Question for the biblical religious

[pacfan]

Here's another one.

Warning folks, this is PG18!

Did you notice that in almost all cultures, even the tribal ones, past or present, sex is treated as something to be ashamed of. Why do humans seem to be naturally ashamed of sex and towards opposite sex. Why does topic of sex seems to bring about natural discomfort and brings out blushings. Maybe many western people may have overcome a bit of it but believe me, even in your culture, during the times of your grandpas or great grandpas, they were taboos. Isn't that against the principle of survivor of the fittest? Isn't it better that the more a person is shameless or uninhibited about sex the better so he can just go on multiplying and multiplying to continue his progeny. You're probably aware that raw nature loves orgies - just watch the animals. But why have humans developed this natural inhibitions towards sex. This is totally incomprehensible if you see it in relation to the theory of evolution because it messes up the whole concept of survivor of the fittest. But why?

And why did humans start to cover themselves? The answer my friends I believe is that when humans were created or evolved (whichever you believe, it doesn't matter) with a higher mind, and started to have consciousness and thoughts, they were given conscience. But again what or who gave it to them? That is the question. I believe when humans were endowed with the power to think, with it came an enormous responsibility and so from somewhere, they were given the sense of morals or code of responsible conduct to live by. Of course, the early humans were not perfect so they were more beasts than higher beings. But gradually, we developed into more responsible creatures because the sense of morals or morality naturally pushed us to be more responsible beings little by little. And it is obvious that human society will eventually be a totally peaceful society because that's where we are naturally heading towards, guided by our sense of morals - the very place where God wanted us to be.

And what a conincidence, didn't Adam and Eve get the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit? The bible says that 'their eyes were opened, and suddenly they felt shame at their nakedness.' 'So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.' No it's not coincidence. I think when human were created or evolved, he was given by no less than God that sense of morals - the knowledge of good and evil! So the bible was right after all. But I think bible should not be interpreted literally because I think it was passed by God through imperfect channels, the old prophets who received those message through symbolism. I believe bible should be interpreted correctly as it comes with full of symbolism, like the story of Adam and Eve, and highly symbolic serpent and the apple - the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually I have it all figured out, and I was planning to put out all my knowledge in my blogs... but something tells me that it is not the proper time nor proper place to reveal all my knowledge of the secrets of this world. So I have to conclude my discussion here. You guys might have been listening here to the greatest prophet of this century, perhaps only second to Andre. Let me conclude by saying that we humans are endowed with great, nay superb, mind because it is channel between God's infinite grace and us. All we need to do is to develop and open this channel fully so we can be the ultimate beings that God has planned for us from the beginning. As I've said, if there were evolution, it is clear the our evolution was guided by God in a way to reach this perfection - not by some haphazard trial and error method as theorized in the theory of evolution. I believe that when we learned to think, we reached the top of our evolution process because we learned to manipulate and master the evolution system itself, through birth controls methods, medical science which allows the unsurvivables to survive and pass their genes to their progenies, and genetic engineering. It is up to us, and not the nature this time, to develop ourselves into a perfect being so that we can tap the infinite grace of the the Highest Universal Mind. The ball is in our hands, as the job of nature has been finished. I believe we are naturally heading towards that direction because there is no other place to go. So everyone cheer up, there is something beyond in this world afterall, something we can all look up to.

- pacfan, the prophet

[brucelee]

Here's another one.

Warning folks, this is PG18!

Did you notice that in almost all cultures, even the tribal ones, past or present, sex is treated as something to be ashamed of. Why do humans seem to be naturally ashamed of sex and towards opposite sex. Why does topic of sex seems to bring about natural discomfort and brings out blushings. Maybe many western people may have overcome a bit of it but believe me, even in your culture, during the times of your grandpas or great grandpas, they were taboos. Isn't that against the principle of survivor of the fittest? Isn't it better that the more a person is shameless or uninhibited about sex the better so he can just go on multiplying and multiplying to continue his progeny. You're probably aware that raw nature loves orgies - just watch the animals. But why have humans developed this natural inhibitions towards sex. This is totally incomprehensible if you see it in relation to the theory of evolution because it messes up the whole concept of survivor of the fittest. But why?

And why did humans start to cover themselves? The answer my friends I believe is that when humans were created or evolved (whichever you believe, it doesn't matter) with a higher mind, and started to have consciousness and thoughts, they were given conscience. But again what or who gave it to them? That is the question. I believe when humans were endowed with the power to think, with it came an enormous responsibility and so from somewhere, they were given the sense of morals or code of responsible conduct to live by. Of course, the early humans were not perfect so they were more beasts than higher beings. But gradually, we developed into more responsible creatures because the sense of morals or morality naturally pushed us to be more responsible beings little by little. And it is obvious that human society will eventually be a totally peaceful society because that's where we are naturally heading towards, guided by our sense of morals - the very place where God wanted us to be.

