copying errors in DNA replication. This is not a controversial, nevermind ridiculous idea. It's very well grounded.Quote:
I know what you are trying to say, and it's based on the idea that DNA can somehow mutate itself into improved productively. An idea so ridiculious that even after billions of years time it would be highly highly unlikely given DNA's complexity and what we do know today about genes.
Harsh words coming from a person who seemingly hasn't taken any of the requisite introductory classes related to the topic upon which he seems to love telling us is wholly fraudulent.Quote:
I guess I could rephrase my question to why you give yourself the title of "Terminally Out of Phase" it sums up your understanding, logic, and thinking pretty well.
Deanstar, you can't say that the theory of evolution isn't, well, a theory... and I'd say you're making up the facts you put in your posts.
This argument is foolish, who are you kidding?! Evolution is proven. "Theory" statues is from the highest statues for any thing scientific. You talk and talk about it being all a big conspiracy... Do you know how bold this claim is?! It's like saying electricity is actually magic! I mean I've heard religious people, and even public schools, tell people that evolution was PROVEN WRONG, but this has to be some kind of new level, claiming that there's some mysterious conspiracy behind THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! They've brainwashed all the scientists in the world! I wouldn't be surprised if you got the illuminaty into this too!
So please, get your brains out your butt, we like to talk seriously around here!
Sorry people, I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that this has gone too far!
Just checking in for some quick reminder.
Deanstar said that it is not needed to define something, but I will have to disagree based on experience. A believer once told me that "the big bang is a stupid theory" and the reason was because he actually believed the big bang to be "the impact between meteors that creates a universe", and no that was not a metaphor from his side.
I mean... you guys could be arguing apples and oranges and not know it!
Perhaps the "evolutionist" term came from "evolutive biology" being misused? I know the former isn't in use but the latter is.
And blueline, he is mixing evolution with either abiogenesis or universe creation or both.
Besides that, louaib you think thats too far? Pffft.
I think only oldies will understand this joke but "noogah... is that you?"
Haha, seems the waters of DV are always turbine!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hukif
It's funny how a conversation might be all wrong just because of a double use of a word lol
Oh, Deanstar, you might find Thunderf00t's videos arguing creatism good, because he explains almost all scientific mambo jambo you might encounter that disprove creatism. It's actually very surprising how much people just defend creatism using very wrong science rules and methods!
I don't even need to be an undergraduate to do research. It's called educating yourself, and goes beyond your formal education. When you start doing any program, that puts you in the community of research, and you have access to the journals, and you write about them on varies topics. It's not even relevant you just seek ways to discredit and attack cause you basically chuck a fit and say it's not credible if you don't believe in evolution lol. Anything is a joke if it's not evolution to you. Next year or so it will be graduate anyway. It's not much more work to do. Just cause you are in a university or a professor doesn't define your intelligence or righteousness. Of all the professors would have healed the world by now but they mainly contribute to it's problems instead lol. They can't apply their evolution theory to anything constructive to people's life. They mostly are about paychecks and banging students in their class are they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You are an extremist, religious groups don't use evolutionist as a term. It's just basic scientific terminology. Get use to it.Quote:
It's a term that has been hijacked by fundamentalist religious groups.
I don't limit my thinking to just journals. That's not where I get my authority. I get it from my own critical thinking based on what God tells me (same as moses or any other prophet). Just because something is a journal paper doesn't always mean it's correct as there is plenty of known frauds as I already pointed out and many paper are simply a opinion that is wrong. The only way you get truth is be discerning enough to be able to know truth. There's no organization that can tell you what is credible and what is not. Journals are not a safeguard of anything. The bible is a safeguard that's something reliable, which is above journals. The bible isn't a scientific paper, but it's telling you straight away the truth of the matter in prophecy, metaphor, parable, poetry, and history and the litrature.Quote:
I would look for articles they've published in journals
I wasted enough time trying to educate you, if you don't want to be educated, you never going to be. Not even if I spoon feed you biologist work. Imagine if I demanded the way you do, you would be constantly brining me articles on 'evolution'. According to your doublestandards nothing is credible unless it's evolution. That's your religion and it's superstitious. You ignore what is out there that is against your view lol.Quote:
Who are these greatest biologists?
I could look through communist China or Russia and look at how critical communism has been to the state, what does it prove? Not much. Communism is still not right even if educational materials that falsify the well being of communism are ignored. They won't teach from another point of view other than communism at that time because that's the culture! Biology isn't suppose to be about evolution, evolution is just a dogma that they push. Just like China or russia have pushed communism before. Evolutionist push evolution in the education system the same way. It's a cancer really, it threatens the legitimacy of science and that's why people lose faith in it mainly.Quote:
Not only is this not true just at face-value, but I could look through my university's course catalog and show you the emphasis that is placed on evolution with regard to nearly everything in biology.
If hitler was about killing jews and racism, he would not have got in power......lolz. Your logic is weaker than piss and vinegar. For every authority you cite on evolution. I have 10 more on creationism. You only think you have the monopoly because of opression of the truth haha. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act"-George OrwellQuote:
If biology isn't evolution-focused, then my genetics professors, my zoology professors, and my ecology professor (who also teaches a 400-level course called Biological Evolution) are going to be unemployed pretty soon.
Science is not my authority of truth, it's just an extra tool that I use to prove evolution and other things wrong.Quote:
What does this have to do with running an experiment?
You are not educated and if you think you are, you are either highly decieved, or you in fact pointing yourself out as a liar. It's one or the other.Quote:
Then don't waste our time by pontificating on things you know nothing about.
Obama got the nobel peace prize. Did he deserve it? haha. Does anyone really deserve anything they get rewarded with in this world? No. In fact the best people in history are martyred not given any nobel prizes. I am calling the entire world an illusion and a deception. You are clinging to the world being righteous. It's not. That's my solid claim based on human trafficking, expliotation, famine, war, and opression of a fiat system of currency through financial terrorism, and overall general terrorism in the world. If the world is correct, I would not be getting a nobel prize before people long before me would have stating the obvious and people would have aknowledged it long ago instead of lies.Quote:
You would be first in line to receive a Nobel Prize. You've let us know that you don't understand biology, so I'll call your bluff again. I await your paper.
Enough of your arrogance and accusations.....please do end this dumb conversation I am forced in with you. You have to call the entire institute and program 'armchair degree'. Everyone that has ever done any work or study for truth 'armchair truth teller'. You are an armchair dellusionist maybe. lulz. None of your silly attacks work on people like me nor do they fool anyone intelligent.Quote:
Enough of the armchair psychology. Any more and I'm ending this conversation.
*facepalm. Natural selection is not free will, it's a theory that says the superior will survive and adapt in an environment due to their genetic mutations (can't realistically work). There is millions of weak people on the planet that can't even grow their own food or live in a self sustainable way without the government. Even though the strong in any sample could be killed off such as a bird eating the prey of a genetically superior egg. Natural selection doesn't work cause there is weaker and stronger species and many different diverse types of life with different strengths and weaknesses. Natural selection claims only the most strong would be left. (please dont keep replying to me about it)Quote:
What does "natural selection couldn't account for what we decide" mean?
*ahhh pulls hair* What do you think linear evolution means in the context in which I said it? It means that you can't have the chicken without the egg (not linear reproduction) the plant without the seed (not linear). The sperm without the egg (not linear) Genetic information is not linear progressing for reproduction but is an enclosed system that is interdependant. I don't care so much what 'biology terms' you cling to. This is using common sense.Quote:
All life dependent on each other in some way, so...Sorry, what's your point again? Rephrase it differently and perhaps I'll grasp the meaning. And provide a definition for "linear evolution" while you're at it. I think you're trying to use biology terms, but doing so incorrectly, so you're ending up not providing any coherent thoughts.
It's only a particular environment which determins if something may have a slight advantage. People in Africa with Sickle-cell disease can better deal with malaria. That doesn't mean their blood cells "evolved" it means their genetics have tried to adapt to a condition in some limited fashion. If they went into a environment like we live in. Their disease would not prove benifical at all but be a major disadvantage, because it's a disease, not a real improvement. No alteration of DNA can go to the extent that a type of animal goes into another type of animal. That is a theory which is indeed ridiculious. Genetic adaptation to environment has definite limits. DNA is flexible but it doesn't 'evolve' it just keeps it's blueprint that it already has. Errors are not ultimately passed on because the job of DNA is to deal with any errors, that's why it's flexible in it's variation. Not because it's 'evolving'.Quote:
DNA does "mutate itself", sometimes producing traits that are beneficial to its organism. And it can do that through copying errors in DNA replication.
I don't need an introductory class in plant evolution to know that a seed can't evolve without a tree.Quote:
Harsh words coming from a person who seemingly hasn't taken any of the requisite introductory classes related to the topic upon which he seems to love telling us is wholly fraudulent.
Okay - since this thread seems to have evolved and into a probably temporary excursion on one of my favourite topics - I'll chime in.
But I have to say, I don't even really know how to start because I see so many actual misconceptions as to what evolutionary theory actually entails in your posts, Deanstar.
Well - maybe like this.
Evolutionary biology tells you nothing about how life has started out originally - it deals with what happened to the first single-celled life-forms coming into existence by a process termed abiogenesis and their offspring up to and including today's creatures.
Abiogenesis is somewhat of a mystery still, even while we have good hypotheses - but evolution is not mysterious, nor is it in doubt among anybody with a proper education, who doesn't have a religious agenda overshadowing or nullifying said education in these respects.
You've been mentioning "great biologists" who would doubt evolution and upon being asked for their identity, you wouldn't name somebody. This is because you can't - no more than you could name a "great physicist" of our times, who denies Relativity Theory - or rather the existence of gravity. If you believe you can - try to remember how you came to that notion and look them up for us please.
Abiogenesis is actually not the topic, it's what some Christians and other religious people who are well aware, that evolution is fact, ascribe to god these days. And they sort of can still do that, same as saying god made the big bang happen - because science is still searching for how exactly these came about.
But evolution starts after the first single-celled organisms capable of reproduction came into existence.
So you need not wonder about seeds and trees or eggs and birds - what was there first and all alone for millions on millions of years were bacteria, and they reproduce by simply dividing into two new ones. So theoretically you need only have one living cell for evolution to begin. These evolve and come to form multi-cellular organisms and at a much later point, specialization among these cells leads to sexual reproduction.
