Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.

Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.

Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.

Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?

Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?

Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?

Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.

Can the population of take the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:21 pm

A mass extinction does not mean that all species went extinct. 250 million years ago 92% of marine species and 70% of land animals became extinct. Not everything died. There is evidence for this assertion which is supported by other evidence.

But 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (not necessarily in that order). There is no evidence for this assertion. So why would anyone believe it?

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:59 pm

All animals are equal. But some have bigger Calendars than others

by Guest Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:24 pm

snowyflake wrote:
250 million years ago 92% of marine species and 70% of land animals became extinct. There is evidence for this assertion which is supported by other evidence.

Snowy, consider this…

1. Evidence is not proof. That’s a truth I learned regarding both physical science and social science. A healthy dose of humility, demonstrated by phrases such as “the data suggests”, is appropriate when reporting scientific findings.

2. There exists extremely compelling evidence that the preponderance of existent species went extinct at some past time. There exists not quite as “certain” but still compelling evidence that this mass extinction occurred on the order of two hundred fifty million years ago, as current date determinations of distant past events are neither precise nor proven reliable. There is even less certain but still compelling evidence that a cataclysmic meteoroid strike caused the posited mass extinctions.

3. The existence of various degrees of compelling evidence for these three posited items leaves the objective observer with four choices. One: Do I believe or disbelieve that mass extinctions of existent species occurred in the distant past? Two: Do I believe or disbelieve that these mass extinctions occurred on the order of two hundred fifty million years ago? Three: Do I believe or disbelieve that a cataclysmic meteoroid strike occurred in the distant past, perhaps on the order of two hundred fifty million years ago? Four: Do I believe or disbelieve that this cataclysmic meteoroid strike caused mass extinctions of existent species in the distant past?

4. Of those four items, I believe numbers one, three, and four. I accept number two, with neither belief nor disbelief, because I’ve decided that all attempts to date the distant past are of necessity best guesses. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, for which I believe evidence is far more compelling than four any of the four items posited above, compellingly suggest that the speed of light is the universal constant and that time is not, so I am willing to state that one year back then is the same as one year right now (that’s “make my head hurt” stuff).

5. Just like me, all humans gifted with cognizance possess the ability to assess evidence and come to beliefs about evidence. Moreover, using my own self as an example, coming to certain beliefs about, for instance, this evidence, does not preclude either belief in or knowledge of YHVH Elohim, inadequately (and in my opinion unfortunately) called Lord God in English.

snowyflake wrote:
But 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (not necessarily in that order). There is no evidence for this assertion. So why would anyone believe it?

Six thousand years ago? Just as is the case with two hundred fifty million ago, we are stuck in right now trying to determine when something in the distant past might have occurred. For information only, know that the Hebrew word translated as “day” from Genesis chapter one cannot be pinned down like that.

Extremely compelling evidence that YHVH Elohim, eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power, created everything from nothing at the beginning of existence is provided by the entirety of Big Bang-supporting data.

We’re doing fine down here in The Great State Of. Sane weather has returned for a moment, as Texas in summer finally “went away” and we’re not quite into the notorious Texas winter in which extreme weather swings are not uncommon. I hear tell that Jolly Ol’ ain’t so jolly right about now, that it’s more like Foggy Ol’. Do you know anything about that rumor?

by snowyflake Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:13 pm

Hi Rock. Evidence can be proof. Scientists like the word evidence. They gather evidence like a detective and put forth a case for their hypothesis and if the evidence is overwhelming then we can accept the evidence is 'most likely' representative of fact. That is how scientific theory works.

Extremely compelling evidence that YHVH Elohim, eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power, created everything from nothing at the beginning of existence is provided by the entirety of Big Bang-supporting data.

With all the evidence of Big Bang there is still no evidence of what kicked it off. It certainly does not 'prove' the existance of God. What if there was no pre-existing causative power and that power was wrapped up tightly in the singularity and generated within it. If that were the scenario, which the evidence suggests, then God is not the causative power. And BB theory certainly does not prove an intelligent causative power.

