[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So where is it you believe humans evolved from? I just used apes because that’s the most logical place, in fact that’s the only argument I’ve ever heard. Nice side step though ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor…[/quote]
And yet, all of the scientific models break down as you approach origin or source. They have no answers.
People say the Bible is contradictory, and it is, but so is science. For instance, Quantum mechanics and General relativity, both work beautifully, for there perspective studies, but they are contradictory models for the explanation of the behavior of matter and both break down in the infinities at their core. String theory is the “newest” model, but it just doesn’t really seem to explain it. It’s more like band aid solution. But which ever you take hold of, all share a similarity the all things share a common origin and source. Does that really sound that much different than religion?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So where is it you believe humans evolved from? I just used apes because that’s the most logical place, in fact that’s the only argument I’ve ever heard. Nice side step though ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor…[/quote]
And yet, all of the scientific models break down as you approach origin or source. They have no answers.
People say the Bible is contradictory, and it is, but so is science. For instance, Quantum mechanics and General relativity, both work beautifully, for there perspective studies, but they are contradictory models for the explanation of the behavior of matter and both break down in the infinities at their core. String theory is the “newest” model, but it just doesn’t really seem to explain it. It’s more like band aid solution. But which ever you take hold of, all share a similarity the all things share a common origin and source. Does that really sound that much different than religion?
[/quote]
…you know better than this. Whenever a scientific discovery invalidates earlier notions or theories, the scientific community may need time to adjust but is also exited because it furthers their knowledge. There is no comparison between science and religion as institutions: religion is conservative and static whereas science can only go forward and advance our knowledge of the universe…
…and what the Source is concerned, well, what you believe is the Source is irrelevant to scientific endevours, it’s only important as a personal comfortzone, nothing more…
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So where is it you believe humans evolved from? I just used apes because that’s the most logical place, in fact that’s the only argument I’ve ever heard. Nice side step though ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor…[/quote]
And yet, all of the scientific models break down as you approach origin or source. They have no answers.
People say the Bible is contradictory, and it is, but so is science. For instance, Quantum mechanics and General relativity, both work beautifully, for there perspective studies, but they are contradictory models for the explanation of the behavior of matter and both break down in the infinities at their core. String theory is the “newest” model, but it just doesn’t really seem to explain it. It’s more like band aid solution. But which ever you take hold of, all share a similarity the all things share a common origin and source. Does that really sound that much different than religion?
[/quote]
…you know better than this. Whenever a scientific discovery invalidates earlier notions or theories, the scientific community may need time to adjust but is also exited because it furthers their knowledge. There is no comparison between science and religion as institutions: religion is conservative and static whereas science can only go forward and advance our knowledge of the universe…
[/quote]
Religion is far from static, it moves forward also. And neither theory invalidates the other, they are both widely used to make accurate calculations and predictions and yet are contradictory, look it up.
No it’s not. Unless you saying science is complacent in not find out the answers, and I know that’s not true.
That huge Hadron Coliider they built in Switzerland is designed to do one thing, the prove or disprove the Higgs Boson particle, otherwise known as the “God particle”. It’s not intended that if you find it, you’ve found God. They are speaking of it elusiveness. However, I find it an interesting name. In short, they are trying to find out what gives matter the property of mass. Nobody knows why some matter has it and some does not. Actually most of the matter in the universe does not.
You see at the high levels, there is not much separating math, science, philosophy and religion. Everybody is look for the answers to the same questions through different methodologies. Everybody wants to know where it all came from.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
And pray tell, who created the creator?[/quote]
As soon as you tell me:
-where’s the start of a circle?
-does space have an end…and how big is space?
-what’s energy made of…and what “drives” that…and what drives that…?
-did time have a beginning?
etc etc etc
…then I’ll tell you where God came from…[/quote]
Ah, very interesting. You have now conclusively proved the Christian God is the one true God. Baal and Wotan and Thor were simply made up to comfort and/or control the masses. But Yahweh, well he’s different.[/quote]
That was not even my point - you questioned whether there was a creator, and if so, who created that?