Survival of the fittest is a quite unfortunate way of putting it - it is even incorrect, in as far as it is not necessarily the fittest, in the sense of strongest or fastest, who are relevant for evolution. Not even those who live the longest, survive the best on their individual own - it is about, who reproduces the most viable offspring most prolifically. A far better way of putting it is natural selection and descent with modification from common ancestry. Here's an easily understandable graphic on how this natural selection actually works - it's part of an info-graphic dealing with common misconceptions about evolution - so that's why the title "survival.." is crossed out:
http://38.media.tumblr.com/8e65ae4b1...66ao3_1280.jpg
And this is a very fine educational video, which explains the essence of evolution perfectly well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
If you were to watch it, you would understand much better, where we are actually coming from instead of - rather childishly - asking how there can be a certain seed without the respective tree to have produced it. Of course there can't - but this question is completely besides the point. Do you really believe, that it is this easy? That zig thousands of biologists wouldn't have an answer to that? They're really not as stupid as you might think, they are! :wink:
While the video is cute and explains it so that everybody can understand it - it's content is spot on and not childish at all.
So if you were really interested - you might come up with some further questions or maybe actual informed arguments on details, which might still be unclear even after having given the video some attention and thought - and I'm sure, we'll be glad to help clarifying those.
We have a beautiful thread on evolution next door - there's a lot of additional interesting stuff to consider - but as the title says - Darkmatters wanted to keep it scientific and not open to creationist argumentation. It starts out very specifically and with advanced concepts like epigenetics, but there's a lot to be found in it, which might fascinate you:
http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...-argument.html
Shame we don't have a plain on topic thread for this sort of thing - but I hope, kadie indulges us a little longer with this excursion - otherwise one could of course also open a new one, which fits the ticket...
Deanstar: It seems pointless to me to spend so much time arguing about something you're poorly informed about. With rare and partial exceptions, people who understand biology, particularly molecular biology, all believe in evolution because its central to how everything works. Not believing in it would be a cosmologist not believing in gravity: its central to how everything works.
There do seem to me to be interesting questions about evolution. For example, sexual selection is an important part of natural selection. Many traits are 'fit' because they are deemed attractive by potential mates, even though they're not practical in other regards. And there's an element of chance or choice in what is deemed attractive, sometimes there's more than one alternative that works, it isn't forced in every aspect. Also, how random are random mutations really? Genomes have evolved to be changed more easily in some ways than others, and some changes occur more rapidly under some conditions than others. And is there some element to luck that is not random? Biology as a field does not have an answer to that one, though individual biologists may have informed opinions. There's a lot of room in there for God for people who want to believe in God, and a lot of room for atheism also, even though there is inadequate room for particular historical beliefs about God. Sometimes it seems to me that people argue the same things over and over again that have already been factually settled, because they haven't informed themselves about what is known. Personally I'd rather talk about the other stuff that's not as settled yet.
So why should I give more sources and more information when people's minds are already closed? If you seriously think there is no case against evolution you are blinded (I'd say willingly). There is seriously tones of information and work out there that uttery falsifies evolution. Evolution fits into the category of myth! It's that simple. Myth and dogma.
The most irritating thing in the world I think is someone who believes in evolution and wants to call not only themself as scientific but to claim that if others don't believe their dogma that they are unscientific somehow or that they just are 'not informed'. This idea that evolution is 'settled' as fact or that it applies to any technology or invention at all, is a remarkable delusion.
Article below
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
Spoiler for The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.:
Or because none of them are actually scientists with any standing in the scientific community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If there actually was, then it would not be one of the pillars of science, and said work would be front page news all around the world in gigantic bright red headlines. But Creationists accept 'scientific proof' that no actual scientist would credit because it fails to pass the rigorous tests required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Only Creationists believe this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Yeah, Ill bet that is irritating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Faith doesn't mean you know it is true and choose to believe in it without evidence, that's the definition of being gullible. Faith means suspending your disbelief in something purposefully despite the very real possiblility that it may not exist or be true for reasons that are personal and specific to the individual holding the beliefs. Read: belief in something that may or may not be falsifiable even if all logic says not to believe it or you are unsure (or even if it does but there is no proof).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That choice of words denotes the fact that no concrete evidence that any of the events in the Holy Book of your choice actually transpired or that God exists. You might not like it, and maybe you could argue it's a bit harsh (I don't really think so but other ways to put it do exist), but it is not inappropriate in this situation at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If you want to try and argue that it makes more sense to believe in God because not believing in him will result in eternal damnation in a lake of hellfire, then that's one thing, but why not let people make that choice? People do stupid things all the time and so if it doesn't make sense to you, just let it go. There's a very real point though that a few different religions believe in a similar place, (and disregarding that) so if you pick the wrong one you're fucked anyway. There is not a religion that presents a better case for God's existence than any other, so you are just as likely to go to hell if you believe in the wrong God. There's a 99% chance that regardless of your belief in a God or that the belief in your God will land you in a firepit for eternity so you're better off freeing yourself of rules that cause harm emotionally and physically to other human beings while we live on the earth.
Ah! Lets see, when I find the time!
Thank you for producing actual content which can be tackled, Deanstar - I really had no idea how to even start except providing some introductory materials for giving you a chance to actually look into it. I guess, you didn't - but how can I know?
While I agree with shadowofwind - it feels sort of futile to debate things about which there is no actual scientific dissent - this article you brought is at least something which can be shown step by step to be incorrect. I disagree with that there's much remaining room for a god to recede into the gaps in scientific knowledge, though - really not much divine wriggle-room left these days, well a bit - okay.
Glad you changed your mind! I am interested in thinking about it - and I do read the stuff I am presented with - call it a masochistic trait and maybe you're not far off with that. If I'll come back and see the job hasn't already been done on that article - I'll be delighted to get to work it through! Would you consider to - or did you maybe already watch the video? Might you do that after having seen, that I did take your article seriously and gave it time and thought? That would be a marvellous development - and sorry for implying this would lie in the future - even better if you already have given it consideration!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
okay stephl, I'll watch the video. But it would really take a miracle (no pun intended) for me to realistically think that evolution was anything other than a pure fantasy! I think out of everything in science, it is the most unscientific notion and unworkable theory that exists, it doesn't actually fit into the realm of science it's a misconception! I would be delighted if you could come to a understanding of this. It is perhaps the most damaging delusion on the planet. Out of all the man made religions, evolution would be the one of the worst. If you do work through that paper, don't aim to simply refute no matter what, consider carefully what it is saying and why, and why it comes to those conclusions, and the evidence that exists on the claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
okay StephL, I did watch it. No real suprises for me, and I understand the theory they are trying to teach. But there is a few problems. For instance how do they know the earth is billions of years old? This is just a speculation. There is no dating method or geology or anything in the Universe that makes me think the earth is that old. But there is several things which make me think the Earth is young. With the bird beaks from Darwin it's not very good evidence sweety. In the video they say that a big storm blew the birds on to the island. I doubt it they are really throwing in a lot of speculation and they probaly just migrated there as different types of birds. Nothing really suggests that they evolved their beaks. Amazingly the video takes this theory and just to the massive assumption "ta da" all the diversity in life is now explained. But it isn't. There is no way such a theory can speculate on all the animals. Certainly not us as humans. Can you understand my skeptism? You are a skeptic yourself you should understand my skeptical position on such a thing. This is what I am doubting. That mutations could happen over billions of years to produce all the different life. That natural selection even evolves anything. And my questioning of the fossil record, which does not show transitional things, and does not explain the explosion of diversity. It's almost as if with some of the animals God is mocking evolution. They are so vastly different. The size of a giraffe's neck? The trunk of an elephant. Feathers on a bird, and just all sorts of things which would be basically impossible to explain with this theory. I am just not convinced that you could invent something that demonstrates evolution.....I think laws of nature do not allow evolution, and that you couldn't find anything which we can see, and say 'yes that's evolution'. Genetic variation of the blue eyes I'm not even sure that counts as a mutation. Just....different genetic variation of the eyes. The law of entrophy means everything is breaking down so DNA would actually get worse not better. Don't mind the Earth but say even if the sun was billions of years old to sustain the earth. At it's current rate it would have burnt out long ago if it was that old.
Deanstar, what is your take on "artificial selection"? That is some kind of evolution that is claimed, that has made species of selected crops/animals used in agriculture change over the life-period of humans (Not a life-time, but as in from birth of agriculture to our time).
Do you think if such a change could be proved it would be useful for proving evolution? And if so.
Do you think showns/non changes are actually indicative of ANY meaningful change at all?
Now then, I saw in another thread you want the person to ask you things to first answer them themselves, so I will proceed to do that now, hope you don't mind.
1.- Humans are part of nature, I find the term to be weird since IMO that would still be natural, maybe guided (which I believe is the term currently used) but not artificial.
2.- If we had enough data about the first few uses/looks of said crops/animals and could compare it to the current ones, that should be enough depending on the results. Too bad we didn't have cameras at the time, only hearsay and maybe drawings.
3.- If they are shown, obviously I would go with it being significant towards the point of evolution.
I'm interested in that, especially since most people are hung up (no really, I mean most) on looking for a new species that is arisen from an animal always. We know of hybrids, but they can't produce offsprings and thus are not considered a real species.
Why does ones beliefs on the subject have to be proven scientifically or by the good book?
^^ Good question...
Thanks Sageous and thanks for the earlier comment.
@ StephL... I dont mind the excursion at all. Im still curious as to what God is to a Believer though. I have never heard a Christian explain what God is to them. However I like the info you provided about natural selection and so on. Thanks
Carry on....:lol:
Ah! That's good to know - thank you! I suspect that for fundamentalist Christians, god is not only loving, but also deeply terrifying, how this divine forgiveness goes with the also well-described divine wrath - I'm not quite sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
Wow! That's cool - I'm positively surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Here's a video, taking on the claims that radioactive-decay dating wouldn't work for dating, and explaining, why it does actually work: Dating MethodsQuote:
But there is a few problems. For instance how do they know the earth is billions of years old? This is just a speculation. There is no dating method or geology or anything in the Universe that makes me think the earth is that old. But there is several things which make me think the Earth is young.
But if you forget about this method for a moment - how about astronomy, which allows us to measure the age of the universe and our solar system using a variety of independent methods - and all these methods, astronomical and otherwise converge on about 13.7 billion years for the universe?
That the earth has been around for more than 10.000 years follows from only considering snow layers in the Arctic, where it can be shown, that an annual additional layer was laid down for the last at least 700.000something years. In the spoiler is a great article, summing up the matter of different methods converging in results:
Final part of the spoilered article:Spoiler for How do we know, how old universe and our planet are?:
Conclusion
Many different and complementary scientific measurements have established with near certainty that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Layers in glaciers show a history much longer than 10,000 years, and radiometric dating places the formation of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. Light from galaxies is reaching us billions of years after it left, and the expansion rate of the universe dates its age to 13.7 billion years. These are just a sampling of the types of evidence for the great age of the Earth and the universe; see the resources below for more.