Weather in England is foggy, wet, drizzly, grey, cloudy, misty, rainy, cold....just like every other day in England Smile

Take care of yourself Rock

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:54 am

snowyflake wrote:
Hi Rock. Evidence can be proof. Scientists like the word evidence. They gather evidence like a detective and put forth a case for their hypothesis and if the evidence is overwhelming then we can accept the evidence is 'most likely' representative of fact. That is how scientific theory works.

Hey Snowy.

Check out what you’ve just said. “Evidence can be proof” and “we can accept the evidence as ‘most likely’ representative of fact.” You’ve made my case, my friend.

If one chooses to practice scientific discipline as it ought to be practiced, evidence must never be equated to proof. The human mind always enters the mix as evidence is assessed and evaluated, and conclusions are reached. Once that process has occurred, this question remains: “How conclusive is the conclusion?”

I lived through the transition from Steady State to Big Bang. At some point in time, evidence was assessed and evaluated, a conclusion was reached, and Hoyle’s Steady State was the talk of the town. I remember this status quo clearly, as my acceptance of its truth contributed significantly to my avowal of agnosticism as a young adult. Now here we are in the second decade of the 21st Century wherein Big Bang is accepted as mist likely representative of fact and Steady State is generally dismissed as erroneous. Remember, the universe remains unaltered, and thus the evidence remains unchanged. What has changed is man (gender inclusive), specifically, man’s access to evidence, man’s assessment and evaluation of evidence, and man’s conclusions as to what is most likely fact.

Macro-evolution is a personal transition. I accepted macro-evolution as fact because I was taught macro-evolution as fact. It didn’t occur to me at the time that my instruction in physics and my instruction in macro-evolution were absolutely dissimilar. In physics, I was taught to challenge and disprove if I could the theories of giants such as Sir Galileo the Gallant and Sir Ike the Newtonian. I did so, and proved to myself that their conclusions most likely represent fact. In macro-evolution, I was presented with the evidence and told the conclusion; never even once being urged to challenge and disprove if I could the guesses (not theories, as Darwin et al.’s guesses do not meet that standard) of not so much giants such as the aforementioned Darwin. When later in life I began applying my physics training to macro-evolution, I reached far different conclusions than did Darwin et al.

Notice the stark contrast. I challenged Galileo and Newton. I believe their conclusions because, by attempting to disprove them, I independently found that their conclusions most likely represent fact. I challenged Darwin et al. I disbelieve their conclusion because, in attempting to disprove them, I independently found that their conclusions do not most likely represent fact.

And what of those who refuse to relinquish belief in their own conclusions when more recent assessments and evaluations find that other conclusions more likely represent fact? Check out one sad example.

Fred Hoyle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Frederick "Fred" Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer and mathematician noted primarily for… his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him on BBC radio.

After his resignation from Cambridge, Hoyle… occupied his time with a mix of treks across the moors, writing books, visiting research centers around the world, and working on science ideas that have been nearly-universally rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Sir Frederick Hoyle died in the 21st Century still believing Steady State.

snowyflake wrote:
Extremely compelling evidence that YHVH Elohim, eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power, created everything from nothing at the beginning of existence is provided by the entirety of Big Bang-supporting data.
With all the evidence of Big Bang there is still no evidence of what kicked it off. It certainly does not 'prove' the existance of God. What if there was no pre-existing causative power and that power was wrapped up tightly in the singularity and generated within it. If that were the scenario, which the evidence suggests, then God is not the causative power. And BB theory certainly does not prove an intelligent causative power.

“God” is a non-etymologically-based term that is all-too-loosely assigned to YHVH Elohim, an etymologically-based term which inherently means eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power. To avoid confusion, rather than “God”, which means something different to you than it does to me, I’ll use “YHVH Elohim” the etymological basis of which compels one common definition amongst reasonable persons.

Big Bang does not prove preexistent incomprehensible causative power; Big Bang presumes and is itself evidence of preexistent incomprehensible causative power. Your “what if” question stems from the fact that no evidence exists of pre-Big Bang anything. The data set shows nothing, then everything caused to explode into existence by incomprehensible causative power. Note that the verb “caused” compels the adjective “causative” as a descriptor-in-truth of the power. Hopefully, the adjective “incomprehensible” and the noun “power” speak their truth for themselves.