What you believe the “personality” of that creator is, is a different story…[/quote]
I believe I don’t know. And I also believe it is arrogant to claim to know. For all we know this world could be an elaborate cage deathmatch. But that’s just it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Religion is far from static, it moves forward also.[/quote]
Are you high? The only reason religion has for dropping a dogma is for the simple reason that the zeitgeist has moved on and it’s position has become incompatible with survival in human society. There is no wisdom, just the dying whimper of a beast who has had it’s teeth pulled and claws filed.
If by some freak accident, we were to bring a Christian from the 14th century to the here and now, his knowledge on everything BUT religion would embarrass a four year old. Yet on matters of theology, he would still be an expert in this so called field.
[quote]pat wrote:
Religion is far from static, it moves forward also.[/quote]
Are you high? The only reason religion has for dropping a dogma is for the simple reason that the zeitgeist has moved on and it’s position has become incompatible with survival in human society. There is no wisdom, just the dying whimper of a beast who has had it’s teeth pulled and claws filed.
If by some freak accident, we were to bring a Christian from the 14th century to the here and now, his knowledge on everything BUT religion would embarrass a four year old. Yet on matters of theology, he would still be an expert in this so called field.[/quote]
It’s not my job to educate you. Look at history and you will see.
It really depends on who you brought from the 14th century as to their wisdom on the matter.
It is clear by the things you say you know virtually nothing about religion or specifically Christianity, otherwise you would not embarrass yourself with the things you think but do not know.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So where is it you believe humans evolved from? I just used apes because that’s the most logical place, in fact that’s the only argument I’ve ever heard. Nice side step though ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor…[/quote]
And yet, all of the scientific models break down as you approach origin or source. They have no answers.
People say the Bible is contradictory, and it is, but so is science. For instance, Quantum mechanics and General relativity, both work beautifully, for there perspective studies, but they are contradictory models for the explanation of the behavior of matter and both break down in the infinities at their core. String theory is the “newest” model, but it just doesn’t really seem to explain it. It’s more like band aid solution. But which ever you take hold of, all share a similarity the all things share a common origin and source. Does that really sound that much different than religion?
[/quote]
…you know better than this. Whenever a scientific discovery invalidates earlier notions or theories, the scientific community may need time to adjust but is also exited because it furthers their knowledge. There is no comparison between science and religion as institutions: religion is conservative and static whereas science can only go forward and advance our knowledge of the universe…
[/quote]
Religion is far from static, it moves forward also. And neither theory invalidates the other, they are both widely used to make accurate calculations and predictions and yet are contradictory, look it up.
No it’s not. Unless you saying science is complacent in not find out the answers, and I know that’s not true.
That huge Hadron Coliider they built in Switzerland is designed to do one thing, the prove or disprove the Higgs Boson particle, otherwise known as the “God particle”. It’s not intended that if you find it, you’ve found God. They are speaking of it elusiveness. However, I find it an interesting name. In short, they are trying to find out what gives matter the property of mass. Nobody knows why some matter has it and some does not. Actually most of the matter in the universe does not.
You see at the high levels, there is not much separating math, science, philosophy and religion. Everybody is look for the answers to the same questions through different methodologies. Everybody wants to know where it all came from.[/quote]
…in what way is religion moving forward, pat? How does religion make scientific progress? In what way did the Church or Christianity change that bettered the world? Science is looking for answers, and by doing aleviates many problems we face as humans. Religion says it already found the answer to the ultimate question, but the only thing that belief aleviates are personal problems; which may be substantial, i grant you that. But on an objective level, that answer does nothing for me, does not better my life like science does; does not further understanding of reality in a meaningful way at all…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
And pray tell, who created the creator?[/quote]
As soon as you tell me:
-where’s the start of a circle?
-does space have an end…and how big is space?
-what’s energy made of…and what “drives” that…and what drives that…?
-did time have a beginning?
etc etc etc
…then I’ll tell you where God came from…[/quote]
Ah, very interesting. You have now conclusively proved the Christian God is the one true God. Baal and Wotan and Thor were simply made up to comfort and/or control the masses. But Yahweh, well he’s different.[/quote]
That was not even my point - you questioned whether there was a creator, and if so, who created that?