Na - the finches are just an example, and a very well documented one at that. Everything has it's story, very complex stories at times, being reconstructed by evolutionary biology. They have been very busy since Darwin, and there are indeed theories for most of all life-form's development.Quote:
With the bird beaks from Darwin it's not very good evidence sweety. In the video they say that a big storm blew the birds on to the island. I doubt it they are really throwing in a lot of speculation and they probaly just migrated there as different types of birds. Nothing really suggests that they evolved their beaks. Amazingly the video takes this theory and just to the massive assumption "ta da" all the diversity in life is now explained. But it isn't. There is no way such a theory can speculate on all the animals. Certainly not us as humans. Can you understand my skeptism?
I see what the main problem is - if you believe the earth is that young - then of course evolution makes no sense - not enough time for it all to come to pass. But as you can see above - you might have been selectively ignoring all these contrary findings - it's really the same science, which has put a man on the moon. You can't selectively take out all the knowledge which contradicts the bible and expect stuff to still work under these skewed premises - goes for nuclear power usage the same as for astronomy the same as for geology the same as for climate research besides of course biology - they can't be all in on an anti-Christian conspiracy.Quote:
You are a skeptic yourself you should understand my skeptical position on such a thing. This is what I am doubting. That mutations could happen over billions of years to produce all the different life. That natural selection even evolves anything. And my questioning of the fossil record, which does not show transitional things, and does not explain the explosion of diversity.
And the last thing, that would entice me to be skeptic about solid findings, massive evidence is a book, written by peasants in bronze age Palestine, who simply had no better explanations for the reality they found themselves in, than what they speculated to be the case. Today we have data - and all fields of science seem to conspire to render the bible story incorrect - isn't it rational to rather conclude, it must be that old book, which got it wrong?
How about looking into the feathers - can't embed the video directly - but it's nice and only 3 min. and fully sufficient. With mentioning the transitional forms found from the beginnings of feathers in dinosaurs: Evolution of FeathersQuote:
It's almost as if with some of the animals God is mocking evolution. They are so vastly different. The size of a giraffe's neck? The trunk of an elephant. Feathers on a bird, and just all sorts of things which would be basically impossible to explain with this theory.
And for something not addressed at children: Feather Evolution - National Geographic Magazine
I could go on and on like that.
Which natural laws would that be? About the sun's age, and how this sort of thought, as to why it didn't burn out yet, has actually contributed to the dating methods - see spoiler on that. In short - it's not just "burning" - it's a huge nuclear reactor. Aand - we can indeed watch evolution in very fast reproducing organisms for one thing - even influence it directly: Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDailyQuote:
I am just not convinced that you could invent something that demonstrates evolution.....I think laws of nature do not allow evolution, and that you couldn't find anything which we can see, and say 'yes that's evolution'. Genetic variation of the blue eyes I'm not even sure that counts as a mutation. Just....different genetic variation of the eyes. The law of entrophy means everything is breaking down so DNA would actually get worse not better. Don't mind the Earth but say even if the sun was billions of years old to sustain the earth. At it's current rate it would have burnt out long ago if it was that old.
But besides that - we are also able to watch macroevolution happen - here are several examples, we were lucky enough to be able to study while happening:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
A "bottleneck" is often involved in new species appearing - for instance the natural catastrophe wiping out the dinosaurs and almost wiping out lots of other creatures, too, has lead to these surviving creatures finding new ecological niches to live in, now devoid of competition/predators. They part their ways - go into different environments, and adapt to them - until one day, they can't reproduce with each other any more, if they meet again - that's speciation.
Weell - yeah. Next comes the article - I guess, I'll edit in later on, or it'll take a bit longer!
If you grew up before with a father that disciplined you, then you understand the feeling of not wanting to do something wrong for fear of getting punished, that doesn't mean we hate our parents it's part of the respect of the relationship it means they care.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I'm suprised you went to all the effort to reply to me too, and thank you, though I think it would have being tiny tiny more relevant to answer the paper on it because it really said it a lot better than I typed things.Quote:
Wow! That's cool - I'm positively surprised.
There is many types of dating methods, where do you want to start? Cause I have been through them and I am positively certain that they don't work at all.Quote:
Here's a video, taking on the claims that radioactive-decay dating wouldn't work for dating, and explaining, why it does actually work: Dating Methods
Which methods are you talking about because everything in the Universe points to it being young and not old.Quote:
how about astronomy, which allows us to measure the age of the universe and our solar system using a variety of independent methods - and all these methods, astronomical and otherwise converge on about 13.7 billion years for the universe?
You know that there is sources on the net that go step by step through your video's and show their inaccuracy? I guess I could get them for you, but would you even be interested since you havn't looked it up? The arctic is not evidence of how old it is. It's unlikely that Layers could have formed this way.Quote:
That the earth has been around for more than 10.000 years follows from only considering snow layers in the Arctic, where it can be shown, that an annual additional layer was laid down for the last at least 700.000something years. In the spoiler is a great article, summing up the matter of different methods converging in results:
Radiometric dating is proven mistaken and there is sources for that online that I can get for you. But say if you are measuring the age of the universe from the light from stars. Isn't some stars lightyears away from earth that they claim to measure? If that was the case then how could the universe even be 13 billion years old if stars from say 50 billion lightyears away are visible? Wouldn't that make the universe older? Even so the only way you can really measure the distance of stars is through mathematics and that has a definite limitation with distance so you don't know how far away, you couldn't accurately measure it in lightyears. Your assumption that light needs to travel in a linear way across the universe I'm not sure the earth would even be old enough for us to see so many stars cause would the light have reached us from those stars yet? If it was a big bang, the light is traveling in what direction to reach us? Wouldn't the big bang need to travel faster than light? Or you are assuming you know exact size of the universe? Wouldn't the light travel with the big bang and so already be everywhere connected? If genesis is true, light didn't travel in a linear fashion from the big bang. What I am claiming is that you don't measure light that way, and that it's not how we decode it in our minds with quantum physics, and also the speed of light is not 100% certain that it stays at the same rate, because it can change, which is another thing.Quote:
In a Nutshell
Many independent measurements have established that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old. Geologists have found annual layers in glaciers that can be counted back 740,000 years. Using the known rate of change in radio-active elements (radiometric dating), some Earth rocks have been shown to be billions of years old, while the oldest solar system rocks are dated at 4.6 billion years. Astronomers use the distance to galaxies and the speed of light to calculate that the light has been traveling for billions of years. The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.7 billion years old.
layers are not a dating method, that's a speculation. The scriptures makes it clear the earth is around 6000 years old from the generations of Adam, so if we are christians we listen to what the scriptures says about it. Also I don't think any of the dating methods are really scientific to say that it's evidence.Quote:
Introduction
As Christians, we believe that God created the world and that the world declares his glory, so we can’t ignore what nature is telling us about its history.
Age of the Earth from seasonal rings and layers.
You can't tell the age of things from a tree because each tree is different and also lives in a different climate, and grows different. The rings arn't developed over millions of years because no tree is even that old. How can you age something based on something that is not even as old as what you assume the earth is?Quote:
If you’ve ever seen a horizontal slice of a tree trunk, you’ve seen how a tree forms a new growth ring each year. In years of drought, the tree grows less quickly so the ring is narrower; in good growing seasons the ring is thicker. A tree’s age can be found by simply counting its rings.
That is hearsay and just speculation, you can't say a tree is 12,000 years old based on it's rings without making a wild assumption.Quote:
European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology.
Just because you drill some ice, doesn't mean you get to date it to the age that you pick. There is no actual science that makes any sense for dating it to that. It's just an assumption. I don't really care how deep down you drill the ice, there is no way you can assume it's 740,000 years old (that's pretty precise for a guess)Quote:
Scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and 740,000 years old in Antarctica.3 These annual layers go back much farther than the 10,000 years advocated by the young earth creationists. The Earth must be at least 740,000 years old.
The substance that you measure it from, is not uniform in all things, so it is not reliable. Samples have been taken which have been proven to be wrong. This dating method is already debunked cause you can't date back to that old. There is examples where scientists have decided that something is billions years old. But then changed it to only a few thousand years to fit a particular theory. lol. The dating method can be done over and over until a random number comes up that they think is good. It could come back 1,000 years, or billions of years. It's like a roulette wheel and just spin the wheel until you win evidence that you decide. It's not a proper measurement.Quote:
Age of the Earth and solar system from radiometric dating
So, if we find a rock with equal parts Potassium-40 and Argon-40, we know that half the Potassium-40 has decayed into Argon-40, and that the rock hardened 1.3 billion years ago.
That's because they made it that way, not because it was a reliable dating method. Even so why are all meterorites the same age there when that is not even how old you say the universe or earth is. 4.56 billion years is a random number? Meteorites should be different ages why the same age? How do you just decide something is 4.56 billion years old. Without making a very precise and wild assumption about something. I don't think anything is a billion years old, even from space.Quote:
Nearly all meteorites have the same radiometric age, 4.56 billion years old.
No evolutionist tried to make it appear old, to undermine the sciptures. Why do you think so much focus is on trying to prove everything is ancient? It's the only way they can say their theory has any merit.Quote:
See Did God create everything recently but make it appear old?
If the universe is based on the big bang and expansion. Why is it that planets go in different directions? Wouldn't that go against the expansion principle?Quote:
But the biggest pattern we see is that galaxies are moving apart from one another. This motion apart is not all at the same speed; instead it follows a pattern where galaxies that are further apart are moving more quickly.
I don't think any theory of evolution would really make sense for any particular animal to be honest. I don't think they have been busy with it, they have been busy trying to convince people their theory has any merit whatsoever through maybe bacteria, but that's not viable evidence for evolution. They created the geological columb but that's circular reasoning not something we find in geology they changed it around. Sometimes people draw diagrams saying these animals came from those animals and draw a sort of werid family tree of it, but there is no way they can back those claims and it's not what is to be found from the fossils or what we see today in nature.Quote:
Na - the finches are just an example, and a very well documented one at that. Everything has it's story, very complex stories at times, being reconstructed by evolutionary biology. They have been very busy since Darwin, and there are indeed theories for most of all life-form's development.
The more I research it the more convinced I become that this theory is some type of weird cult by evolutionists.
Dating methods didn't put man on the moon babe.Quote:
it's really the same science, which has put a man on the moon.
If you don't want to believe something, you would have to make some kind of alternative belief system up. Which is what they have done isn't it?Quote:
they can't be all in on an anti-Christian conspiracy.