He evidence might suggest that scenario to you; to me, the evidence suggests man’s inability to suggest any pre-Big bang scenario whatsoever. Space, time, energy, mass, the laws of the universe, the four forces, everything that is, was, and ever will be, all are created at the moment of the event, at the singularity, and the data compellingly suggests that (1) this moment appears at the moment that time appears, and thus, prior to the moment, there is no time in which to place a moment, and (2) this singularity, a point, a location in space/time, appears at the moment that space appears, and thus, to prior to the moment, there is no space/time in which to locate a point.

Cognizance appears not in Genesis 1:1. Examine the exposited text carefully to independently verify this.

Who-What-When-Where-How-Why exposition of:

Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:

English, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrew, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”.

Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.

What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything, thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.

When: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.

Where: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

Cognizance first appears in Genesis 1:2, not Genesis 1:1. Sloppy scholarship amongst those that exposit Genesis is in my opinion the cause of this confusion. Precise exposition of Genesis 1:1 leaves it up to the reader to conclude cognizance or non-cognizance, and these conclusions are most likely to be reached by examination of further evidence.

Absent Genesis 1:2 and following, to me the interwoven intricacies of design throughout the universe, from the most macro scale to the most micro-scale, scream “Designer!” Accidental DNA/RNA makes no sense to me, accidental orcas make no sense to me, accidental multi-symbiotic relationships hard-wired into multiple symbiotic plant and animal species upon which the continuous functioning-as-designed depends the survival of every life form on earth makes no sense to me. Too much design in too many places upon which too much depends for me to conclude anything but “designer.”

Dawkins posits no designer, Moshe affirms one designer. It’s a no-brainer to me.

snowyflake wrote:
Weather in England is foggy, wet, drizzly, grey, cloudy, misty, rainy, cold....just like every other day in England Take care of yourself Rock

Are the homes well-insulated? I get a picture of Alistair Cooke wrapped up in a heavy sweater sitting in front of the fireplace when I think of England.

by Shirina Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:35 am

I challenged Darwin et al. I disbelieve their conclusion because, in attempting to disprove them, I independently found that their conclusions do not most likely represent fact.

What experiments have you personally conducted that brought you to the conclusion that Darwin et. al. was wrong? I'd also point out that challenging Darwin probably isn't the way to go. It's the challenge to evolution that you're referring to. But unless you have one hell of a laboratory in your basement, I doubt there was little you could actually do to take much of a bite out of evolution. If you did, then I would be rushing to the American Academy of Science right now.

On the issue of Sir Frederick Hoyle, he was essentially one man swimming upstream when it came to the Big Bang. Those who oppose evolution are doing the same. Even if "accidental orcas" don't make sense to you, that doesn't negate the theory. Random things happen all the time. I think there is an element of "want" in your assessment of evolution, but "want" is a far cry from "what is." I still find it awfully convenient that the only theories you reject are those that contradict the existence of some sort of supreme being.

Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are two sentences offering up an incredibly simplistic explanation for the origin of the universe -- so simplistic, in fact, that those verses can hardly be considered conclusive. Not only are the verses simplistic, they are also very broad allowing any kind of scientific theory regarding the beginning of the universe to fit.

In addition, I can't help but wonder why the Bible is your only point of reference. This heavily implies a rather massive Judeo-Christian bias despite the hundreds of other creation stories floating around in various cultures.

My final point is to ask ... what methods and experiments have you used to challenge the likelihood of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as the real and truthful story of how the universe began?

by polyglide Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:29 am

Shirina, you always come up with the negative based on nothing more than inability to accept and consider other peoples work and opinion.

I will give an example of what the opinion of a person who has all the available information from all the scientists and Darwin's theory etc; and who has carried out experiments far beyond that of Darwin, is.

You look at any living thing closely enough and sooner or later ( in your case obviously never) you realise the complexity is far beyond comprehension.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:10 pm

Shirina wrote:
But unless you have one hell of a laboratory in your basement, I doubt there was little you could actually do to take much of a bite out of evolution.

One cannot “take much of a bite out of” things that aren’t much there. Darwin et al.’s findings aren’t much there.

Shirina wrote:
On the issue of Sir Frederick Hoyle, he was essentially one man swimming upstream when it came to the Big Bang. Those who oppose evolution are doing the same.