And what a conincidence, didn't Adam and Eve get the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit? No it's not coincidence. I think when human were created or evolved, he was given by no less than God that sense of morals - the knowledge of good and evil! So the bible was right after all. But I think bible should not be interpreted literally because I think it was passed by God through imperfect channels, the old prophets who received those message through symbolism. I believe bible should be interpreted correctly as it comes with full of symbolism, like the story of Adam and Eve, and highly symbolic serpent and the apple - the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually I have it all figured out, and I was planning to put out all my knowledge in my blogs... but something tells me that it is not the proper time nor proper place to reveal all my knowledge of the secrets of this world. So I have to conclude my discussion here. You guys might have been listening here to the greatest prophet of this century, perhaps only second to Andre. Let me conclude by saying that we humans are endowed with great, nay superb, mind because it is channel between God's infinite grace and us. All we need to do is to develop and open this channel fully so we can be the ultimate beings that God has planned for us from the beginning. As I've said, if there were evolution, it is clear the our evolution was guided by God in a way to reach this perfection - not by some haphazard trial and error method as theorized in the theory of evolution. I believe that when we learned to think, we reached the top of our evolution process because we learned to manipulate and master the evolution system itself, through birth controls methods, medical science which allows the unsurvivables to survive and pass their genes, and genetic engineering. It is up to us, and not the nature this time, to develop ourselves into a perfect being so that we can tap the infinite grace of the the Highest Universal Mind. The ball is in our hands, as the job of nature has been finished. I believe we are naturally heading towards that direction because there is no other place to go. So everyone cheer up, there is something beyond in this world afterall, something we can all look up to.

- pacfan, the prophet

I could give you 1 million reps for this post pacfan. Except for the "pacfan the prophet" thing, you have some sense.


Here's some reps to start it rolling.

[luvfightgame]

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

There's no need for any mechanism to be in place for life to evolve.

Nothing had to evolve at the same time. Humans didn't just crawl out of the sea and start killing animals to eat. Life began as single-celled organisms which ingested nutrients through their skins like endless single-celled organisms do today. And they reproduced asexually, like Lyle. The various species on the earth today all evolved over billions of years. Nothing happened quickly.

Species are constantly evolving, not devolving. When hominids first appeared on the earth if you were anywhere near four feet tall you could have played in the prehistoric NBA. Today we're much bigger. Various species over the billions of years of life on earth have been various sizes as they've evolved to live in their environments. You can trace the evolution of the horse from the tiny Eohippus to its current size.


We have plenty of transitional species in the fossil record, most famously Archaeopteryx which has bird and dinosaur features. Since Darwin started studying evolution the Hawthorn fly has developed a separate group that doesn't feed on hawthorn but apples instead. Human infections and diseases are constantly evolving to live with the antibiotics we use to treat them to the extent we're now having to develop totally new antibiotics. Pests like the boll weevil have evolved to become resistant to pesticides we used to use to kill them.

Sorry but there does have to be a mechanism in place. Single celled organisms aren't SIMPLE forms of life. They are still extremely complicated and if they ingest nutrients through their skin, that system had to be in place or they would not survive. The nutrient had to be there, and the method for ingesting and using the nutrient, in addition to the miraculous appearance of life from non living things. The life from non living is hard enough, but the systems to sustain that life also being present and in usable form is beyond coincidence.

Think of a car. If it managed to assemble itself, now it needs gas to operate and the gas came from oil which had to be drilled out of the ground and pumped and refined before it could even be used for fuel. Nutrients are the same way. The food sources had to be present and usable before anything could have evolved.

There are no transitional species. The bird/dinosaur is the only candidate. It's a bird and some people say it's part lizard. Anyway you are mixing micro evolution with macro. There are adaptations within a species. There are not changes from one species to another. The evidence for the adaptations is stretched into proving that because a bird can get a longer beak in a few generations, it can become something entirely different over enough generations. It isn't possible and scientifically it's unproven. However, it's taught as if it's fact. Scientists once taught the world was flat in much the same way. Science has a poor track record and evolution will surely be another blemish on that record.

[pacfan]

I could give you 1 million reps for this post pacfan. Except for the "pacfan the prophet" thing, you have some sense.


Here's some reps to start it rolling.

I'll be happy with about tenth of that.



I've edited that post by adding the following texts (on the part of Adam and Eve): The bible says that 'their eyes were opened, and suddenly they felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.'

[CFH]

I just wanted to post quickly to commend you guy for presenting your differing views without resorting to the type of childish bickering that usually permeates this kind of thread. These type of theads, in my experience, usually descend rapidly to that sort of thing, but you guys have managed to have an excellent debate on the subject.
As someone who sits on the fence in regards to the issue of God/higher power etc. I find this to be a very interesting discussion. Rep has been spread.