There probaly is cases where tribes made stories up to explain things like lightning. But that is mythologizing the bible to say that it's not history or real litrature. It's really just a guess, assumption that the bible isn't true. No science today refutes it but some scientists choose to remove God and the scriptures from being relevant but that's based on a materialist culture in the scientific community, and partly because of the dogma of evolution tried to give the impression that the bible is factually incorrect but it's actually their theory that is unworkable. What about artifacts like the ark of the covenant or Noah's boat that actually prove history and verify events?Quote:
a book, written by peasants in bronze age Palestine, who simply had no better explanations for the reality they found themselves in, than what they speculated to be the case. Today we have data - and all fields of science seem to conspire to render the bible story incorrect - isn't it rational to rather conclude, it must be that old book, which got it wrong?
StephL do you really believe this is how feathers developed from dinosaurs? That birds are the result of dinosaurs?Quote:
How about looking into the feathers - can't embed the video directly - but it's nice and only 3 min. and fully sufficient. With mentioning the transitional forms found from the beginnings of feathers in dinosaurs: Evolution of Feathers
Do you think that the sun could burn for billions of years? Or that it would die out eventually.....Quote:
Which natural laws would that be? About the sun's age, and how this sort of thought, as to why it didn't burn out yet, has actually contributed to the dating methods - see spoiler on that. In short - it's not just "burning" - it's a huge nuclear reactor.
I wouldn't be so quick to call mirco biology evolution. I think it is just miscroscopic lifeforms.Quote:
Aand - we can indeed watch evolution in very fast reproducing organisms
This is the same argument that has been used over and over, but it's not actual evolution that's just some small genetic variation. It's not macro evolution. How do stars or planets even form, shouldn't we able to observe a balanced rate of stars forming and dying? We don't even see stars form. Instead we see them die. That's against evolutionary theory with that ratio of zero forming to lots dead.Quote:
But besides that - we are also able to watch macroevolution happen - here are several examples, we were lucky enough to be able to study while happening:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
Could it be that the ecological system was already established, and that the natural catastrophe was the global flood. Hence why we see the fossils? If birds were from dinosaurs the story isn't adding up because how come the birds survived this catasrophe when they would actually be weaker, or would they even have enough time to evolve feathers and become smaller if it was possible? How is it any more credible than say a dreamtime story from some aboriginal tribe? I don't see how the dinosaurs could even get feathers realistically.Quote:
the natural catastrophe wiping out the dinosaurs and almost wiping out lots of other creatures, too, has lead to these surviving creatures finding new ecological niches to live in, now devoid of competition/predators.
Thank you StephL for your effort and your response. But I have some very serious reservations of taking these claims seriously. I have a lot of questions about what you say is your evidence. What about my paper quoted? What's your direct response to that? It may take a few months if you like take your time to really research it past the junk science that evolutionist feed people. I think you will find that not just the dating methods are unreliable but also the other things you bring up and how it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. If you want to find out about it the best way is purposely go looking for the evidence you don't believe in. That's how I falsified personally for myself the dating methods, and the astronomical dating. As well as the experiments that were suppose to show evolution. I can't write about it all here as it's not within the scope of the thread. But yes I have contemplated before the things you bring up. I am worried that you are not thinking about it yourself but just 'trying to prove it' rather than thinking about the kind of science you are bringing up here, and some of the issues that people have with it as a claim for evolution. The other side of the story is much different and I think you would have to agree that it does address all those issues.
Ooolright - I'm through with the first part of the article, which is easy, at least it seems so to me, because I had dealt with that aspect in my prior post.
As far as I understood you, you can live with the idea, that micro-organisms are evolving - even today and so that we can watch it.
But the other link didn't convince you - I've spoilered it in, for second thoughts.
I'll do that first "chapter" now and then leave you the choice as to what you want me to answer to primarily - your above post or the rest of the article. You've thrown up a huge variety of topics and details in that post - up to mixing up cosmology with biology. Cosmological evolution has got nothing to do with the biological variant, except semantically, as in both life and the universe change characteristics over time in a not completely chaotic way - actually in an ordered way, but following very different principles - the analogy does not hold up much further than that.
But we do indeed watch stars "being born" and not only violently "dying" with our space-telescopes - they formate in stellar "nebulae", and those are among the most beautiful things nature has in stock for us. So that as little excursion from the first portion of the article - and these are the guys and gals having put these men on the moon, who are telling you about this wonder of nature, star formation: Stars - NASA Science
Below examples of such "star birthing" interstellar gas clouds - look at the name of the ones in the first pic - Deists love such things! :wink:
Hubble Space Telescope: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): "Pillars of Creation" in a Star-Forming Region
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/i...5-44-a-web.jpg
Famous "Horsehead Nebula", unusual picture, not sure where from:
http://hubblesci.com/wp-content/uplo...sehead-670.jpg
This is something to get into a state of awe and wonder from contemplating!
Okay - to the first little segment:
I brought the evidence for "macroevolution" in my prior post. Here's the second link from above spoilered out for you:Quote:
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
By the way - is “micro-evolution” a Creationist term? I only heard it in that context and not in university. Anyway - seems my link on bacteria was convincing - I thought, that's what's meant with the term?Spoiler for Evolution is with us today - it's really happening and under our eyes!:
The problem is one of perspective. As I described before, speciation happens primarily in bottle-neck situations or in other circumstances, where creatures are confronted with novel environments - not out of the blue. And it usually takes a lot of generations, when it happens. But it happens all the time - evolution is not "over" - it's an ongoing process. And I so happen to have something really interesting in terms of dogs and Creationism - Ken Ham had claimed, that the biblical story with Noah's flood would make for trees of biological variation just like science would find them to be the case for dogs. Not so – this video is very enlightening, I would say, for demonstrating, that Ken Ham wasn't shying back from complete quackery in order to make the myths seemingly reconcilable with evidence. But not only that - it explains genetic bottlenecks etc. very nicely - explains what the diagram Ham flashed on the screen actually says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7i-dtMaWk
It has – see prior post, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.Quote:
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
Well – this "recently" has meanwhile become the past and evolution is out of “historical science” times today. Besides this mentioned fruit-fly, which I didn't yet look up – there’s more - see spoiler and of course in the fast enough replicating micro-organisms. But even if it were only possible to show it once in multi-cellular organisms - like with that fly - it would be proof of watchability already!Quote:
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
I'll throw in a thread on a transitional life-form, for variation - "Jesus Fish!": http://www.dreamviews.com/extended-d...sil-found.html
Somebody out to help me with the load? We could share the effort - but it's also fine for me to go through it - I just can't make promises as to how fast that's going to go. But I won't have it be said of me, that I had announced to take on an article, and then ran away!
In the meantime - please everybody - let kadie and others know, who or what god is for you - and/or isn't!
Awesome info StephL. I like where you and Deanstar are going. Now this is good reading!
But I'm not talking about informal research, something one does just to learn something for their own pleasure. I'm talking about formal, professional academic scientific research. You are not one of those researchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Ok, I'll ignore the vast majority of creationists that readily employ the term and instead pay attention to its rare usage in the scientific community. Got it.Quote:
You are an extremist, religious groups don't use evolutionist as a term. It's just basic scientific terminology. Get use to it.
The Bible is such a safeguard and it's so reliable, which is precisely why doctors read it when they're trying to diagnose a patient or keep up with the latest research.Quote:
I don't limit my thinking to just journals. That's not where I get my authority. I get it from my own critical thinking based on what God tells me (same as moses or any other prophet). Just because something is a journal paper doesn't always mean it's correct as there is plenty of known frauds as I already pointed out and many paper are simply a opinion that is wrong. The only way you get truth is be discerning enough to be able to know truth. There's no organization that can tell you what is credible and what is not. Journals are not a safeguard of anything. The bible is a safeguard that's something reliable, which is above journals. The bible isn't a scientific paper, but it's telling you straight away the truth of the matter in prophecy, metaphor, parable, poetry, and history and the litrature.
Except they don't. If I'm trying to keep up with the latest biological research, I'm going to look at the journals. If I'm looking for a particular biologist's research, I'm going to look at his published journal articles. That's where the data is. I can match it to the author's interpretation. I'm done repeating myself. I don't know why you're giving me these long-winded wooey explanations about expanding your horizons or not limiting your learning or whatever. It's not at all relevant.
But can you provide names of those biologists?Quote:
I wasted enough time trying to educate you, if you don't want to be educated, you never going to be. Not even if I spoon feed you biologist work. Imagine if I demanded the way you do, you would be constantly brining me articles on 'evolution'. According to your doublestandards nothing is credible unless it's evolution. That's your religion and it's superstitious. You ignore what is out there that is against your view lol.
Biology is supposed to be about anything related to life forms, including how they change over time.Quote:
I could look through communist China or Russia and look at how critical communism has been to the state, what does it prove? Not much. Communism is still not right even if educational materials that falsify the well being of communism are ignored. They won't teach from another point of view other than communism at that time because that's the culture! Biology isn't suppose to be about evolution, evolution is just a dogma that they push. Just like China or russia have pushed communism before. Evolutionist push evolution in the education system the same way. It's a cancer really, it threatens the legitimacy of science and that's why people lose faith in it mainly.
Fighting science with science. Proving my original point.Quote:
Science is not my authority of truth, it's just an extra tool that I use to prove evolution and other things wrong.
The survival of so called "weak people" would technically be closer to artificial selection, though I would say it's not at all related to biology (aside from healthcare) and more related to economics.Quote:
*facepalm. Natural selection is not free will, it's a theory that says the superior will survive and adapt in an environment due to their genetic mutations (can't realistically work). There is millions of weak people on the planet that can't even grow their own food or live in a self sustainable way without the government. Even though the strong in any sample could be killed off such as a bird eating the prey of a genetically superior egg. Natural selection doesn't work cause there is weaker and stronger species and many different diverse types of life with different strengths and weaknesses. Natural selection claims only the most strong would be left. (please dont keep replying to me about it)
The survival of the fittest in natural selection refers to an organism within its own specific environment and according to what set of skills it has. This does not mean that there will always only be one organism who is the "strongest." Natural selection isn't about being strong, it's about being fit for an environment and having the most success reproductively. If an organism's set of traits allow it to have access to more mates or more resources, the chances of it being able to reproduce increase. That trait may then spread in later generations. The trait has been naturally selected for.
But obviously there are other organisms who, despite not having these traits, can still reproduce. And if you consider things like geology, climate, and topography, it becomes very clear that biodiversity is nothing controversial.
I still think you're being wildly incoherent, so I'm not going to bother attempting to decipher this anymore.Quote:
*ahhh pulls hair* What do you think linear evolution means in the context in which I said it? It means that you can't have the chicken without the egg (not linear reproduction) the plant without the seed (not linear). The sperm without the egg (not linear) Genetic information is not linear progressing for reproduction but is an enclosed system that is interdependant. I don't care so much what 'biology terms' you cling to. This is using common sense.