Your first sentence is true. You’re one for two, .500, which would win the Major League Baseball batting title every year in which records have been kept, and wouldn’t be half bad for a “2” guard.

Shirina wrote:
Even if "accidental orcas" don't make sense to you, that doesn't negate the theory.

There is no theory to negate. That’s the nature of speculative conjecture, even when it’s misnamed “theory.”

I’m a reasonably intelligent human fully capable of speculating upon available evidence, which I do regularly because that’s what I do. By so doing, I’ve come to my own conclusion about the presence of orcas, which includes the conclusion that “accidental orcas” make no sense to me.

Since Darwin et al. conducted no experiments which yielded findings from which they derived the unreasonable conclusion that orcas are “accidental”, there exist no experiments for me to replicate to attempt disproval of their nonexistent replicable experimentally-derived nonexistent findings.

Shirina wrote:
I think there is an element of "want" in your assessment of evolution…

You think incorrectly, unless the “want” which you introduce (I didn’t say “want” in my previous post) refers to my desire to know and understand truth.

Shirina wrote:
I still find it awfully convenient that the only theories you reject are those that contradict the existence of some sort of supreme being.

As you are created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you are free to choose to continue your fruitless ride on that dead mule. Perhaps one day you’ll discover that, no matter how loudly you shout “Yah mule!” into its ear, that dead mule ain’t goin’ nowhere.

Allow me to re-introduce myself to you. I challenged myself long before you were born. Whatever I say today comes from my lifelong search for truth. I found it awfully inconvenient back then to hear the young lady I adored call me “Atheist!” as she walked away. I find it awfully inconvenient today to hear Democrats and Republicans verbally and often very personally tear into me because I’ve the unmitigated gall to support and vote for Jack Kemp (once), George Walker Bush (thrice), and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (four times, soon to be five times, including two primary votes, one caucus vote, one general election vote, and one more general election vote to go).

I live an awfully inconvenient life. That’s the price of seeking truth. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Shirina wrote:
Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are two sentences offering up an incredibly simplistic explanation for the origin of the universe -- so simplistic, in fact, that those verses can hardly be considered conclusive. Not only are the verses simplistic, they are also very broad allowing any kind of scientific theory regarding the beginning of the universe to fit.

Please explain to me why you insist upon disrespecting me by the scholarship I’ve offered hereon regarding Genesis 1:1. Please explain to me why you insist upon further disrespecting me by introducing Genesis 1:2 into a discourse upon Genesis 1:1 solely.

My response to your comments upon Genesis 1:1 solely, as exposited by me below, as it is in my previous post, but now accompanied by my additional exposition of Big Bang, will be forthcoming at any point that you choose to comment upon Genesis 1:1 solely.

Who-What-When-Where-How-Why exposition and comparison of:

1. Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:

English, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrew, “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”.

Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.

What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything other than the heavens), in total, everything, thus, bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.

When: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, when everything begins.

Where: B’r’shythe, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

2. Big Bang, brief exposition:

Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, explodes the universe into existence from nothing.

Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.

What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing.

When: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.

Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, at the beginning point of everything, where everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.

How: Addressed by Big Bang data set.

Shirina wrote:
In addition, I can't help but wonder why the Bible is your only point of reference. This heavily implies a rather massive Judeo-Christian bias despite the hundreds of other creation stories floating around in various cultures.

Your comment, in my opinion, “heavily implies a rather massive” hatred for anything “Judeo-Christian.”

Shirina wrote:
My final point is to ask ... what methods and experiments have you used to challenge the likelihood of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as the real and truthful story of how the universe began?

As I opted out of their vocation before you were born, I do not use experiments to challenge the likelihood of Genesis 1:1. As I’ve not spoken of Genesis 1:2 in my previous post, I will infer a disrespect for me and the scholarship I’ve offered therein by your chosen inclusion of that of which I’ve not spoken.

Insofar as the creation of the universe is concerned, I believe that Big Bang is as close to truth as I’ll witness in my lifetime. Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang resonate with one another, as can be seen in my “who-what-when-where-why-how” expositions of each provided herein. The physicists who study this truth seem capable of continuing their research without my intrusion, so I’m perfectly content to continue being an extremely interested observer who marvels at and stands in awe of the wonders of the universe.

by astra Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:31 pm

What is it about the American psyche, that it's government, it's senators, congressmen and it's people are getting so tied up about evolution or creation?

