User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:38:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It depends. Was it said as rhetorical question or an actual question? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
KaiK
I stated above. Through sexual reproduction. It was anarchy in a clock work universe. So by inserting your own definitions and interpretations of things you are able to prove or disprove things. Sounds a lot like how progressives try and change the definition of racism so that it excludes racism against whites and allows them to hijack the connotation associated with the word. Also the whole discussion you're having regarding faith and such seems to rely on obfuscation and such. It reminds me of my friend who would keep arguing with me about definitions and such by stating that basically nothing can have a real definition because everything is up to people's interpretations, which makes having any real discussion impossible. Pretty much. We as humans define things. That's what we do. That's why in math 1+1=2 it's a basic definition. But there are different kinds of math with different definitions. The other side of nature's crystalline coin. http://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-MathematicsHuman800px.jpg (IMO he is not agreeing with you) It depends. Was it said as rhetorical question or an actual question? "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside illusions? ...I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical constructions, those concepts and those lawful connections between them which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they must certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience, of course, remains the sole criterion of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. —Einstein, Albert Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 274." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:39:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And science unlike faith is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. Provide evidence that evolution did not occur and evolution will be tossed away like an empty beer can. That is how it works. The thing is no evidence exists and never will, the evidence of evolution is staggering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can have all the evidence you want and still be wrong. And evidence is still a better path than feelings. And science unlike faith is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. Provide evidence that evolution did not occur and evolution will be tossed away like an empty beer can. That is how it works. The thing is no evidence exists and never will, the evidence of evolution is staggering. Tell that to the global warming people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:45:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside illusions? ...I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical constructions, those concepts and those lawful connections between them which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they must certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience, of course, remains the sole criterion of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. —Einstein, Albert Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 274." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:45:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And evidence is still a better path than feelings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can have all the evidence you want and still be wrong. And evidence is still a better path than feelings. Signs point to yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:47:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside illusions? ...I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical constructions, those concepts and those lawful connections between them which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they must certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience, of course, remains the sole criterion of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. —Einstein, Albert Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 274." Now that's some sweet philosophy right there. And no one knew the song I was singing this time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 9:54:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't realize people still listened to Rush. I listen to Rush on a daily basis; obviously, the joke flew by you; any lower and it'd took your head clean off. 
Go easy on me, Snow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:00:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside illusions? ...I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical constructions, those concepts and those lawful connections between them which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they must certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience, of course, remains the sole criterion of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. —Einstein, Albert Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 274."  http://youtu.be/dEIQSbul9Os
Ouch! I may need to check that movie out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:01:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And no one knew the song I was singing this time. It is certain |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:11:45 PM EDT
[#9]
In a strange coincidence I turned on ST TNG and this episode just happen to play.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Elementary,_Dear_Data_(episode) Now my mind is blown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:18:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other possibilities.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can have all the evidence you want and still be wrong. And evidence is still a better path than feelings. Never said it wasn't.  ..... What in the actual fucking fuck are you going on about, then?? Other possibilities. I need to drink more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:32:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do people care so much about evolution? I've never understood why a meaningless topic like evolution gets so much attention on this site. I've listened to Rush for years and it's obvious he was trolling the people with no sense of humor And yet no one has been able to explain exactly how this was trolling, or humor. Hell, there was a link to Rush's website posted with his own explanation for what he said. And even he can't come up with an explanation as to how this isn't just a stupid thing to say. So I'm forced to conclude that it's simply one of those things, like how a monkey turns into a person, that can't be explained. You just have to take it on faith that Rush is saying something smart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:35:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He clarified his statements on his show the following day. He clarified that he was mocking belief in evolution. As to how that translates in to what may have been on one end or the other of whatever sarcasm there may or may not have been, or may be in the future, or is in the present, I don't know because the mental gymnastics to shape his comments into some wisdom worthy of red letter has got me all dizzy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I made it to page 3 and it seemed like it was going in a circle. Has anyone explained what Rush meant if it went over our heads? Was he mocking creationists? Because if this was sarcasm I don't see any other possibility. If it wasn't sarcasm, he's an idiot. He clarified his statements on his show the following day. He clarified that he was mocking belief in evolution. As to how that translates in to what may have been on one end or the other of whatever sarcasm there may or may not have been, or may be in the future, or is in the present, I don't know because the mental gymnastics to shape his comments into some wisdom worthy of red letter has got me all dizzy. yeah i listened to the follow up the next day.... rush said "they" didn't understand that he was ridiculing their silly belief in evolution. it was kind of a derp moment. unless you believe the book of genesis happened literally. in that case rush was so clever it went right over "their" heads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:42:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not all that much. Only that the science could be wrong and we shouldn't lock ourselves in on one theory and take it as truth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, and you could still be wrong. And that's where the faith part comes in. Still not following your point.... My point is we don't have all the answers and anyone who tells you he does is either a fool or lying. Okay. What does that have to do with evolution? Or science in general at all? Not all that much. Only that the science could be wrong and we shouldn't lock ourselves in on one theory and take it as truth. 