This is correct, though I'd say their "genetics" aren't "trying" to adapt to anything. Because DNA replicating isn't a perfect process, errors will develop, leading to a trait such as Sickle Cell Anemia.Quote:
It's only a particular environment which determins if something may have a slight advantage. People in Africa with Sickle-cell disease can better deal with malaria. That doesn't mean their blood cells "evolved" it means their genetics have tried to adapt to a condition in some limited fashion. If they went into a environment like we live in. Their disease would not prove benifical at all but be a major disadvantage, because it's a disease, not a real improvement.
No, this definitely happens and it's well documented. As mutations pile up over time and certain traits become selected for, two individuals who evolved from a common ancestor will be different enough genetically that they will not be able to reproduce. This is a very rough definition of what makes one species different from another, but it works in most cases. In some cases, two individuals can produce an offspring, but it will be sterile.Quote:
No alteration of DNA can go to the extent that a type of animal goes into another type of animal. That is a theory which is indeed ridiculious.
Like I said, DNA replication is not perfect. Yes, DNA polymerase has an proofreading mechanism built in, but it's not perfect either. Errors can and do happen and can be passed on. Otherwise there would be no hereditary diseases.Quote:
Genetic adaptation to environment has definite limits. DNA is flexible but it doesn't 'evolve' it just keeps it's blueprint that it already has. Errors are not ultimately passed on because the job of DNA is to deal with any errors, that's why it's flexible in it's variation. Not because it's 'evolving'.
I mean, if you're going to talk about biology like you actually know what it's about, then yeah, you kinda do.Quote:
I don't need an introductory class in plant evolution to know that a seed can't evolve without a tree.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...-i-reading.jpgQuote:
If hitler was about killing jews and racism, he would not have got in power......lolz. Your logic is weaker than piss and vinegar. For every authority you cite on evolution. I have 10 more on creationism. You only think you have the monopoly because of opression of the truth haha. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act"-George Orwell
You are not educated and if you think you are, you are either highly decieved, or you in fact pointing yourself out as a liar. It's one or the other.
Obama got the nobel peace prize. Did he deserve it? haha. Does anyone really deserve anything they get rewarded with in this world? No. In fact the best people in history are martyred not given any nobel prizes. I am calling the entire world an illusion and a deception. You are clinging to the world being righteous. It's not. That's my solid claim based on human trafficking, expliotation, famine, war, and opression of a fiat system of currency through financial terrorism, and overall general terrorism in the world. If the world is correct, I would not be getting a nobel prize before people long before me would have stating the obvious and people would have aknowledged it long ago instead of lies.
Enough of your arrogance and accusations.....please do end this dumb conversation I am forced in with you. You have to call the entire institute and program 'armchair degree'. Everyone that has ever done any work or study for truth 'armchair truth teller'. You are an armchair dellusionist maybe. lulz. None of your silly attacks work on people like me nor do they fool anyone intelligent.
Well I agree that you could somehow manipulate them in a limited way in a lab, but I don't agree that they evolve. I think any changes are small and just naturalistic based on the genetic blueprints.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Just looking face value at the pictures. Does it really look anything like a planet forming? Or does it look more like a bit of a dust cloud of some sort? What is it? If this is a planet forming where are the other stages of it? Cause this is about the cloud stage isn't it? I don't think there is a process observed where a planet actually forms, and I don't believe these pictures represent that in any way whatsoever. But if I am wrong I would prefer something a little more explainable.Quote:
But we do indeed watch stars "being born" and not only violently "dying" with our space-telescopes - they formate in stellar "nebulae", and those are among the most beautiful things nature has in stock for us.
My awe is of a different sort In my mind I am thinking how can you possibly think that it is to do with a planet? Cause that is amazing that some fluffy cloud (that could it even be photo manipulated perhaps? is evidence that they form into solid planets? Beyond this so called cloud stage I don't see anything. If this theory is correct there sould be many clouds whirling around in different stages of being a complete planet.Quote:
This is something to get into a state of awe and wonder from contemplating!
I think we should remember that species is much stranger definition than different kind of animal. With 'species' even a little change can be called a different kind. With a different type of animal in general though they have to be able to re-produce with each other. If it becomes a case that two dogs can no longer breed with each other for example, I see that as not evolution, but the genetic blueprint reaching it's limitation. Different kind of animals will never be able to re-produce with each other, and any genetic variation never allows for that. This is why there can't be evidence of macro-evolution. Because things like cats and dogs can never breed with each other and there is definitely no evidence that a cat came from a dog. As it goes for the rest of the animals too.Quote:
I brought the evidence for "macroevolution" in my prior post. Here's the second link from above spoilered out for you:
When you talk about fruit flies, again that is some artificial manipulation of a genetic blue print. The fruit flies can actually recover quickly when you leave them alone.
Why would a cat come from a dog? Evolution doesn't claim anything so ridiculous. Dogs come from wolves - you do know that, right? And housecats come from other kinds of cats - something like a bobcat or a lynx. That was apparently done in ancient Egypt to create pretty pets for Pharaohs and important officials. But of course modern domesticated cats and dogs aren't so much products of natural selection as human tampering - like we also do with plants to grow bigger tomatoes or bananas etc. Modern animals did not evolve from other modern animals, but they did all come from common ancestors. But then I think you know this, and you also know all the proper answers you're supposed to spew out when anyone tells you evolutionary facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Your cult really did a number on you I'm afraid - they implanted countless reactionary ideas that jump up to silence the cognitive dissonance any time you're shown anything relating to actual evolution or planet formation.
I won't be talking with you about these subjects anymore, because if you were honestly interested you could easily find the real facts, it isn't hard. I think you're mostly interested in proving what a good Creationist you are by taking on a whole message board full of atheists without losing your faith. But we can hope that by exposing you to some actual facts and exposing the lies you've been fed that the seeds might be planted now, however much you deny it, and at some point in the future you might change your ideas.
wolves can breed with dogs so really I wouldn't even call that a different type of animal. My point is that any animal that is different. You can never say it came from a different animal because they are incompatiable. You don't seem to understand this destroys evolutionary theory. Think further back, evolutionist deduce that everything came from the sea. Ultimately different kinds of fish, supposely turned into different types of land animals (dinosaurs from the sea?) I think if anyone is in a cult it would be evolutionists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Wouldn't it be cognitive dissonance when you don't admit the obvious? Such as different types of animals are seperate and don't evolve from each other?Quote:
Your cult really did a number on you I'm afraid - they implanted countless reactionary ideas that jump up to silence the cognitive dissonance any time you're shown anything relating to actual evolution or planet formation.
It's not my fault that everyone is atheist. It doesn't mean you have the facts though on your side though. I am interested in what makes sense. I did ask before what is logic to an atheist, and no-one seems to be able to give a resonable answer about what atheist define as logic. Science is suppose to be about critical thinking and discussion, as that's how discoveries are made through investigation and questioning. I am questioning that evolutionist are not just inaccurate but plain ridiculious and going to the extent of fraud in the education system. That would be a faith based religious agenda. The same as a cult invading people's life.Quote:
I won't be talking with you about these subjects anymore, because if you were honestly interested you could easily find the real facts, it isn't hard. I think you're mostly interested in proving what a good Creationist you are by taking on a whole message board full of atheists without losing your faith.
Well - I guess, that's a start. What you had thrown up somewhere before, was that such "genetic manipulation" would only decrease or shift the abilities of organisms - but in that Nature paper, I linked a review to (a multi-national effort, that project) - they mention it explicitly how these E. coli got better adapted while evolving over 20.000+ generations. That was the aim of the study - showing how natural selection having it's way brings about actual benefits. This number 20.000+ is a reason, why you can't see it from your armchair - a lot of reproduction goes down before something significantly changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You are right - these are dust and gas clouds!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
My pictures show clouds, in which new stars formate, not planets, that works differently again, see below. I'll copy out from that NASA link above, which states the fact and explains a little:
Here's a source with pictures and some more explanations from a physics department: The Birth of StarsQuote:
Originally Posted by NASA
He explains it very nicely - from UniverseToday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ-Xd_M7KIA#t=82
But you will find much more about it, if you look - just google star formation, and you'll get to such sources, they abound.
Again - this is about stars, not planets. And I'm awed by the sheer size and beauty of these clouds - combined with the thought, that actual stars are forming in them, stars like our sun. While star formation is understood and we can observe it - with planets there seem to be some questions open, this is what Wikipedia has to say on their formation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
It really does fill me with awe! Us small humans on a little planet in the outskirts of an insignificant galaxy - we are able to find these things out - watch them happen, learn about the workings of the universe so that our knowledge enables us to produce working technology on such a gigantic scale as we do. Even a cell-phone would have seemed like divine magic to our forefathers, heck - a sophisticated piece of modern clothing would! Hubble Space Telescope and it's pictures would have right-out blown their minds!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
If there was a god, willing and able to reveal stuff to humanity - why didn't he reveal something more interesting and useful than he did? Let us in on scientific knowledge about how his creation actually works, instead of waiting for us to find out on our own, how it can't have happened the way the bible says?
How is it - does it contradict the bible, that stars are born and die? I guess it does, because it is peculiar, that you wouldn't be aware of it yet otherwise. Could it be, that you've been indoctrinated with something like: "Stars have been created at the beginning by god, and there are no new ones coming into being any more"? Is that Creationist doctrine? If so - I guess this reality comes as a mighty surprise.
What you are talking about is that hybrids tend to be sterile, right? Like that plant in the link I spoilered out above. But what would it be, if you found some dogs on a newly discovered island, which somehow escaped scrutiny from explorers for thousands of years*. Say the dogs were left there by an ancient civilisation and had sufficient time to evolve and a specific need to adapt to that island, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Now - there will be some, who are already a bit adapted, and they have more success at procreation of abundant and viable offspring, while the others die off, etc, etc. Now you come with your boat and find some critters very much looking like dogs, but they are unusual, not only varying in what us humans are interested in when crossing dogs, but they have clearly gained some function other dogs/wolfs don't have, too. And it's an adaptation, it can be understood as being beneficial to them because of the special features of the island. They have an ability, no usual dog has a use for - say going vegetarian - bit extreme - but why not, with meat resources dwindling in just the right rate - like the Panda bear, also a secondary plant eater - not with four stomachs and having a lot of eating to do?
So then you take them with you and to your chagrin - your vegetarian "dogs" can't reproduce with any other dogs any more - but with each other they can!
Eureka?
Would that constitute a new species having evolved in your eyes?
Ah - exactly - it would be good, if you gave a hypothetical case in which you would indeed diagnose "evolution"!
I could come up with scenarios (and did in my Atheism thread), which would justify a diagnosis of "a god did it" in my eyes. If she/he/it pretended to be the Christian god - I would feel like accusing him of obscurantism, but that's another thought.