WE ARE HERE ON THIS PLANET - get used to it!

The revenue being spent on this tripe would relieve the pain suffered by Shirina and every other ill person on that sorry continent, but no, semantics is more important. It seems that it is important for EVERYONE to know which football team you support, which political party you support and now which side you are on in this debate. Each category bringing SERIOUS and near slanderous judgements on newswires and papers. Who REALLY cares.

You do NOT have long, till the election, c'mon and get on with the real stuff that matters to YOUR COUNTRY

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:04 pm

It may be a result of the fact that so few inhabitants of the USA can trace their ancestry there back for more than a couple of hundred years. There is accordingly a much stronger need to "belong" to groupings such as politics, religion or sport.

by astra Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:13 pm

The tribe, pack instinct has evolved in American minds in 200 years? What a Face

Starts another whole argument off! Very Happy

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:48 pm

astra wrote:
The tribe, pack instinct has evolved in American minds in 200 years?

Starts another whole argument off!

Is it evolve or revolve? Is it evolution or revolution? A bit of both, I believe, but more of the latter than the former.

In 1968 at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, turmoil in the streets was e echoed by turmoil in the convention hall as Dixiecrats (“Dixie rats”) from Mississippi were booted out and replaced by a multi-ethnic delegation that, for the first time in history, represented We the Mississippi Democrats People. Revolution, I should think.

Eight years later, a Black Texas Democrat, Barbara Jordan, was selected to be the DNC’s keynote speaker. The head of the Texas delegation, a white texan, a white man (notice the lowercase initial consonants), arranged for the entire white portion of the Texas delegation to, as Barbara Jordan began speaking, and upon his signal, stand as one and walk out of the convention hall. The moment arrived, United States Representative Barbara Jordan, Democrat Texas, began to speak, and the signal was not given. A white texan seated beside the delegation leader (notice the lowercase initial consonants) whispered a question, and was told, “Shut up. A Texan is speaking!” A White Texan, a White Man (notice the uppercase initial consonants), the leader now in fact of the entire Texas delegation, composed of White Texans, Black Texans, and Other Ethnicity Texans (notice the uppercase initial consonants), then sat back and enjoyed the excellence flowing from the lips of his fellow Texan. Revolution, I should think.

Been a bit of revolving in the nearly two hundred twenty-one years since 15 December 1781.

Discussion started.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:21 pm

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment, July 25, 1974

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 1

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 2

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:33 pm

astra wrote:The tribe, pack instinct has evolved in American minds in 200 years?

Starts another whole argument off!

If you do want to start a lively discussion, simply ask an American whether they prefer people who are "clubbable"?

Loners are usually regarded with suspicion.

by astra Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:14 pm

simply ask an American whether they prefer people who are "clubbable

Sounds good!

Is that the same club I use when I am out "hunter gathering"?

by snowyflake Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:33 pm

For Rock and Polyglide (just a beginning with some evidence unlike Genesis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=speciation+examples&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=q0n&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DIOJUO7ZJuOh0QXXv4DQBA&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1582&bih=717

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

There are thousands of science websites and journals about evolution. When the evidence is overwhelming and you can actually see it, read about it, experiment and reproduce the findings then only an idiot would deny the veracity of it. Whatever problems science has with anything, it delves further into finding out the answer which is unlike believers who just accept or twist the evidence to suit their belief. That is just lazy thinking in my view.

Darwin is where it's at my friend. And the knowledge that has piled up in the last 150 years has verified the theory. You may disbelieve it because it doesn't jive with your religious belief but that doesn't make it any less a fact.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:00 pm

"Darwin is where it's at my friend."

Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions? - Page 4 Northern_territory_map

by snowyflake Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:02 pm

You're such a hoot, OW. Smile

No really.....

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:23 pm

I accept number two, with neither belief nor disbelief, because I’ve decided that all attempts to date the distant past are of necessity best guesses.

Texas,

Your decision to reject dating methods accepted by science has no scientific basis, it is simply a bare assertion.

Your decision to reject the incontrovertible evidence that supports The Modern Synthesis has no scientific basis and is simply a bare assertion.