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:50:41 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 10:59:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. My sources say no |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:08:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My sources say no Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. My sources say no I would also go out on a limb and say professional chess players are not the most well adjusted people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:10:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:17:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Yes. I am an engineer. At this point you're throwing your food at the dinner table. Please go sit at the kid's table. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:19:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would also go out on a limb and say professional chess players are not the most well adjusted people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. My sources say no I would also go out on a limb and say professional chess players are not the most well adjusted people. As I see it, yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:20:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer? No. It's just an observation about engineers and scientists. I can't back it up with proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:22:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. I am an engineer. At this point you're throwing your food at the dinner table. Please go sit at the kid's table. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Yes. I am an engineer. At this point you're throwing your food at the dinner table. Please go sit at the kid's table. Solid comeback, chap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:23:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer sophist? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer sophist? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:39:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Solid comeback, chap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Yes. I am an engineer. At this point you're throwing your food at the dinner table. Please go sit at the kid's table. Solid comeback, chap. Yes, everything "could be" wrong. But this is as plausible as "we're living in a simulation". It's nonsense. It's the weirdo shouting out random Tourette's exclamations while people are trying to talk. In the reality that we live in, within the bounds that we know, we have a record of how life evolved. The science in dispute is not whether or not it evolved, it's how some life forms are connected. There's certainly devil in the details, but you're in the "so open minded your brain falls out" territory. Quoted:
As I see it, yes Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:50:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? I'm glad you're moving closer to my way of seeing things. There is also the God aspect that it could be. Still plenty of questions to answer. The truth is we don't know. Maybe we will one day. Maybe he has it in his hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:51:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As I see it, yes Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? I was so baffled by this thread I made an Excel spreadsheet that randomly chooses one of the 20 answers; I pulled the answers from Wikipedia, or something. I just wanted to see how long I could go on as a Magic 8 Ball before someone figured it out. My luck ran out in responding to your post. "It is decidedly so" probably wouldn't have worked. Up until now, I just went with what I got when pressing F9, unless it had already been used, in which case I pressed F9 again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:57:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer sophist? It is a good way to get people to project their beliefs of what they think you are onto you. I could easily see their prejudice and beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:02:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was so baffled by this thread I made an Excel spreadsheet that randomly chooses one of the 20 answers; I pulled the answers from Wikipedia, or something. I just wanted to see how long I could go on as a Magic 8 Ball before someone figured it out. My luck ran out in responding to your post. "It is decidedly so" probably wouldn't have worked. Up until now, I just went with what I got when pressing F9, unless it had already been used, in which case I pressed F9 again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I see it, yes Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? I was so baffled by this thread I made an Excel spreadsheet that randomly chooses one of the 20 answers; I pulled the answers from Wikipedia, or something. I just wanted to see how long I could go on as a Magic 8 Ball before someone figured it out. My luck ran out in responding to your post. "It is decidedly so" probably wouldn't have worked. Up until now, I just went with what I got when pressing F9, unless it had already been used, in which case I pressed F9 again. Ha. I caught on at "It is decidedly so" Like it rang a bell and I had to think about it to remember why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:06:57 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a good way to get people to project their beliefs of what they think you are onto you. I could easily see their prejudice and beliefs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer sophist? It is a good way to get people to project their beliefs of what they think you are onto you. I could easily see their prejudice and beliefs. Ah, yes, that's it. You are a super genius like Limbaugh, one step ahead of all of the peons and their consistent definitions of words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:08:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha. I caught on at "It is decidedly so" Like it rang a bell and I had to think about it to remember why. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I see it, yes Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? I was so baffled by this thread I made an Excel spreadsheet that randomly chooses one of the 20 answers; I pulled the answers from Wikipedia, or something. I just wanted to see how long I could go on as a Magic 8 Ball before someone figured it out. My luck ran out in responding to your post. "It is decidedly so" probably wouldn't have worked. Up until now, I just went with what I got when pressing F9, unless it had already been used, in which case I pressed F9 again. Ha. I caught on at "It is decidedly so" Like it rang a bell and I had to think about it to remember why. This has motivated me to create The Magic Arf Ball. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:11:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha. I caught on at "It is decidedly so" Like it rang a bell and I had to think about it to remember why. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I see it, yes Did you have to google all these, or did you actually remember them? I was so baffled by this thread I made an Excel spreadsheet that randomly chooses one of the 20 answers; I pulled the answers from Wikipedia, or something. I just wanted to see how long I could go on as a Magic 8 Ball before someone figured it out. My luck ran out in responding to your post. "It is decidedly so" probably wouldn't have worked. Up until now, I just went with what I got when pressing F9, unless it had already been used, in which case I pressed F9 again. Ha. I caught on at "It is decidedly so" Like it rang a bell and I had to think about it to remember why. This is the power of the sub-conscience mind. I didn't catch it, but searched for a magic 8 ball and ended up on a site that generates them and posted this thread. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1874462_Ask_8_ball__Is_Aimless_really_a_penguin_.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:13:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Here's a great ongoing thread for a comparison of how people react to a statement based on perceived in group or out group status of the speaker.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1874456_Michelle_says_the_White_House_was_built_by_slaves.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:17:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a good way to get people to project their beliefs of what they think you are onto you. I could easily see their prejudice and beliefs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Is this your sneaky way of telling us that you are a scientist or engineer sophist? It is a good way to get people to project their beliefs of what they think you are onto you. I could easily see their prejudice and beliefs. "The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:18:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah, yes, that's it. You are a super genius like Limbaugh, one step ahead of all of the peons and their consistent definitions of words. It happened again. Someone projected their prejudice and beliefs on me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:22:08 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:45:17 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:49:35 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a great ongoing thread for a comparison of how people react to a statement based on perceived in group or out group status of the speaker. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1874456_Michelle_says_the_White_House_was_built_by_slaves.html She is a victim of her own doing. 7 1/2 years of consistently negative rhetoric of racial politics and victimization ... and add in a most unfortunate way to label a video clip, and the human mind fills in the rest. Much like how when reading the text of what Obama, Trump or Clinton said in a speech, it's in their voice as you read it. Playing that video clip was a poignant example of Piaget's theory of disequilibrium. One would expect something divisive based on the title of the video and past experience listening to the Obamas, whereas what followed was actually uplifting and inspirational. However, to say that Michelle Obama is some kind of masterful genius for employing Piaget in her speech is purely unfounded projection where no such credit is due. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 1:00:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She is a victim of her own doing. 7 1/2 years of consistently negative rhetoric of racial politics and victimization ... and add in a most unfortunate way to label a video clip, and the human mind fills in the rest. Much like how when reading the text of what Obama, Trump or Clinton said in a speech, it's in their voice as you read it. Playing that video clip was a poignant example of Piaget's theory of disequilibrium. One would expect something divisive based on the title of the video and past experience listening to the Obamas, whereas what followed was actually uplifting and inspirational. However, to say that Michelle Obama is some kind of masterful genius for employing Piaget in her speech is purely unfounded projection where no such credit is due. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's a great ongoing thread for a comparison of how people react to a statement based on perceived in group or out group status of the speaker. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1874456_Michelle_says_the_White_House_was_built_by_slaves.html She is a victim of her own doing. 7 1/2 years of consistently negative rhetoric of racial politics and victimization ... and add in a most unfortunate way to label a video clip, and the human mind fills in the rest. Much like how when reading the text of what Obama, Trump or Clinton said in a speech, it's in their voice as you read it. Playing that video clip was a poignant example of Piaget's theory of disequilibrium. One would expect something divisive based on the title of the video and past experience listening to the Obamas, whereas what followed was actually uplifting and inspirational. However, to say that Michelle Obama is some kind of masterful genius for employing Piaget in her speech is purely unfounded projection where no such credit is due. In 's also interesting to compare, say, the current Cassius Clay thread to a Ted Nugent thread. The acceptability of certain types of behavior is very situational. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 5:19:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 8:52:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. OK, so let's consider the alternatives. Within properly scientific theories that don't invoke the supernatural there are none. Transformational evolution (Lamarck) is thoroughly rejected once the nature of genes and inheritance was understood (laws of genetics from Mendel supported later by understanding meiosis no one ever argues about). After the fact support from all avenues of investigation was universal and significant predictions were produced and verified. So the question is, do you understand that Evolution has been "proven" to the limit that science can "prove" anything? If the supernatural is allowed (simply another way of saying we aren't talking science any more) then by definition there is no way to observe or understand it influence. If that is the case, we will never know anything about it - there is no point in studying it or really considering it. The thing that most miss is that even if there is some guiding influence that doesn't mean that evolution is false or not happening. It is happening and the fact is it is sufficient on its own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 9:31:17 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. What questions do you have? I bet a lot of them have been answered. You're right that we can't know 100% of everything, but it isn't faith required, but logic. Because we have literally mountains of evidence against a single point of creation. There is no other means to get from simple life in the oceans to complex life on lands with out something like the evolutionary process. The only other way to explain it would require God to have several bouts of creation, but that isn't in the Bible is it? First off a Scientific Theory isn't the same a general theory. A Scientific Theory explains how a process work. Gravity is a Theory as well, but you don't deny it exists because you feel it every day. I don't know what else you mentioned, but you admit they were highly improbably. So why would you even bother to try to believe in something that lacked any evidence? Remember that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. Evolution is a natural process, thus it would have been something God created. The Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and just about every major protestant religion accepts evolution along with their belief in God. The leaders of these Churches know 100x more about scripture and history than you or I, yet can still reconcile both. I would implore you to watch this short video. It shows just a few lines of evidence we have about the evolution of one type of animal - whales. Not this is just the very tip of the ice burg for the evidence we have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:34:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So long as reality holds up, the science is just documentation and sorting through what we've found and drawing the obvious connections. It's possible that it was created in place as a ruse by some supernatural being to exactly mimic a profession of life evolution. Pointing this out is like pointing out at a chess competition that chess might not actually exist. It makes you that weird guy that says odd and inappropriate things that contribute nothing. Yes. Maybe we live in a simulation and the world is no longer than your memory. Or maybe you're dreaming and none of this is real. That contributes nothing to the conversation because in this reality we have a documented progression of how life has evolved. And yet it still could be wrong. Will life continue to evolve? Have you ever met a scientist or engineer? Saying odd and inappropriate things is par for the course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:39:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And, rightly so, because your statement is complete bullshit. I demonstrated in this thread that I have absolutely no faith (by your own definition), yet I still accept the theory of evolution. Meaning evolution does not require faith in any way. This is a lie that you keep repeating, in hopes have having some false equivalency between some mythology believed without evidence and science. It just ain't happening. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. No scientific alternative to evolution exists. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. You're right. If you make certain assumptions, and don't ask "unanswerable questions" because you are smart enough to realize that have nothing to do with science, then yes, science works pretty well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And, rightly so, because your statement is complete bullshit. I demonstrated in this thread that I have absolutely no faith (by your own definition), yet I still accept the theory of evolution. Meaning evolution does not require faith in any way. This is a lie that you keep repeating, in hopes have having some false equivalency between some mythology believed without evidence and science. It just ain't happening. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. No scientific alternative to evolution exists. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. You're right. If you make certain assumptions, and don't ask "unanswerable questions" because you are smart enough to realize that have nothing to do with science, then yes, science works pretty well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:42:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell that to the global warming people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can have all the evidence you want and still be wrong. And evidence is still a better path than feelings. And science unlike faith is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. Provide evidence that evolution did not occur and evolution will be tossed away like an empty beer can. That is how it works. The thing is no evidence exists and never will, the evidence of evolution is staggering. Tell that to the global warming people. You serious? Evidence vs fabricated evidence. Sorry you think some omniscient being waved a magic wand and *POOF* people! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:43:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It happened again. Someone projected their prejudice and beliefs on me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ah, yes, that's it. You are a super genius like Limbaugh, one step ahead of all of the peons and their consistent definitions of words. It happened again. Someone projected their prejudice and beliefs on me. I see it more as "trying to cut to the chase." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:52:30 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, so let's consider the alternatives. Within properly scientific theories that don't invoke the supernatural there are none. Transformational evolution (Lamarck) is thoroughly rejected once the nature of genes and inheritance was understood (laws of genetics from Mendel supported later by understanding meiosis no one ever argues about). After the fact support from all avenues of investigation was universal and significant predictions were produced and verified. So the question is, do you understand that Evolution has been "proven" to the limit that science can "prove" anything? If the supernatural is allowed (simply another way of saying we aren't talking science any more) then by definition there is no way to observe or understand it influence. If that is the case, we will never know anything about it - there is no point in studying it or really considering it. The thing that most miss is that even if there is some guiding influence that doesn't mean that evolution is false or not happening. It is happening and the fact is it is sufficient on its own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The Sophists challenged and criticized and destroyed the foundations of traditions and the moral and social order and they put nothing in its place nor did they care to. While Socrates looked for objective and eternal truths the Sophists were promoting ideas of relativism and subjectivism, wherein each person decides for him or herself what the true and the good and the beautiful are. This appealed to the mob, the crowds, the unthinking horde but it is not an approach that serves as the foundation for a common life." http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm I thought you meant more like this. Thanks for clarification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Same group but the wiki writer gives a different slant. The thing is that you aren't poking holes in the theory you are trying to poke holes in the whole process because of a philosophical stance that basically says no one can know anything about anything. And you aren't proposing anything as an alternative approach other than just forgetting about the whole thing. The fact is the approach used in science is very practical, and further very revealing if you simply assume that there is an actual existence we are studying. If you don't accept that there is no point in studying or discussing anything, in any philosophy. The conclusion is simply that you know nothing because you are nothing. If you're good with that then fine, but it isn't what most philosophers are striving for and it isn't accepted as part of the basis for western thought. If that isn't the case then you could just say what you actually think about the topic instead of trying to pull the rug out from under it. I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. OK, so let's consider the alternatives. Within properly scientific theories that don't invoke the supernatural there are none. Transformational evolution (Lamarck) is thoroughly rejected once the nature of genes and inheritance was understood (laws of genetics from Mendel supported later by understanding meiosis no one ever argues about). After the fact support from all avenues of investigation was universal and significant predictions were produced and verified. So the question is, do you understand that Evolution has been "proven" to the limit that science can "prove" anything? If the supernatural is allowed (simply another way of saying we aren't talking science any more) then by definition there is no way to observe or understand it influence. If that is the case, we will never know anything about it - there is no point in studying it or really considering it. The thing that most miss is that even if there is some guiding influence that doesn't mean that evolution is false or not happening. It is happening and the fact is it is sufficient on its own. Of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 12:55:48 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You serious? Evidence vs fabricated evidence. Sorry you think some omniscient being waved a magic wand and *POOF* people! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can have all the evidence you want and still be wrong. And evidence is still a better path than feelings. And science unlike faith is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. Provide evidence that evolution did not occur and evolution will be tossed away like an empty beer can. That is how it works. The thing is no evidence exists and never will, the evidence of evolution is staggering. Tell that to the global warming people. You serious? Evidence vs fabricated evidence. Sorry you think some omniscient being waved a magic wand and *POOF* people! That's a very closed minded view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 1:03:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What questions do you have? I bet a lot of them have been answered. You're right that we can't know 100% of everything, but it isn't faith required, but logic. Because we have literally mountains of evidence against a single point of creation. There is no other means to get from simple life in the oceans to complex life on lands with out something like the evolutionary process. The only other way to explain it would require God to have several bouts of creation, but that isn't in the Bible is it? First off a Scientific Theory isn't the same a general theory. A Scientific Theory explains how a process work. Gravity is a Theory as well, but you don't deny it exists because you feel it every day. I don't know what else you mentioned, but you admit they were highly improbably. So why would you even bother to try to believe in something that lacked any evidence? Remember that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. Evolution is a natural process, thus it would have been something God created. The Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and just about every major protestant religion accepts evolution along with their belief in God. The leaders of these Churches know 100x more about scripture and history than you or I, yet can still reconcile both. I would implore you to watch this short video. It shows just a few lines of evidence we have about the evolution of one type of animal - whales. Not this is just the very tip of the ice burg for the evidence we have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvgQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. What questions do you have? I bet a lot of them have been answered. You're right that we can't know 100% of everything, but it isn't faith required, but logic. Because we have literally mountains of evidence against a single point of creation. There is no other means to get from simple life in the oceans to complex life on lands with out something like the evolutionary process. The only other way to explain it would require God to have several bouts of creation, but that isn't in the Bible is it? First off a Scientific Theory isn't the same a general theory. A Scientific Theory explains how a process work. Gravity is a Theory as well, but you don't deny it exists because you feel it every day. I don't know what else you mentioned, but you admit they were highly improbably. So why would you even bother to try to believe in something that lacked any evidence? Remember that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. Evolution is a natural process, thus