What you believe the “personality” of that creator is, is a different story…[/quote]
I believe I don’t know. And I also believe it is arrogant to claim to know. For all we know this world could be an elaborate cage deathmatch. But that’s just it.
We don’t know.[/quote]
Exactly, and if a creator did create these things that we are still learning about (and find extremely difficult to comprehend), how can we possibly understand how this creator came into existence?
In fact, if you believe that Yahweh is the creator, the bible says that he did not come into existence, it calls him the “beginning and the end” (“alpha and omega”)…in other words, he’s always existed.
Because of our limited experience/comprehension, this is a concept we just cannot understand.
I’m not saying that nobody should try to understand/study, but arguing against something that we do not understand is pointless.
[quote]its_just_me wrote: Exactly, and if a creator did create these things that we are still learning about (and find extremely difficult to comprehend), how can we possibly understand how this creator came into existence?
In fact, if you believe that Yahweh is the creator, the bible says that he did not come into existence, it calls him the “beginning and the end” (“alpha and omega”)…in other words, he’s always existed.
Because of our limited experience/comprehension, this is a concept we just cannot understand.
I’m not saying that nobody should try to understand/study, but arguing against something that we do not understand is pointless.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So where is it you believe humans evolved from? I just used apes because that’s the most logical place, in fact that’s the only argument I’ve ever heard. Nice side step though ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor…[/quote]
And yet, all of the scientific models break down as you approach origin or source. They have no answers.
People say the Bible is contradictory, and it is, but so is science. For instance, Quantum mechanics and General relativity, both work beautifully, for there perspective studies, but they are contradictory models for the explanation of the behavior of matter and both break down in the infinities at their core. String theory is the “newest” model, but it just doesn’t really seem to explain it. It’s more like band aid solution. But which ever you take hold of, all share a similarity the all things share a common origin and source. Does that really sound that much different than religion?
[/quote]
…you know better than this. Whenever a scientific discovery invalidates earlier notions or theories, the scientific community may need time to adjust but is also exited because it furthers their knowledge. There is no comparison between science and religion as institutions: religion is conservative and static whereas science can only go forward and advance our knowledge of the universe…
[/quote]
Religion is far from static, it moves forward also. And neither theory invalidates the other, they are both widely used to make accurate calculations and predictions and yet are contradictory, look it up.
No it’s not. Unless you saying science is complacent in not find out the answers, and I know that’s not true.
That huge Hadron Coliider they built in Switzerland is designed to do one thing, the prove or disprove the Higgs Boson particle, otherwise known as the “God particle”. It’s not intended that if you find it, you’ve found God. They are speaking of it elusiveness. However, I find it an interesting name. In short, they are trying to find out what gives matter the property of mass. Nobody knows why some matter has it and some does not. Actually most of the matter in the universe does not.
You see at the high levels, there is not much separating math, science, philosophy and religion. Everybody is look for the answers to the same questions through different methodologies. Everybody wants to know where it all came from.[/quote]
…in what way is religion moving forward, pat? How does religion make scientific progress? In what way did the Church or Christianity change that bettered the world? Science is looking for answers, and by doing aleviates many problems we face as humans. Religion says it already found the answer to the ultimate question, but the only thing that belief aleviates are personal problems; which may be substantial, i grant you that. But on an objective level, that answer does nothing for me, does not better my life like science does; does not further understanding of reality in a meaningful way at all…
[/quote]
Good Lord man, Judaism to Christianity, Counsel of Nicaea, Protestant Reformation, Vatican 1, Vatican 2, etc.
Did I really have to point this out to you?
Most religion is accepting of science, Hell early scientists were almost always clergy or religious becuase they had the best educations. Your trying to project that religion or religious people are close minded hypocrites, but that’s simply not true. You have close minded people every where.
And I never said relation is moving science forward, I said they in the end they ask ask the same questions and seek the same answer through different methodologies. Catholicism stopped trying to be all things and just focused on religion.
Basic precepts of Christianity have not changed, Love God, love your neighbor is the basis for all the stuffs of Christianity. People fuck up so the course has to be corrected from time to time.