Until you provide a scientific objection to dating methods and macro-evolution then your decisions are non science.

and the scholarship I’ve offered therein by your chosen inclusion of that of which I’ve not spoken.

You have offered no scholarship, you reject scholarship.

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:46 pm

There is no theory to negate. That’s the nature of speculative conjecture, even when it’s misnamed “theory.”

mmm. you are not qualified to dismiss the theory of evolution, nor have you any evidence to contradict the theory.

I’m a reasonably intelligent human fully capable of speculating upon available evidence, which I do regularly because that’s what I do.

I am afraid your supposed intelligence does not give you the authority to reject the Modern Synthesis, in plain English you are not capable of speculating what the available evidence concludes.

By so doing, I’ve come to my own conclusion about the presence of orcas, which includes the conclusion that “accidental orcas” make no sense to me.

I really don't care because you can not demonstrate why evolution could not have produced orca intelligence.

Since Darwin et al. conducted no experiments which yielded findings from which they derived the unreasonable conclusion that orcas are “accidental”, there exist no experiments for me to replicate to attempt disproval of their nonexistent replicable experimentally-derived nonexistent findings.

Why do you just keep repeating the same fallacies despite the fact I have destroyed them countless times, scientific conclusions are not just based on experiments, they are based on a body of evidence and the conclusion can be falsified by any piece of evidence.

There is not one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution, not one, and yet again I am sick of reminding you, you are not qualified to deem scientific conclusions " unreasonable ".

You ignore the scientific method which was designed to remove cognitive bias but claim you have no cognitive bias.

This is simply the most childish argument against evolution I have ever encountered, intelligence is evidence of an intelligent designer ??

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:02 pm

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),

Texas, this man's intelligence and scholarship dwarfs yours.

by Shirina Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:28 pm

What is it about the American psyche, that it's government, it's senators, congressmen and it's people are getting so tied up about evolution or creation?

It's because there are FAR too many Americans who cling to the supernatural and superstition to explain the universe in which we live. It's as if the last 500 years of scientific discovery and technological innovation hasn't even happened. To them, their litmus test for scientific truth is to sit down with a Bible in order to ensure nothing coming out of the scientific community contradicts scripture. And speaking of the scientific community, it has to be stressed that, while America is generally seen as one of the most scientific and technologically advanced nations on the planet, this is due to a VERY small cadre of scientists, inventors, and innovators. The general population, however, is generally ignorant of science and would be hard pressed to tell you without Googling what an atom is made of. Americans can use technology just fine, but only a tiny fraction of them understand the science that made it possible. I'm not even talking about the specifics of a particular gadget, but the very general, high school level science that makes those gadgets possible.

In large part because of this, there is a very loud and very well-funded significant sector of the population that wants magic and superstition taught in a science class as a viable alternative to scientific theory. "Jesus Camps" all over the country are brainwashing children into not trusting science and instead trusting God and the Bible ... a generation that runs the risk of growing up to be ignorant, intolerant, fascistic, and an embarrassment in the eyes of the rest of the world. To make matters worse, many in America look at the Muslim world and see naught but terrorism, female oppression, barbarity, and ignorance. Yet while they condemn their religion and their culture, they are making inroads to create an America that is little better than the Saudis, the Iranians, or the Sudanese.

I shudder to think what would happen to the world should America's knife-edge balancing act between freedom and religious tyranny were to ever give way to the religious side of the knife. Perhaps Europeans are unaware of the constant attempts by religious organizations to censor or ban certain books and music or how the US military is becoming a breeding ground for evangelism and religious fundamentalism. I know because I was there and I've seen it with my own two little eyes. In fact, I FELL for it and found myself spending every weekend with one such religious group. There were literally fleets of buses parked outside the barracks ready to empty out half the base to whisk everyone off to various churches with strange names and totalitarian views.

The persecution of gays, the denial of women's rights, Southern (and Christian) senators advocating slavery, increasing xenophobia and a hatred of Muslims, increasing membership in Christian hate and militia groups, the push to teach religion in our schools, the constant denial of scientific discovery, on and on ... the list is pretty extensive.

To those who think this is nothing more than the equivalent of cheering on our favorite sports team apparently have no idea how serious a matter this is.