[Kirkland Laing]

Sorry but there does have to be a mechanism in place. Single celled organisms aren't SIMPLE forms of life. They are still extremely complicated and if they ingest nutrients through their skin, that system had to be in place or they would not survive. The nutrient had to be there, and the method for ingesting and using the nutrient, in addition to the miraculous appearance of life from non living things. The life from non living is hard enough, but the systems to sustain that life also being present and in usable form is beyond coincidence.

Think of a car. If it managed to assemble itself, now it needs gas to operate and the gas came from oil which had to be drilled out of the ground and pumped and refined before it could even be used for fuel. Nutrients are the same way. The food sources had to be present and usable before anything could have evolved.

There are no transitional species. The bird/dinosaur is the only candidate. It's a bird and some people say it's part lizard. Anyway you are mixing micro evolution with macro. There are adaptations within a species. There are not changes from one species to another. The evidence for the adaptations is stretched into proving that because a bird can get a longer beak in a few generations, it can become something entirely different over enough generations. It isn't possible and scientifically it's unproven. However, it's taught as if it's fact. Scientists once taught the world was flat in much the same way. Science has a poor track record and evolution will surely be another blemish on that record.

There doesn't need to have been any mechanism in place before any specific mechanism for anything evolved. Even single-celled organisms spent billions of years evolving.

There are plenty of transitional species, an entire flock of bird/dinosaur examples. If you spend a little time studying the basic outlines of evolutionary theory -- you could spend an entire academic career studying evolution and still not cover everything -- you'll see this.

You're starting to get a basic grasp of the outlines of evolutionary theory but you're still making ridiculous arguments -- scientists never taught that the earth was flat for instance, in fact there was a rather long argument between scientists and the church over basic things like the shape of the earth and whether the earth orbited the sun or vice versa. And I'm not confusing anything, you just don't understand evolutionary theory.

You're taking at face value a bunch of discredited arguments from creationists, a bunch of religious extrmists who insist in the face of all evidence that evolution is nonsense. These people are only found in America and only because they believe as a matter of faith that god formed the earth 3000 years ago so they need to discredit any science that proves their beliefs to be rubbish. The entire rest of the world has accepted evolutionary theory, like they have gravitational theory, electro-magnetic theory, etc.

[El Kabong]

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

[Kirkland Laing]

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

Science does tell us to question everything. You can question specific viewpoints and data regarding any scientific subject but this doesn't automatically mean that "science" is questionable. Really Lyle, it's not like you to make a third-grade argument.

[El Kabong]

Hey brother even evolution is a THEORY and what's a theory

Webster's Dictionary defines a theory as:


1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :

[Kirkland Laing]

So are gravity and electromagnetic theory. That's because, although there's endless evidence to show that our observations and calculations of gravity and electricity are correct, it may be, for instance, that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly insert themselves in the gravitational/electrical process. Because we can't rule out every possible alternative then gravity and electricity have to remain theories, like evolution.

Lyle, you could spend your entire life studying stuff we already discovered about evolution and still only scratch the surface of our current knowledge. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. Only in parts of America is it even questioned.

[brucelee]

It still awaits explination "How do you get something from nothing?"


And doesn't science tell us to question everything so by that rational you have to question science itself along with other things like religion or else you just end up with a different form of religion and one that doesn't provide ANY moral values or guidelines.


So when I question this "Man Made Global Warming" I'm doing the right thing....blindly accepting that is no different than blindly accepting any form of religion. Sure you have some stuff that says there MAY BE man made global warming but it's never 100% positive, there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a loophole and an acception to what any study finds

Science does tell us to question everything. You can question specific viewpoints and data regarding any scientific subject but this doesn't automatically mean that "science" is questionable. Really Lyle, it's not like you to make a third-grade argument.

Like I said, the issue on the existence of God will be fully realized by the test of time. For the mean time, I will choose to believe in God rather than on scientific discussions/discoveries/theories which are in themselves still doubtful of validity.

Unless science can fully and exactly explain the order of things on this earth, I am of the conviction that there really is God who manages the complexities of this world.

[:::PSL:::]

John 18:37

"...for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

[El Kabong]

So are gravity and electromagnetic theory. That's because, although there's endless evidence to show that our observations and calculations of gravity and electricity are correct, it may be, for instance, that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly insert themselves in the gravitational/electrical process. Because we can't rule out every possible alternative then gravity and electricity have to remain theories, like evolution.

Lyle, you could spend your entire life studying stuff we already discovered about evolution and still only scratch the surface of our current knowledge. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. Only in parts of America is it even questioned.

Hey Newton has a LAW for gravity....a THEORY is a THEORY might I remind you that there used to be a lot of theories which are now obsolete.

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So today's FACT is tomorrow's FICTION in a lot of cases...I'm not saying everything is wrong in science, I am just saying I like to question things

[Kirkland Laing]

You can have laws within theories Lyle.

History of gravitational theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly, a guy at MIT has just rewritten part of the quantum field theory. But the whole thing is still only theoretical.

[El Kabong]

Well there you go, you just proved a point for me