Okay - article next portion:
There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea - but please re-check the National Geographic link on feather evolution, I provided - you find transitional stages of dinosaurs with "almost-feathers" in that matter as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Creationists had for ages been clamouring, why we wouldn't find a fish with feet - the Darwin Fish (not Jesus fish - my bad). Well - we did find dozens of them. And not only that - evolutionary theory lead to scientists predicting, where exactly they might find it - and they did:
Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.
I really recommend giving it due consideration:
Yeah - well - I guess, this does speak for itself, esp. what I fattened. That you need not evolve a new toolkit for making limbs instead of fins is also interesting, you see, it's easier to evolve "new features", when you can build them from pre-existing mechanisms. That such things pre-exist also confines evolution to a degree - it doesn't start all over again from scratch, but further differentiates, what was there already in a more primitive form. Why not as many transitional forms as other fossils? Well - look back to that video which fact-checked Ken Ham. What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger. There simply were not as many of those there, also not "needed", which is logical, if you consider, how it comes to pass. There's development for so and so long, and then stability for much, much longer - equals more fossils - until the next major environmental upheavals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slate
Here is a classical misconception. As I said before, the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence. We do have good hypotheses for that as well - but it's a different topic, and it gets always conflated with evolution by Creationists, because abiogenesis is indeed one of the phenomena, we're not able to definitively explain - we don't yet know enough. But seriously - it's just trying to distract people, if you throw that in under evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
I didn't yet look that up - but the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
Ah - but now I did look it up - and tadaa - the respective transitional form is called "Pikaia" - not a mystery at all (any more). This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures - so it makes for a fine reply to this segment of the Morris article: 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution
So that should suffice to debunk this myth of missing links - they're all out there and abound - and they can all be googled individually.Quote:
Originally Posted by About/Education
Ah - but there's nothing wrong with what he says, even if it's misleading to quote this snippet and then cut him off midsentence! I'm sure it would be interesting, what the content of the ". . . ." section is. Besides that - I checked my dictionary for "virtually" to be sure, it means "almost" and not "entirely". And I've also checked "biota":Quote:
Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
So it's important to know, what he actually meant. The way he put it, these biota have a "duration" - so I guess, he meant the term spatially, but it doesn't matter - what he said goes perfectly well with evolution. In stable conditions almost all critters in a geographic region/timescale will remain basically the same over the duration of this environment's stability. Changes up to actual speciation happen, when the environment changes, just as I said. And if it stays stable - nothing much happens, "almost" nothing. I hope you can see how bringing along this crippled quote, not even bothering to quote the sentence as a whole, looks really weak from Morris. He wants to sell this mangled citation as a leading biologist disagreeing with evolution, which obviously it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Edit: I found a better source, an excellent source on watchability of "macroevolution": Observed Instances of Speciation
Please look into that - if you are really out for sampling all that you can find and then making your very own critical mind up on it - this might just be the ticket. It has hundreds of direct sources, too.
*Well - I guess it would have to be unreasonably many thousands of years for the island to be free civilisation's tamperings for such a drastic change to come about. It was just for the sake of example and not a good one, but take non-dogs and good is. Heck - take finches!! How come all of these many supposedly initially different species of finch who supposedly flew to the Galapagos in parallel, weren't found anywhere else? Where had they conspired to invade the Galapagos from? Either every last one of them flew there - or the "remaining" ones must have all self-destructed. Hm...
But best you tell me, what sort of evidence you would consider valid? Give me a better example, if you don't like my vegetarian island dogs!
Tip - check the link above, the underlined one! :wink:
Wow Steph, this is beautiful!!! I knew nothing about this fish, nor the fact that our talking and listening apparatus evolved from fish gills! I had only seen the older crawling lungfish versions, awkwardly humping along from puddle to puddle. This must be its descendant, evolved for better adaptability to land.
And this really points out why evolution belongs in biology classes while Creationism belongs in close-minded cults. It's amazing to see the endless supply of data, intelligence, facts and evidence on the one side, all compounding on top of each other to reveal ever deepening layers of the same story, none of it contradicting any other parts. While on the other side is only ignorance, petulance, childish non-answers and obstructionism. And it's funny to see the way the anti-science movements always want to cloak their arguments in pseudoscientific terminology, because they know that's the only thing that can possibly give it any semblance of respectability. The fact that they're constantly trying to accuse science of being a religion or a dogma when it's clearly not reveals how it must hurt when they receive these criticisms and can't deny it, at least to their own innermost selves, whatever words they may use to cover the fact.
Deanstar:
Much as I don't want to, it seems like a good time to ask: Why couldn't God have included evolution in His Plan?
Yes, this implies that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but is that really a problem? Couldn't the process of creation have taken, say, a few billion years before climaxing at the moment of the expulsion from Eden? Couldn't those six days of creation really just be a metaphor representing a much longer time?
After all, for an eternal being who cares little about how long a particular creation process might take, evolution seems a fine tool for developing matter into the final product we enjoy today. The bible just says that God created Heaven and earth, and doesn't say how. Perhaps evolution might represent the how?
The same goes with star nurseries: why wouldn't God choose to make more stars, and why couldn't what was photographed above simply represent our witnessing of His great works?
I guess I've never understood why God is held by creationists to such tight confines. Just because the guys writing the Bible a few thousand years ago got it wrong or misunderstood what God was trying to tell them, you are committed to a 6,000-year-old-earth model, which is ever so hard to defend.
[Of course, another corollary of this is the whole "God ought to be omniscient enough to have ceated the entire universe yesterday, with all the clues of age and evolution inserted as tests of faith or intellgence, but that may be a different subject]
I feel that ring species alone thoroughly disproves creationism.
It may seem Good to you, but wait till I reply to it, then it will just be debunked, as it already is anyway lol. For instance the idea that our talking or listening is related to fish, or gills. That would be inaccurate. You can't realistically make the connection that we came out of the sea. I'm really sorry about your enthusiasm for such a nonsensical notion. Your prejudice against creationist clearly highlights who is in the closed minded cult here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
You sound like you are trying to sell us something. You are. Your religion. lol.Quote:
It's amazing to see the endless supply of data, intelligence, facts and evidence on the one side, all compounding on top of each other to reveal ever deepening layers of the same story, none of it contradicting any other parts.
I think if we take a look at your attitude, that reflects how you react to the true science. You pretend science is something it's not don't you. And this is how you react.Quote:
While on the other side is only ignorance, petulance, childish non-answers and obstructionism. And it's funny to see the way the anti-science movements always want to cloak their arguments in pseudoscientific terminology, because they know that's the only thing that can possibly give it any semblance of respectability.
Because evolution makes no sense, it implies that something is not complete and perfect yet. Since God is all powerful and knowing, evolution would only serve to demonstrate that he didn't know something and was in a process of trying to 'make it better'. Why would an all knowing God litrally spend billions of year waiting for things to develop on their own? Sit back and watch the fish and think "I really hope they make it on to the land in a few millions years, that's my plan". I think if someone believed in a God that did things through evolution, it's not the God of the bible, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I don't see time as linear progress, that's not how I view time. Without evolution clouding my judgment, I see time for what it really is, part of a whole set in place by God.
Yes, by all means, I'm looking forward to your debunking! At the very least it will be entertaining. And I expect to see lots of good science included in it if course, actual science can't be debunked by hearsay or silly statements like "Well, anyone can clearly see… "
It's a shame that your religion requires enforced ignorance on the part of its followers, through harsh injunctions against honest inquiry and investigation of the truth. But once again, I'm getting really bored with butting my head up against the stone wall of Creationist anti-logic. It's like arguing with a 6 year old who doesn't understand why his arguments aren't given the same consideration as those of the adults, and who honestly believes they're every bit as cogent.
This is my last post in the religion section. I'm leaving this entire section now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I like your first question. I always thought about that as I was being taught the book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Even as a kid, I was like HUH? How could that be! Then I guess because I had a vivid imagination, I just went along with it. I wish someone could explain how God, with a wave of his hand created everything in 6 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Damn now we'll never get to witness that excellent debunking of yours. Is this some for of psychological attack, make us extremely anxious for what could be considered the most epic counter argument versus evolution and rip it out of our hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Just joking, the only sad bit here is that you only tell us after StephL spent so much time working on her own post.
Last time I checked the world was far from perfect. If god is so capable of creation why did he set us up for such atrocities as genocide and disease. If god is anywhere near as competent as the creationists make him out to be, than why did he allow adam and eve to sin, why did he create the human the sin. Even worse is that if it's in human nature to sin, and man was created in gods image...Is god really as kind as we make him out to be. He did, according to the bible, directly cause more than 500000 times as much deaths as satan did.Quote:
Because evolution makes no sense, it implies that something is not complete and perfect yet.
^ You're only going to bring him back - or is the the plan?
And after thinking about it, it could be that his epic debunking actually was what he said later in the same post. Far from epic though, or from a debunking for that matter.
Whenever I feel that someone is completely closed to debate in a topic, I just don't start a dialogue with them there. The only purpose for doing so would be either for the benefit of others who may be otherwise persuaded towards that person's kind of thinking or social signalling.
In the case of Mr. Star, his presentation was not compelling enough to convince anybody beyond those who are already heavily creationist and I have no real interest in signalling to everyone just how impressive I am for being more scientifically literate then someone who does not share the same scientific background as me.
The real danger in debating creationists is that you will soon get an inflated sense of your own virtue as a rationalist.
Yeah, I'm generally the same until the insults get too thick and heavy to ignore anymore.
StephL said:
In the meantime - please everybody - let kadie and others know, who or what god is for you - and/or isn't!
Thanks Steph :hug:
Okay. You know - I've been talking to my husband, telling him you would be quite kicking and screaming, metaphorically, but that I also had a slight feeling of wavering, of being open to take the information on face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
And so he brought it up again - what if I indeed managed to convince you - would you get in trouble?
Would the rest of the construct of your faith become suddenly unstable and pieces come crashing, and would you be in for a very hard social ride in such a case? So I'm sort of relieved here - so is kadie - if you ever are in the mood again for debating/debunking/presenting or asking for further comments on the rest of the article - you are warmly invited to do it here: http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...ists-here.html
But maybe indeed first consider, if you could bear the eventual consequences. So long!
I feel that perhaps the very concept of debate is flawed in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
With debate one must seek to find error in others' positions, seemingly under the assumption that one's own position has none itself. This inflated sense of virtue you spoke of, seems almost a prerequisite.
With debate, all parties engaged are seeking a "win" for their point of view.
It compells a person to seek validation for their position by attempting to destroy the opposition.
It feels more like a war or words than a meeting of minds.
