Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.
Printable View
Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.
I explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Microevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMicroevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Some believe.
Some dont.
What you gonna do?
Whatever anyone says you cant tell me you wouldnt want to live forever.
I love life and intend to enjoy every day until i return to dust but i dont want to die and i do want to live on.
Surely, you want the same?
Worm food .
You keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMicroevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
No, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYou keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMicroevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Science does not support the creation of life in anyway shape or form. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I'm just saying it is not fact. So I don't have science proving what I believe and I don't have science proving, beyond a reasonable doubt the theory of evolution. But I will say nowhere in science has it been observed that life comes from anything other than life.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepNo, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYou keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMicroevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Except, that it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusScience does not support the creation of life in anyway shape or form. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I'm just saying it is not fact. So I don't have science proving what I believe and I don't have science proving, beyond a reasonable doubt the theory of evolution. But I will say nowhere in science has it been observed that life comes from anything other than life.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepNo, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYou keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMicroevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
Evolution is simply the best understanding we can perceive based on the scientific evidence we have.
The model is such that it makes sense with what we perceive in the natural world.
To say the science doesn't support it is foolish and misguided. While it is not a "fact"
it is a theory that is backed by loads of science. Similarly gravity is a theory and not
a fact as well, do you doubt the evidence of gravity?
???Well that clears it all up.Quote:
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair
Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other
designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.
If you read beyond the abstract it's much clearer, just click on the "Read the full text" link.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Do you see this is poesis, of human construction.
Yes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinationsQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.
Word.
:( there was no smiley showing someone pointing to the ground with a gang sign. Honestly who runs this show :rolleyes:.
:) God, I so want to memorize that as my standard answer to every person that annoys me in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
You might want something a bit shorter if it is going to be for EVERYONE who annoys you. You will be putting a lot of time in saying over a hundred times a day, unless you become a shut in which make it manageableQuote:
Originally Posted by Andre:) God, I so want to memorize that as my standard answer to every person that annoys me in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Yes, scientists have also made amino acids, a certain type of RNA using models of the real stuff and a few other basic building blocks of life. It's very amazing what they can do. I think we will see more in the not to distant future. I now of a few other microbes developed in the lab. Some times the use viral material as virus is so efficient at replicating itself. I get a little nervous sometimes when they play around with this stuff. They could bring about some type of microbe that will kill us all, or turn us into flesh eating Zombies. Anyway it is interesting. I read a couple books on the subject. Science isn't my favorite topic to read about but I found it quite interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepYes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinationsQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.
This thread was originally about belief in God, and yes I do believe in God but I find evolution to be an interesting topic. I don't use it as a basis to prove or not the existence of God.
Yet you used abiogenesis as reasoning that you didn't believe evolution. As you are no doubt aware, Evolution does not concern itself with the mechanism that created life only the path life takes through natural selection. Yes the theory assumes that life is not infinite, and had a beginning, but that's it, the end of evolution's concern in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYes, scientists have also made amino acids, a certain type of RNA using models of the real stuff and a few other basic building blocks of life. It's very amazing what they can do. I think we will see more in the not to distant future. I now of a few other microbes developed in the lab. Some times the use viral material as virus is so efficient at replicating itself. I get a little nervous sometimes when they play around with this stuff. They could bring about some type of microbe that will kill us all, or turn us into flesh eating Zombies. Anyway it is interesting. I read a couple books on the subject. Science isn't my favorite topic to read about but I found it quite interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepYes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinationsQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.
This thread was originally about belief in God, and yes I do believe in God but I find evolution to be an interesting topic. I don't use it as a basis to prove or not the existence of God.
No I didn't. The fossil records were my basis. I don't know, do you think I am looking for an argument. I though we were having a discussion but now you take my words out of context and pose them as I got you. No need for that my good man. My last post was actually wrapping up the discussion and expressing that I thought our discussion was interesting. If there is something you still need to get out feel free. My statement life has only been found to come from life is true.