Science hasn’t alleviated problems, it replaces old problems with new ones. For every answer science comes up with, many more questions arise.
Religion doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It is a means by which to communicate with God, once you have accept the fact that he exists and you want to communicate with him. Along the way a lot of philosophy gets postulated and it is in that realm that we seek ultimate answers or “The theory of everything” as scientists put it.
You are not religious so you can’t objectively say it does not help you understand reality in a meaningful way. That’s like saying because you won’t get on the bus, the bus won’t get you any where.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
New research into brain-damaged patients has shown that damage to the left and right posterior parietal regions brings on spiritual feelings.
The results could lead to new strategies for treating some forms of mental illness, they say.
Did you really think that humans would not have a physical component to faith?
I think the greatest flaw most agnostics/ atheists make is that they are looking for and big fat magic trick or something uber mystical and magical. It’s not, it’s very natural, linear, and stunningly normal.
…yes, those events changed the world, that’s true. Whether those events changed the world for the better is a different matter…
…not in the least, pat. But you are trying to associate religion with science as if they’re different branches of the same tree. They’re not…
…so, saying ‘God did it’ instead of looking at a scientific explanation is looking for the same answer? Science looks a HOW stuff works, that’s all…
…oh rly? -:
[quote]Religion doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It is a means by which to communicate with God, once you have accept the fact that he exists and you want to communicate with him. Along the way a lot of philosophy gets postulated and it is in that realm that we seek ultimate answers or “The theory of everything” as scientists put it.
You are not religious so you can’t objectively say it does not help you understand reality in a meaningful way. That’s like saying because you won’t get on the bus, the bus won’t get you any where. [/quote]
…you can’t fault me for not buying into an imaginary entity that tells you how to behave, and answers your questions in a book that was written in the bronze age…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
New research into brain-damaged patients has shown that damage to the left and right posterior parietal regions brings on spiritual feelings.
The results could lead to new strategies for treating some forms of mental illness, they say.
Did you really think that humans would not have a physical component to faith?
I think the greatest flaw most agnostics/ atheists make is that they are looking for and big fat magic trick or something uber mystical and magical. It’s not, it’s very natural, linear, and stunningly normal.[/quote]
…no, not at all. I’ve posted similar findings before. I’m just sharing these links out of interest…
…yes, those events changed the world, that’s true. Whether those events changed the world for the better is a different matter…
[/quote]
You asked for examples of religion evolving. Yes, religions have done plenty of good in the world. You only focus on the bad so you don’t see it.
Are you having reading comprehension issues? Where did I equate religion and science as different branches of the same tree?
They ask the same basic questions and seek answers by different means, this is the third time I am telling you this.
That’s not what I fucking said and you know it, quit being an asshole about it. That’s not even remotely the topic of the above paragraph.
…oh rly? -:
[/quote]
Yes really. What problems has it solved where others did not crop up? Just one example.
[quote]Religion doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It is a means by which to communicate with God, once you have accept the fact that he exists and you want to communicate with him. Along the way a lot of philosophy gets postulated and it is in that realm that we seek ultimate answers or “The theory of everything” as scientists put it.
You are not religious so you can’t objectively say it does not help you understand reality in a meaningful way. That’s like saying because you won’t get on the bus, the bus won’t get you any where. [/quote]
…you can’t fault me for not buying into an imaginary entity that tells you how to behave, and answers your questions in a book that was written in the bronze age…
[/quote]
Whose buying into an imaginary entity? I thought we were past this point but I suppose you prefer regression over logical arguments? Again, you can’t say something you’ve never tried hasn’t ever helped you. Well, fucking duh.
I have never tried yoga so it hasn’t helped me one bit, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
[quote]its_just_me wrote: Exactly, and if a creator did create these things that we are still learning about (and find extremely difficult to comprehend), how can we possibly understand how this creator came into existence?
In fact, if you believe that Yahweh is the creator, the bible says that he did not come into existence, it calls him the “beginning and the end” (“alpha and omega”)…in other words, he’s always existed.
Because of our limited experience/comprehension, this is a concept we just cannot understand.