How can anyone learn anything or gain insight by using such strong-armed tactics, I wonder...I prefer discussions because they seem somehow less arrogant.
This thread was getting pretty hot and heavy for a while. Which can be fun sometimes.
But I humbly interpreted the title question as being worded in a way that encourages discussion over debate.
Me either, because to feel threatened by opposition seems like a sign of weakness to me...not strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
You would think anyone genuinely seeking insight or truth would be more flexible and open, whereas the example you mentioned reflects only rigidity and stubbornness.
Without room to learn, grow, and evolve, thoughts stagnate. If this is what qualifies as "winning", it's no wonder I'm an underachiever.
I Just found this video that somewhat changes my whole take on Christianity (at least its values, if not its dogma or any other aspect of it). Rocking Mr. E has rapidly become my go-to guy for pretty much everything relating to philosophy of politics, religion, and whatever else he discusses - thus far I'm extremely impressed by every one of his videos I've seen, and his viewpoints seem exceptionally well researched, reasoned and conceived. His accent makes him a little hard to understand (to me anyway) so I have to turn it up loud, but always remember to turn it down right the the beginning and the end when he wails on that git-fiddle!!
And while he is an atheist, he actually makes a very good argument that Christian values are at the heart of what has made the West great, and that their erosion is a terrible thing for society. Lately I've been feeling more and more that the atheists who scream and rail against every facet of Christianity are pushing an agenda that I dislike, and I think the venerable mister E explains what it is pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xAxL8rtxc
I enjoyed that video very much!
In my personal experience, atheism vs. theism debates are unfortunately too often (but not always) skewed in both directions.
Too often when they criticize each other, it's as though both sides operate under the assumption that the other's perspective is always limited to a very narrow and specific thing that is agreed upon at all times by everyone. Of course this kind of reasoning works fine with arithmetic, but not as well with philosophical or spiritual matters perhaps.
If nothing else, this thread is evidence to support the idea that the word god means many different things to many different people. I would say that history seems to agree on that point, for better or worse.
Having strong beliefs isn't necessarily a bad thing, but imho being unwilling to see another's position accurately is. As I see it, this laziness of thought does nothing but obscure the truth in many cases....not to mention it is a slippery slope that can lead to other bigger problems if left unchecked.
Uh oh - this goes against my personal convictions in so many points - I guess, I'll quote you over into the Atheism thread one fine day and get at it there, I've made some notes, but such a "debate" would again probably not fit properly into this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
He started to annoy me by claiming there would be no scientific evidence for man made climate change and for that homosexuality is something biologically natural. Well - I could present you with respective evidence in case you'd want me to.
What he basically says, is that if people were not threatened by eternal damnation and concepts of deadly sinning vs. heavenly rewards for holding human emotions and behaviours in check, then the world would have sunken into chaos by now. Lust should be frowned upon in his view for example, he deems it useful to view it as a "deadly sin" - that's just bizarre and would lead to us dying out, if taken seriously. If there were no divinely justified threats, he reckons - that would open the floodgates for all sorts of depravity and mishap. He goes as far as blaming the enlightenment for having supposedly had vastly detrimental effects on people. WTF?!
It's the picture of a human being as basically and intrinsically bad and without inner moral compass, without empathy, even, which I can only detest. His is not my picture of human nature - it's condescending to claim, humanity wouldn't be able to be acting morally without being lied to about eternal punishment and reward.
I hold a more positive view, way more positive. :wink:
What I do believe, though, is that there is a need for educating children in ethics and providing cultural structures, which enforce social and moral cohesion. But please - without the blatant lying and fearmongering - good old Humanism in short.
^^ Exactly what a few said here earlier. A control mechanism to affect the masses.
Steph, are you sure he said something negative about the enlightenment? That doesn't sound like the Rocking Mr. E I know - he's always praised it in all his other videos. Are you sure he wasn't talking about the counter-enlightenment? You seem to have heard things very differently than I did - maybe I need to watch it again and pay closer attention? What I got from it was that, while he obviously is not in favor of any religious dogma or storytelling being taken at all literally, he feels the basic values behind christianity are sound and in alignment with atheist morals. And of course lust is ok as long as it doesn't overwhelm somebody - I think that's the point with many of the so-called sins - they're ok in moderation just don't get carried away, Like gluttony - it's fine to have a wild weekend or pig out now and then, just don't let it become a habit.
What I got from the video is that rather than categorically hate all christians and christianity in general, we should only hate the bad aspects of it, and accept those aspects that are the same as ours. It all seems to come down to the same thing - movements generally begin with a good idea (the original core of feminism for instance, or the basic moral tenets of christianity) and then later along comes some more radical element that wants to use the movement as a means of control by dividing people through incurred hatred and dehumanizing 'the enemy'. Then later the entire movement becomes demonized because of only the radical element that co-opted it to use as a weapon. This is what I've been trying to explain all around the board lately - you don't have to choose sides and square off in a battle to the death - you can instead decide where the line is drawn between the good components of a movement and the radical components that are deserving of hatred and ridicule. Quite literally "don't hate the player, hate the game", but with the added caveat that the game wasn't always evil and has been rigged at some point in the past by radicals bent on hatred.
As for the small side points you raised - about climate change and homosexuality, they're not things I'm very interested in or want to debate - I haven't looked into them very much. I was talking about the basic message of the video, which was that there's no reason for christians and atheists to be at war ideologically if we can agree on the basic tenets of morality. If these are the points you disagree with then they're only very minor side issues that don't even affect his main message.
I think his message is pretty clear - here are some of the most important parts as I see it: "In spite of these negatives, christianity still had a positive influence on western civilization, and without this influence the west would not be as prosperous as it is today. From the very start, christianity set itself apart from other religions, with a message of compassion for fellow human beings. With some notable exceptions, christianity was unique in this sense. Jesus Christ presented as a man of the people, prepared to give anyone a chance at a turn on life (not sure I got his wording right - that pesky Greco-British accent!!), regardless of their sins. {…} Though the Christian church did sometimes oppose anything that contradicted its teachings, it also stabilized and unified western culture through a spiritual belief. Christianity gave the west a moral conscience, born from free will and moral responsibility. {…} While modern science can explain concepts such as free will and personal responsibility without appealing to a higher power, it's important to recognize that christianity established the virtues of free will and personal responsibility long before science could explain them."
Ok, it's right after this that he talks about the enlightenment, and what he says is this: "When christianity began to diminish after the enlightenment, it opened a can of worms that many people couldn't handle" The people he's talking about here are those opposed to the enlightenment, the ones who founded the counter-enlightenment, led largely by Kant with his Critique Against Reason.
Weeell - I'm not so sure. Maybe one could say, Christianity with it's emphasis on compassion did a lot of positive things for formerly called Christendom in terms of social cohesion and also enforcing beneficial behaviours. But I would say, it was initially the Renaissance having benefited progress, drawing on ancient Greek philosophy and pre-scientific-age insights. These texts have only been preserved by the Muslim world, but destroyed in Christendom. The Muslim world before that Imam, I forgot the name of, set an end to the golden age of Islam. And later on it was the enlightenment, which really brought us progress in all sorts of manners, while the church again tried to suppress all that and with a vengeance. Consider the dark ages - that was Christianity having it's way. Consider the 30 years lasting war in Europe - purely a conflict between different brands of the same "compassionate" religion - with a death toll in the multiple millions.
It needed to be undermined by the two above mentioned zeitgeists, which the churches initially opposed kicking and screaming, until denial was impossible by overwhelming information and evidence. These movements were what primarily benefited us in terms of knowledge and progress in my eyes. The churches on their own wanted to preserve the status quo - logical - their influence has diminished ever since, when new and better explanations for the natural world became available by science.
Oh - and I don't think, he meant Kant by that, a Christian after all, he meant Hitler and Stalin, the classical people to invoke in order to show how dangerous secularism and atheism would be. That's very short-sighted in my eyes to say the least, but whatever...
I certainly do not hate any religious person, though, why should I? Takes a lot to make me feel hate towards somebody anyway, I can't even remember the last time that happened. What adult people believe in the privacy of their own heads - none of my business. But I do oppose religious ideologies in most of their outer manifestations, and indoctrinating children with lies including scaring them with hell-fire and telling them they are sinners and worthless by birth. If the parents want to do that - at least the schools should offer a different viewpoint. I also oppose Creationism in especial, since it can only lead to scientific illiteracy and flawed politics.
But I wouldn't dream of hating Deanstar for instance - I think of him as indoctrinated to a degree that justifies to invoke delusion - but I'm rather sorry for him, I even find myself liking him in some weird way - despite disliking his style of discourse quite a lot.
What we need to understand is that organised religions are mechanistic reductionist images and belief structures that promote a narrow mind in order to control and shape the culture of today.
Don't mistake the map for the territory.
Culture and ideology is not your friend.
What's real is the felt presence of experience.
What's real is the way you feel and what you experience within the platform of the human hardware that we are bestowed.
You may hear descriptions of what enlightenment is, or lucid dreaming, or sex,or having your first child etc but until you have EXPERIENCED it its all mental and intellectual masturbation.
Use what works in your unique individual case.Discard that which is ornamental.And always know that everything is in a never ending flux,ebb and flow...forever changing.
Having rigidity in your belief structures is limiting your growth.Know how to change your beliefs at will when they cease to serve you. Objective observation and awareness above all.
Cultivate your intuitive forces.
Trust yourself and your divine nature.
No one is smarter that you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxfn5PFWYTk
Was he the first imam? If so his name was Ali(very popular in the Islamic shiyi world( I'm originally Islamic shiyi, my father is named ali too x) )).Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Anyways, I agree with you, we shouldn't hate religious people. They want from the bottom of their hearts to believe in god, so they don't allow us to destroy their dreams.
Also it stops when they impose their religious beliefs on us, I agree with that too.
Also that children shouldn't be 'brainwashed' into it. They don't know any better.
The worst part here is that religion create enemies. For instance, here in Lebanon, everyone foolishly believes that the US controls the UN and the whole world, and all Americans and Europeans are evil, or at least have evil leaders that control the world!
Haha they really got me brainwashed with that BS since I was a little child!
Glad I'm out of it now.
So, just for the sake of everything, I wish everyone would just forget about religion and make happiness the goal.
Also atheists aren't evil! Even if we don't think we will be punished after death, we still have consciences that we follow, and we do care about others and do have sympathy! If anything, we are the most people who want happiness in life, so we follow a loving and caring lifestyle! (That kind of lifestyle does give happiness naturally)
Maybe when artificial immortality comes, religion will go. Maybe it'll come in our lifetime!
Step one, clone a new young body containing all your up to date memories and info.
Step two, dispose old body.
They're making organs now using 3D printers! We're closer to this immortality bizz more than you can imagine!