Honestly, I'm bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Maybe that's a good thingQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepHonestly, I'm bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
That's why I come here nowadays, I get bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMaybe that's a good thingQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepHonestly, I'm bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I have that problem myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThat's why I come here nowadays, I get bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusMaybe that's a good thingQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepHonestly, I'm bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I'm not sure I understand this. Science is a result of life whether we were around or not and could very well be the basis for it. Science would have been there regardless of someone being there to discover it. For example the laws of gravity existed before Newton wrote them down. The question I guess now is who the cook was for all of this. A designer modeled after the God religions describe or random chance. Both are as unlikely as the other imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Something cannot have happened and then be said not to be a fact. If you fell down, you fell down. I think its pretty clear that evolution was and is a fact and its happening around us today from plants and insects to birds, animals etc. Life for the most part finds a way. Polar bears are moving south as the ice melts and Grizzly bears are moving north. There has already been documented offspring. So in effect a new species is at its beginning stages and right in front of our eyes. Life finds a way. That is until our enlightened species came along. Anything even near as successful if you want to call it that as us went extinct and we have been on the fast track behind them since the industrial revolution. To bad we haven't evolved. When we are gone and if theirs anything left after our raping and pillaging life will go merrily along without us and evolve. I mean lets be honest, this planet would be much better off w/o us. Our extinction will be more proof of evolution in many ways but nobody will be around to document it. The human epitaph will read, "thanks for the blink in time and good riddance" signed thee earth.
From nothing, nothing derives does not disprove evolution anymore then it proves a Christian God. Evolution is a result of life. W/o it there is no evolution. Evolution does not prove origin. For all anyone here knows, evolution could be part of the design, plan, whatever. I noticed Aliens were mentioned. Perhaps they are the Gods and they injected us with a conscience for some grand experiment. Ending up as somebody's oil change and that's it is not a pleasant contemplation.;D
Again I have no problem with the possibility that something intelligent could be behind all of this. If something like that exists then it follows that it would have to be way beyond my comprehension in complexity. I certainly would not attempt to describe such a force using the shifting foundations of human emotion. No way does something that weak create all of this.
I was speaking only on the origins of life, not life itself. Does that make sense, I babbled on so much in this thread I think brain matter leaked out of my ear
I have no idea where anyone got the idea that if evolution is proven, it dismisses creation,I have no idea who came up with the idea that if a creator is proven it dispels evolution?
I suspect a religion has fucked us over once again drawing up the wrong lines.
These are material things- evolution, it hasnt anything to do with the spirit of things.
We are talking 3d-4d evolution, the rest to me is above that realm by a long way.
Why would something of a higher frequency and light speed be bothered controlling material things? Where if it exists the proof is that it has allowed life to form here in this solid dimension and it lets us go like plants. We have deformed ourselves in some cultures dna through many means and we have bettered ourselves in others.
Religion is stupid thinking God has all the controls. If it wasnt for mankind being allowed his natural course, medicine and doctors through science etc, most of us wouldn't be here I would have died at birth if it wasn't for man and his evolving way.Right or wrong thats whats happening here.
Yet I still believe in the one God and not religions rules, especially the more controlling ones and the ones that hold women down.
A walrus with brain matter leaking out of an ear, the down side of clubbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I love it when Killer comes on and flexes that big geek brain of his.
Well, it's a big head, but it hasn't proven anything more than that Walrus is stupid. It didn't take much, but you are mightily impressed! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
We are the weakness, we are co creators in this and in reality we even choose to kill and eat others,life at others expense etc, aside from all the other horrors we allow to exist here.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI'm not sure I understand this. Science is a result of life whether we were around or not and could very well be the basis for it. Science would have been there regardless of someone being there to discover it. For example the laws of gravity existed before Newton wrote them down. The question I guess now is who the cook was for all of this. A designer modeled after the God religions describe or random chance. Both are as unlikely as the other imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Something cannot have happened and then be said not to be a fact. If you fell down, you fell down. I think its pretty clear that evolution was and is a fact and its happening around us today from plants and insects to birds, animals etc. Life for the most part finds a way. Polar bears are moving south as the ice melts and Grizzly bears are moving north. There has already been documented offspring. So in effect a new species is at its beginning stages and right in front of our eyes. Life finds a way. That is until our enlightened species came along. Anything even near as successful if you want to call it that as us went extinct and we have been on the fast track behind them since the industrial revolution. To bad we haven't evolved. When we are gone and if theirs anything left after our raping and pillaging life will go merrily along without us and evolve. I mean lets be honest, this planet would be much better off w/o us. Our extinction will be more proof of evolution in many ways but nobody will be around to document it. The human epitaph will read, "thanks for the blink in time and good riddance" signed thee earth.