I’m not saying that nobody should try to understand/study, but arguing against something that we do not understand is pointless.[/quote]
…that if is a mighty big one, its_just_me…
[/quote]
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Exactly, and if a creator did create these things that we are still learning about (and find extremely difficult to comprehend), how can we possibly understand how this creator came into existence?
In fact, if you believe that Yahweh is the creator, the bible says that he did not come into existence, it calls him the “beginning and the end” (“alpha and omega”)…in other words, he’s always existed.
Because of our limited experience/comprehension, this is a concept we just cannot understand.
I’m not saying that nobody should try to understand/study, but arguing against something that we do not understand is pointless.[/quote]
Why do you believe if by your own admission you don’t know?
And you claim that we are still learning and then bring up the Bible - the book that is claimed to be “finished” and infallible without question. Give me a break.
If you don’t understand it, then for fucks sake, don’t try and push your notions of biblical morality on the rest of us when it comes to homosexuality and abortion and a whole raft of issues that affect the majority.
Ephrem - go to any of your current sources and find the new theories on evolution, that you can find anyway. Like the most recent scientific/journal articles. I refuse to do your leg work dude.
hahaha About you ‘straw man theory’, that straw theory can be a PART of a valid argument. Especially when you have not yet provided your own 'theory. So please quit using a catch phrase that you picked up on a web site, until you learn what that phrase means and how it is applied.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…ooohhhboy. You’re right ofcourse, we didn’t evolve from apes. All these convoluted arguments leading upto to a false conclusion is called, “A Straw Man-Argument”. Look it up… [/quote]
About your primordial soup theory, they have now determined it can’t happen. I’m sure you have read the mouse trap theory right? The link you posted about the guy who refuted the argument, see if you can explain it because the web site’s author sure as fuck didn’t.
hahaha That same web site talked about genetic mutation, AGAIN he never explains how DNA was supposed to grow in size. Even though, it never does in nature. In fact the ‘theories’ behind the mutation never depend on more growth, they explain how DNA looses material as the extra information is cleaved off. Where is the science that shows DNA getting longer, more dense and more complex? You can find it with the imaginary science, you think you know.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment… [/quote]
About the apes, [i]ANY[/i] ancestor of primate can NOT perform the function I talked about. Again, how do you explain it?
If we evolved from a different species, where are the fossils? Have you seen the specimens in person? Have you done the lab work yourself? Or are you taking the science on FAITH to be correct? Huh? You bad mouth faith and then use it yourself. Not sure if the word hypocrisy describes the traits you posses well enough.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…we, humans, share a common ancestor with the great apes from which we evolved into our current form. If i recall correctly the orangutan evolved from an earlier ancestor, and we, the chimpsansees [and bonobos] and gorillas share the same ancestor… [/quote]
WTF does your statement about faith mean? “i don’t believe there is no God; i simply have no beliefs in that regard.” No belief is still a belief!! There is no fence to sit on. Yay or nay is THE only two options. Just like your abortion belief, murder of any child is still murder! There is NO gray area!! Quite trying to be indecisive, pick a stance and then defend it. You will be wrong sometimes but at least you won’t side step the issue.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…funnily enough it is the same for me, only in reverse. But i don’t believe there is no God; i simply have no beliefs in that regard…
[/quote]
Yes really. What problems has it solved where others did not crop up? Just one example.
Whose buying into an imaginary entity? I thought we were past this point but I suppose you prefer regression over logical arguments? Again, you can’t say something you’ve never tried hasn’t ever helped you. Well, fucking duh. I have never tried yoga so it hasn’t helped me one bit, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.[/quote]
…i’d think that the advances made in medicine are important, don’t you? Personally, i can’t wait to see what kind of electronics the near future has in store for us. Will we complicate things? Ofcourse, that’s a given, we’re human after all. But that shouldn’t deter us from delving deeper in to the fabric of time and space, uncovering it’s secrets along the way. Religion has invalidated itself in that regard…
…i apologize for my language pat, but there’s no other way to say this: religious beliefs are a placebo; a means to selfmedicate, to sooth whatever might trouble you. That doesn’t mean religion doesn’t work, because it does help, but it’s a testament to the power of the mind, not god…