it would have been something God created. The Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and just about every major protestant religion accepts evolution along with their belief in God. The leaders of these Churches know 100x more about scripture and history than you or I, yet can still reconcile both. I would implore you to watch this short video. It shows just a few lines of evidence we have about the evolution of one type of animal - whales. Not this is just the very tip of the ice burg for the evidence we have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvgI think only one person in this thread is reading what I am writing and not just assuming things. As far as unanswered questions. Why do things evolve. Not how, why? Why did this mutate into that? Why do we have gravity. Why is energy condensed into matter? What holds it together? In a black hole do things move faster than the speed of light? Why is there life at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 1:04:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a very closed minded view. Shit yeah. We know anything is possible and he won't even consider leprechauns. He probably thinks they are silly because we have no proof them. He doesn't understand that it is up to him to prove that leprechauns don't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 1:11:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shit yeah. We know anything is possible and he won't even consider leprechauns. He probably thinks they are silly because we have no proof them. He doesn't understand that it is up to him to prove that leprechauns don't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a very closed minded view. Shit yeah. We know anything is possible and he won't even consider leprechauns. He probably thinks they are silly because we have no proof them. He doesn't understand that it is up to him to prove that leprechauns don't exist. Everyone know those exist. Stop being silly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2016 1:25:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think only one person in this thread is reading what I am writing and not just assuming things. As far as unanswered questions. Why do things evolve. Not how, why? Why did this mutate into that? Why do we have gravity. Why is energy condensed into matter? What holds it together? In a black hole do things move faster than the speed of light? Why is there life at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did state what I thought about it. People just filled in what they thought I thought about it. I said it was still just a theory and it could be wrong and it takes faith to believe it. Then I stated some of the reasons it could be wrong. People stated losing their minds telling me I was wrong, but they provided no evidence what so ever. And all along the way I said the things I suggested weren't probable. But people have such strong feelings about what they believe they will not even consider an alternative. There are a lot questions that just aren't answered and probably never will be those are the ones the keep me up at night thinking. But you are right if you make certain assumption and don't ask the unanswerable questions then science works pretty well. What questions do you have? I bet a lot of them have been answered. You're right that we can't know 100% of everything, but it isn't faith required, but logic. Because we have literally mountains of evidence against a single point of creation. There is no other means to get from simple life in the oceans to complex life on lands with out something like the evolutionary process. The only other way to explain it would require God to have several bouts of creation, but that isn't in the Bible is it? First off a Scientific Theory isn't the same a general theory. A Scientific Theory explains how a process work. Gravity is a Theory as well, but you don't deny it exists because you feel it every day. I don't know what else you mentioned, but you admit they were highly improbably. So why would you even bother to try to believe in something that lacked any evidence? Remember that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. Evolution is a natural process, thus it would have been something God created. The Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and just about every major protestant religion accepts evolution along with their belief in God. The leaders of these Churches know 100x more about scripture and history than you or I, yet can still reconcile both. I would implore you to watch this short video. It shows just a few lines of evidence we have about the evolution of one type of animal - whales. Not this is just the very tip of the ice burg for the evidence we have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvgI think only one person in this thread is reading what I am writing and not just assuming things. As far as unanswered questions. Why do things evolve. Not how, why? Why did this mutate into that? Why do we have gravity. Why is energy condensed into matter? What holds it together? In a black hole do things move faster than the speed of light? Why is there life at all? Nothing moves in a black hole, because it is matter condensed to unfathomable density. If the Earth became a black hole, all the matter in the world would squeeze down to the size of a marble. All those other questions are more or less unanswerable philosophical questions. Why are we here? Why does the universe work the way it does? Is that just the nature of reality? Did God create this reality and this universe? If so, where did God come from? Why do atoms work the way they do? We can come up with all sorts of theoretical ways that physics could work differently, but yet this is how it works. And when you study quantum physics, where you study the very, very small, stand physics breaks down. So yeah - those are questions left to philosophers and theologians. I don't know why life is here, other than natural laws are such that life seems to thrive where it can. But I do know how we came to be here. How it was a slow progression over billions of years to arrive from simple celled creatures to us. Did God have a hand it it? Did he have a direct hand in it? Did he create the universe knowing the natural laws he had in place would arrive to this moment in time? Do we have free will or is it an illusion? So anyway, I didn't read this whole thread and I don't know where exactly you are on the fence, but I would embrace Evolution if you want to have an understanding of how we got here. It doesn't mean you can't believe God had a hand in it or not. Evolution doesn't preclude God. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