From nothing, nothing derives does not disprove evolution anymore then it proves a Christian God. Evolution is a result of life. W/o it there is no evolution. Evolution does not prove origin. For all anyone here knows, evolution could be part of the design, plan, whatever. I noticed Aliens were mentioned. Perhaps they are the Gods and they injected us with a conscience for some grand experiment. Ending up as somebody's oil change and that's it is not a pleasant contemplation.;D
Again I have no problem with the possibility that something intelligent could be behind all of this. If something like that exists then it follows that it would have to be way beyond my comprehension in complexity. I certainly would not attempt to describe such a force using the shifting foundations of human emotion. No way does something that weak create all of this.
Our choices are still free. People prove the reverse is possible all the time,they are not the victums of circumstance although some believe they were.
Logically the higher conscious state wouldnt get involved in those lower levels evolving that way (in that evil direction).
This 'all controlling God' is the false image, their own books warned them not to worship.
People can be born angry, sometimes starting by blaming their parents with that old cop out "Well I didnt ask to be born"bull shit".
Some take that feeling to the higher level again as they mature their core belief doesn't; as we see people blame God for creating the whole thing; you know 'Killing in the name of' Some of those who work forces are the same who wear crosses.
Thats why some fruit cakes march off to fight others ,judge others wrongly even murder prostitutes because they think God is on their side in it and really they just killed themselves and stole someone elses time from them.
That crap of an all controlling God is what man teaches by false claims that you or your past relatives didnt have any choice in your own dna or your evolution. It keeps their followers victims of circumstance which isnt wholly true.
We chose which way to face and go and we still have the choice which way to face and go.
Sometimes a rose grows out of a crack in a rock.
Evolution can really only disagree with the creation part in literal regards to genesis. If someone believes in a literal interpretation, then there is a very big problem from the Creationist side. Now if someone believes that genesis is simply metaphor, then there isn't really an issue. Of course if it is Intelligent Design/Creationism Philosophy (legally not a science and legally one and the same) in the strictest sense yes there is a place for a creator in the origins of life on earth, the other offshoots such as young earthers (those that believe the earth is only 10K years old, or even younger than that) and that believe Dinosaurs lived beside man etc. They have even more problems with evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
The big issue here is that both sides have huge stakes in being right.
Are you twelve years old, you sure sound like it. I think your students looking up to you is going to your head. Both you and they need the shit slapped out of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfWell, it's a big head, but it hasn't proven anything more than that Walrus is stupid. It didn't take much, but you are mightily impressed! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Yeah, genesis as in origin and maybe also Genesis as in the first scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepEvolution can really only disagree with the creation part in literal regards to genesis. If someone believes in a literal interpretation, then there is a very big problem from the Creationist side. Now if someone believes that genesis is simply metaphor, then there isn't really an issue. Of course if it is Intelligent Design/Creationism Philosophy (legally not a science and legally one and the same) in the strictest sense yes there is a place for a creator in the origins of life on earth, the other offshoots such as young earthers (those that believe the earth is only 10K years old, or even younger than that) and that believe Dinosaurs lived beside man etc. They have even more problems with evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
The big issue here is that both sides have huge stakes in being right.
In the beginning there was God- Lets say inter dimensional Conscious dark matter and God said 'sound vibration' let there be light. (which everything is in the material world- Its now proven we and everything are strings of electric light energy vibrating).
So love and light separated;would of been a big bang in descending energy that from within the material itself would appear to be the complete reverse;it would appear from within as expanding.
We are still only talking about in this one dimension,people who talk up God like they know and evolution like they know all seem to forget this dimension is the smallest part of the smallest off shoot of everything. Yet we have the audacity to judge and claim from within this smallest of material areas with eyes ears and material senses that can't see 99% of the whole.
For me, I am limited to my senses. I agree there is much that we don't understand yet, and probably even more that we can't comprehend due to our limitations. However I also believe very heavily that predictive models offer us the most value. Furthermore I cannot argue noumenon, it is not falsifiable (there is no argument to be made). I don't claim to know all, I simply claim that evolution is a model that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYeah, genesis as in origin and maybe also Genesis as in the first scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepEvolution can really only disagree with the creation part in literal regards to genesis. If someone believes in a literal interpretation, then there is a very big problem from the Creationist side. Now if someone believes that genesis is simply metaphor, then there isn't really an issue. Of course if it is Intelligent Design/Creationism Philosophy (legally not a science and legally one and the same) in the strictest sense yes there is a place for a creator in the origins of life on earth, the other offshoots such as young earthers (those that believe the earth is only 10K years old, or even younger than that) and that believe Dinosaurs lived beside man etc. They have even more problems with evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
The big issue here is that both sides have huge stakes in being right.