I love science, it's my god!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/2d8cbaf52...amtho1_500.jpg
Yes. But keep in mind also that organized religions are but one of many "... structures that promote a narrow mind in order to control and shape the culture of today. " There are many more: Nationalism is nearly as powerful/bad as organized religion (both are at the top of my personal "worst things in the world" list), but there as an entire sea of lesser societal structures, including education systems, pop culture, tradition, MMORPG's, reality TV, high school cliques, even family structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen
That list can go on and on, I think. We humans are seemingly driven by our herding instinct to choose stupidity and conformity in the name of being part of something, or perhaps in the name of having to think or do less. Into which pool of organized and personally stifling behavior they dive is the only choice many people make... kind of makes sense then how stubbornly they cling to that choice, once made.
So, yes, organized religion is a mind-narrower indeed, and maybe the worst of them all, but it is not the only one...
This is very very true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Other than all the damage this causes, maybe the worst thing is that, some certain aspects or kinds of it, effect our judgment so much that we blindly follow a path that is quite opposite to the path of happiness. The biggest of them is following the 'trends', peer presure, excessive money desire, loss of an understanding of the fundamentals of life actually. The mainstream considers meditation, one of the most powerful mental tools, to be weird and undesirable in someone's traits, or how it considers popularity or how much followers you have on twitter to be the basis of social life, or the most obvious vase for us, how dreams are dealt as unreal unimportant state.
I mean I'm genuinely stunned at how many people are just simply blind to the obvious!
Tradition and family structures are the real oddballs there (as well as MMORPGs for that matter) because they have a distinct essence to them that make them very desirable in a community. Were they promote violence, pride and a feeling of superiority they can also provide a vibrancy and dynamic to an otherwise dull place. A family bind exists naturally and if stimulated properly can form into something overwhelmingly positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I think the real key here is teaching children to discern and criticize ideologies for themselves. The problem as I see it is that with each step we take away from outdated ideas, we are quite often pulling elements with us that make this world beautiful. Cultures and nature are too of those elements that are lost each day and it's a true shame to see people disregard them as another outdated concept.
^^ You've made a couple of good points, but I think I'm going to keep tradition, family (and MMORPG's) on the list.
Yes, they have good sides as well -- so too do pretty much all the other categories, including organized religion and nationalism -- but even those good sides may also be mind-narrowing, even if they are quite comforting and community building (community, especially of the small, heavily organized kind, probably should have been on the list as well, BTW). Indeed, those natural family ties (or binds -- even the words are negative, even oppressive) can cause some of the most profound damage to an individual of all, especially if that individual is born into a very troubled family, and can find no way out from, say, constant abuse, because she is so bound to her family that she cannot open her mind to safer options. Extreme, I know, but it makes the point.
Sometimes I think that these things that demand our sacrifice of free will, imagination, and self-awareness (and yes, as good as they can be, they all work best when those aspects of individual freedom are put in a box) are designed to feed off of our primitive hard-wiring that demands, for survival, that we belong to a group or die.
That, ironically, I agree with completely. It would be nice if we could somehow hold onto the good bits of those organizations, cultures, and traditions, without dragging along the bad, and without that pesky requirement to conform to outdated or counterproductive norms.Quote:
I think the real key here is teaching children to discern and criticize ideologies for themselves. The problem as I see it is that with each step we take away from outdated ideas, we are quite often pulling elements with us that make this world beautiful. Cultures and nature are two of those elements that are lost each day and it's a true shame to see people disregard them as another outdated concept.
Well I have several different beliefs. My first and foremost philosophical/religious belief is that our world is completely absurd and random and I doubt any human will ever be able to comprehend the deepest secrets of reality. Because of this, I think it is as likely as not that some omnipotent being created the universe. However, even if there is some sentient omnipotent being ruling the universe, I still believe there is certainly one true god that is even greater. This god is the sum of everything in all possible realities. Their consciousness is made up from everything, even another potential god. So you could say they are sentient, and even omnipotent, depending on your definition of those words.
Oh wow, I completely missed this before - I thought you had just never responded here. Mr E never mentioned Kant, of course, I brought Kant up because he was the founder of the Counter-Enlightenment. What he said was (and I don't remember the exact wording now) "a lot of people were very upset after the Enlightenment" - those people are the ones who founded the counter enlightenment of course, beginning with Kant. It was his Critique of Pure Reason that launched all the beliefs against reason and logic. He doubtless wasn't the first religious person to rail against logic and reason because it eroded belief, but he was the most important of the early ones, and it was because of his Critique that the movement really got rolling and began to develop momentum.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Also, you're talking about The Church, an institution, while Mr E was talking about the values of Christianity. It's pretty much the same thing as blaming Stalin's Atheism for the horror of Communism. When the church leaders decided to institute a totalitarian rule and forcibly wipe out anything that goes against church doctrine, that was not a true reflection of the positive aspects of Christian belief as taught by Jesus (the stuff Mr E was talking about) - that was a dictatorial human institution bent on using Christianity to control people. In fact Mr E listed the positive values he was talking about in the video - New Testament Christianty marked a very different and much more humanistic type of belief from any of the pagan or Old Testament beliefs, which were loaded with fire and brimstone.
What God is to me? Some sort of primitive way to explain things. I'm unable to believe that something like a God created everything. But at the same time I don't think that science is so superior as many people say it is. I think that there are atleast 2 things that will never be explained by science, nor it will be by religion/faith. Those are: conciousness, and: the beginning of everything.
Some people will say that conciousness is just the firing of neurons in your brain, that is also what I thought. Untill I read Superbrain by Rudolph E. Tanzi & Deepak Chopra. It says that the brain is just an instrument for your conciousness, and your conciousness is the thing that interprets everything. Like colours: blood is red, almost everyone will say that, but you will never find any 'red' in your brain. How are neurons able to taste, hear, feel?
Neither can it be explained by religion, which will probably only come with a cheap story about a 'God' which gave me my conciousness.
The beginning of everything isn't the Big Bang, something must've 'banged' right? Scientists found atoms(?) which can pop up out of nothing, but how is the atom(?) formed etc. etc.. Religion can't explain it either because there is no single piece of evidence except for that cheap one-liner that gives me the chills: "You can't prove God does not exist!". No shit sherlock, and so you can't prove that I can't fly like superman.
It's a discussion that will never stop.
Different colors have different wave lengths. Who wrote this book seems like a moron lol. He is surely claiming a lot of stuff without him even understanding simple physics and biology. It's obvious what credibility this gives to his claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forg
As for them big bang and the atom that was created from nothing:
Just give science some time! It's studying parallel universes now, and it's starting to seem very likely, which makes this atom case very likely to be scientifically explained afterwards (this might not be directly related, but if we understand the existence of matter in other parallel dimensions, then I would imagine a spinoff to explain this atom case)
Also:
Individual neurons do not taste, hear or feel. However:Quote:
Originally Posted by Forg
Hundreds of millions of neurons, working in concert and enjoying the fruit of eons of evolution, are creating the perception of sensory input. Your interpretation of that perception is certainly consciousness, but I'm not sure that consciousness existed first, and is just using a brain as an interface to reality. That is an interesting thing to consider, of course, given the concept's implications of immortality and Something Bigger Than Us (good for selling books, too), but it is very hard to go right there without first considering the incredible complexity and potential of the human brain first. This argument might finally be solved (or at least simulated) when we finally build a computer as complex as our brains, and discover that it too is conscious. By the same token, all living things are conscious at some level; does this mean that, say, lizards are aethereal consciousnesses just using their hosts as interfaces? Also an interesting concept, but it seems a bit ungainly to me.
It might be a mistake to underestimate the processing power of all those neurons, and also to assume that they achieved that processing power overnight -- it took us a very long time to reach the levels of perception, intelligence, and, yes, consciousness that we humans now have.
This reminds me about that creationist argument that asks about how eyes can exist, given that they are so complex.... the argument assumes that eyes just appeared recently, rather than taking uncounted millennia to develop into their current form.
So this is the crux of my question. I think it's possible that the "God" that we see in the Bible is just a word for the process of creation. God is referred to as the creator. The Alpha and the Omega. If, in our recent history, the only way to explain the natural world was to give the acts of nature a name-God- but there was not evidence to explain such nature or the process of how things became what they are, a myth was created to try to explain to the everyday folks that there was a power greater than they knew and people accepted that and built upon it and distorted it, manipulated the myth etc, etc. So in my way of thinking "GOD" is just another name for the process of life, creation, or nature and chemistry etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forg
Just rambling here, but this is what I mean when I say that I see God as just a name for the process of creation. We are all God as we create everything in our lives and our lives are affected by creation. Therefore we should take care of ourselves and our environment as we create. I hope that makes some sense.
This is why you stay far away from the nonsense Deepak Chopra tends to come up with. I'm pretty confident that if you were to cut a blood vessel in your brain, you'd see some red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forg
This actually makes sense. It's a valid opinion I think. It's like gossip that disforms the original gossiped news.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
http://www.buddhabarbie.com/wp-conte.../08/gossip.jpg
God is a guy or girl (gonna go with she, just because everybody says he) who managed to prolong a lucid dream for billions and billions of years though time distortion and at some point she got bored with being a "god" able to do anything she could think of. And from this boredom she suddenly realized that she felt quite lonely so she decided to create the stable universe that we know today (might have taken her many many tries to get it right). She has managed to give her dream characters (us) free will and given us a mind of our own, or at least the perception of it. She then decided to jump right into the dream refusing to use any of her dream powers to alter the dream (though she could). Whenever the character she is playing dies, she simply makes a new one or whatever. Nobody except her can really know what she wanna do with it all and most likely there's not a grand plan other than the fact that he wants to feel love. Maybe she goes into full dream mode whenever she dies (heaven) and plays for a while with all the other people who are dead, and they all make new characters when they want to. And obviously god herself is just a dream character in another gods dream etc. And you can probably see where I'm going with this, science is just the tool she used to make the world stable and all religion, spirituality and science work well under this theory. I'm probably not the first with this idea, and I didn't read all the thread so might not even be the first on this thread, and I don't really believe it in particular, but it's the explanation I like the most :)
Actually I really think this is one of the theories that makes the most sense, I just described it very shortly but there's a lot more thought, details, explanations, expansions and implications in my head that I can't really make myself write out in one bid ramble but feel free to ask any questions (yes, even critical O.o) I'd love to talk more about it, but not in a one sided ramble. So good night!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I think you would like this Sageous: Captain Metaphysics and the Ghost in the Machine - Existential Comics. Not all of it is related but it mentions the theory of why/if/how the soul (if it exists) could have an impact on the mind/body.
^^ At a I think I will like that too; thanks for sharing!