In the beginning there was God- Lets say inter dimensional Conscious dark matter and God said 'sound vibration' let there be light. (which everything is in the material world- Its now proven we and everything are strings of electric light energy vibrating).
So love and light separated;would of been a big bang in descending energy that from within the material itself would appear to be the complete reverse;it would appear from within as expanding.
We are still only talking about in this one dimension,people who talk up God like they know and evolution like they know all seem to forget this dimension is the smallest part of the smallest off shoot of everything. Yet we have the audacity to judge and claim from within this smallest of material areas with eyes ears and material senses that can't see 99% of the whole.
I would suggest reading Gandalfs post and the opposite of what he says is the correct choice.
As I have maintained in every thread on the topic, I simply cannot consider any kind of creator regardless of what its name is that is a reflection of us. This same God that rewards and punishes the imperfection it created wont intervene when a Tsunami is about to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people living in grass shacks. This omnipotent being sits and watches while millions of people who had nothing to begin with starve to death. A god that ignores those who he sent his son for. A god that snapped its fingers and created this planet and everything on it in mere days. Oh I know, its all part of a divine plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreWe are the weakness, we are co creators in this and in reality we even choose to kill and eat others,life at others expense etc, aside from all the other horrors we allow to exist here.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI'm not sure I understand this. Science is a result of life whether we were around or not and could very well be the basis for it. Science would have been there regardless of someone being there to discover it. For example the laws of gravity existed before Newton wrote them down. The question I guess now is who the cook was for all of this. A designer modeled after the God religions describe or random chance. Both are as unlikely as the other imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Something cannot have happened and then be said not to be a fact. If you fell down, you fell down. I think its pretty clear that evolution was and is a fact and its happening around us today from plants and insects to birds, animals etc. Life for the most part finds a way. Polar bears are moving south as the ice melts and Grizzly bears are moving north. There has already been documented offspring. So in effect a new species is at its beginning stages and right in front of our eyes. Life finds a way. That is until our enlightened species came along. Anything even near as successful if you want to call it that as us went extinct and we have been on the fast track behind them since the industrial revolution. To bad we haven't evolved. When we are gone and if theirs anything left after our raping and pillaging life will go merrily along without us and evolve. I mean lets be honest, this planet would be much better off w/o us. Our extinction will be more proof of evolution in many ways but nobody will be around to document it. The human epitaph will read, "thanks for the blink in time and good riddance" signed thee earth.
From nothing, nothing derives does not disprove evolution anymore then it proves a Christian God. Evolution is a result of life. W/o it there is no evolution. Evolution does not prove origin. For all anyone here knows, evolution could be part of the design, plan, whatever. I noticed Aliens were mentioned. Perhaps they are the Gods and they injected us with a conscience for some grand experiment. Ending up as somebody's oil change and that's it is not a pleasant contemplation.;D
Again I have no problem with the possibility that something intelligent could be behind all of this. If something like that exists then it follows that it would have to be way beyond my comprehension in complexity. I certainly would not attempt to describe such a force using the shifting foundations of human emotion. No way does something that weak create all of this.
Our choices are still free. People prove the reverse is possible all the time,they are not the victums of circumstance although some believe they were.
Logically the higher conscious state wouldnt get involved in those lower levels evolving that way (in that evil direction).
This 'all controlling God' is the false image, their own books warned them not to worship.
People can be born angry, sometimes starting by blaming their parents with that old cop out "Well I didnt ask to be born"bull shit".
Some take that feeling to the higher level again as they mature their core belief doesn't; as we see people blame God for creating the whole thing; you know 'Killing in the name of' Some of those who work forces are the same who wear crosses.
Thats why some fruit cakes march off to fight others ,judge others wrongly even murder prostitutes because they think God is on their side in it and really they just killed themselves and stole someone elses time from them.
That crap of an all controlling God is what man teaches by false claims that you or your past relatives didnt have any choice in your own dna or your evolution. It keeps their followers victims of circumstance which isnt wholly true.
We chose which way to face and go and we still have the choice which way to face and go.
Sometimes a rose grows out of a crack in a rock.
That to me is exactly the explanation of the false image of God worshiped world wide.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitAs I have maintained in every thread on the topic, I simply cannot consider any kind of creator regardless of what its name is that is a reflection of us. This same God that rewards and punishes the imperfection it created wont intervene when a Tsunami is about to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people living in grass shacks. This omnipotent being sits and watches while millions of people who had nothing to begin with starve to death. A god that ignores those who he sent his son for. A god that snapped its fingers and created this planet and everything on it in mere days. Oh I know, its all part of a divine plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreWe are the weakness, we are co creators in this and in reality we even choose to kill and eat others,life at others expense etc, aside from all the other horrors we allow to exist here.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI'm not sure I understand this. Science is a result of life whether we were around or not and could very well be the basis for it. Science would have been there regardless of someone being there to discover it. For example the laws of gravity existed before Newton wrote them down. The question I guess now is who the cook was for all of this. A designer modeled after the God religions describe or random chance. Both are as unlikely as the other imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Something cannot have happened and then be said not to be a fact. If you fell down, you fell down. I think its pretty clear that evolution was and is a fact and its happening around us today from plants and insects to birds, animals etc. Life for the most part finds a way. Polar bears are moving south as the ice melts and Grizzly bears are moving north. There has already been documented offspring. So in effect a new species is at its beginning stages and right in front of our eyes. Life finds a way. That is until our enlightened species came along. Anything even near as successful if you want to call it that as us went extinct and we have been on the fast track behind them since the industrial revolution. To bad we haven't evolved. When we are gone and if theirs anything left after our raping and pillaging life will go merrily along without us and evolve. I mean lets be honest, this planet would be much better off w/o us. Our extinction will be more proof of evolution in many ways but nobody will be around to document it. The human epitaph will read, "thanks for the blink in time and good riddance" signed thee earth.
From nothing, nothing derives does not disprove evolution anymore then it proves a Christian God. Evolution is a result of life. W/o it there is no evolution. Evolution does not prove origin. For all anyone here knows, evolution could be part of the design, plan, whatever. I noticed Aliens were mentioned. Perhaps they are the Gods and they injected us with a conscience for some grand experiment. Ending up as somebody's oil change and that's it is not a pleasant contemplation.;D
Again I have no problem with the possibility that something intelligent could be behind all of this. If something like that exists then it follows that it would have to be way beyond my comprehension in complexity. I certainly would not attempt to describe such a force using the shifting foundations of human emotion. No way does something that weak create all of this.
Our choices are still free. People prove the reverse is possible all the time,they are not the victums of circumstance although some believe they were.
Logically the higher conscious state wouldnt get involved in those lower levels evolving that way (in that evil direction).
This 'all controlling God' is the false image, their own books warned them not to worship.
People can be born angry, sometimes starting by blaming their parents with that old cop out "Well I didnt ask to be born"bull shit".
Some take that feeling to the higher level again as they mature their core belief doesn't; as we see people blame God for creating the whole thing; you know 'Killing in the name of' Some of those who work forces are the same who wear crosses.
Thats why some fruit cakes march off to fight others ,judge others wrongly even murder prostitutes because they think God is on their side in it and really they just killed themselves and stole someone elses time from them.
That crap of an all controlling God is what man teaches by false claims that you or your past relatives didnt have any choice in your own dna or your evolution. It keeps their followers victims of circumstance which isnt wholly true.
We chose which way to face and go and we still have the choice which way to face and go.
Sometimes a rose grows out of a crack in a rock.
The thing is this; those thoughts go along perfectly with the bought and sold invented God of jealousy and vengeance. Put yourself in the same position except think of it from a loving Gods perspective instead.
If your children were determined to go it all alone in the reverse direction to your suggestion (into material); would you stop them physically would you lock the door? Or would you give them warnings of the traps that await them in the direction they chose to head and give them all they require to survive or fail and an open door each way forever?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Is it because I tell you what a tiny sliver of hope it is that you are holding onto, something that appears to be complete delusion. Does that offend you in some way, does it upset your ordered mind that I think all of your convictions are most likely to be false ones? I argue my points on this logically, whilst you rely on a book written by Jewish men in primitive times. I on the other hand swim in the ocean of knowledge granted by the diligence and effort of scientists.
The opposite of what I say is not the correct choice. You fear and loathe my views because I threaten you and your orthodoxy. Doctrine is as easily ripped apart as a paper sky. Religion is the last refuse for those who cannot maintain an adult discussion on life and the universe.