This is not merely an academic debate, it is quite literally a matter of deciding which direction the most powerful and influential country in the world decides to take. The result of this "culture war" (as some religious zealots actually call it) will reverberate across the entire planet. This is no small thing.

by Shirina Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:53 pm

For those Creationists out there who are brave (and for those of a scientific bent who want a good laugh), I present to you the best, most comprehensive beat-down of Creationism that I've ever seen, and it took this guy 4.5 hours to do it (which shows how much lunacy there was to cover).

Yes, it really is over 4 hours long so unless you have a big chunk of time, I'd suggest watching it in parts. But trust me, it's well worth the time spent, and does very well at showing why I think this issue is far more important than a mere debate. Have fun and enjoy!

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:57 pm

Big Bang presumes and is itself evidence of preexistent incomprehensible causative power.

What has this utter flatulence got to do with humans evolving from primates ?

What has God, heaven, hell, immortality, the big bang, old myths, Jesus, poof and weird psychological experiences got to do with us being descended from primates?

Which part of evolution do you lot not understand, why is any of the above remotely relevant to the facts ?

I don't care how the universe began, I don't care what was before time, I don't care how life began and I certainly don't care about primitive superstitions and explanations. The reason I don't care is simple, we evolved from freakin monkeys and none of that stuff changes or affects this incontrovertible fact.

Anyone who believes some unseen agent created monkeys to create humans is mentally deranged, how does evolved monkeys give the universe purpose or meaning ?

Natural selection destroys any notion of design, you have to suspend reason to accommodate a creator in evolution, Darwin killed God and religious wackos just cannot handle it.

If consciousness or complexity or intelligence was a designed purpose then why haven't all lifeforms evolved in this direction ?

Why are most species extinct or thick as shit, there is no logical explanation except evolution and the alternative is so human centric it is embarrassing and retarded.

I am not asking people to provide evidence for a creator, I simply want someone to supply a reason based on the evolutionary evidence why a God is even presupposed ?

Buddha, Chiva, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad were no different to our ignorant post cognizant ancestors stretching back 70,000 years, they did not even know where humans came from.

Had they known we evolved from primates then none of them would have written such utter tripe, a bunch of glorified chimps theologising about a universe with a moral purpose ??

eh ? eh ? eh ?

Seriously it is just ludicrous, what has quantum mechanics and the sub atomic world got to do with us evolving from monkeys ?

What has God got to do with monkeys ?

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:16 pm

A dolphin is as intelligent as an orca, some people presume this is evidence of an intelligent designer, it cannot be " accidental ".

Lets get one thing straight, there is nothing " accidental or random " about the mechanism natural selection, nature selects the fittest genes, genetic mutation may be undirected or random but not natural selection.

Now we have cleared up that dross, can a creationist tell me why an Intelligent designer creates intelligent whales and intelligent dolphins with limbs, we have incontrovertible evidence of atavism ( genetic throwback).

Why are only a few species intelligent ?

Why are most species as backward as creationists ?

by astra Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:01 pm

To those who think this is nothing more than the equivalent of cheering on our favorite sports team apparently have no idea how serious a matter this is

This is not what I think.

It appears to be part of a pervading view, that folk in groups have the right to prejudge others - if you are not with us you are against us, NO half way rendezvous.

Your statement declares exactly how the media - et-al, this is being portrayed over here. (It CERTAINLY is NOT accurate "reporting")

by Shirina Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:53 pm

if you are not with us you are against us, NO half way rendezvous.

This is precisely why religious tyranny is the most dangerous kind. There can be no "halfway rendezvous" because religion deals in unchangeable absolutes. If the extremists believe their way is God's way, there can be no negotiation. Ben Stein, a creationist, went on national television and said plainly that the courts do not decide FOR HIM what is right and wrong. It's in the video that I posted above. It clearly shows that the spokesmen for religion have no respect for the rule of law ... and if that is indeed the case, how can any decision made by the courts, negotiators, or diplomats hold any real authority over them? It's essentially a license to disobey any law they happen not to like, and with that anarchist viewpoint, negotiation for that halfway compromise would be a lesson in futility.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you because I do, but is such an agreement truly feasible? Probably not. The only positive thing I'm seeing is that the number of "non-religious" people in America are growing, and with growth comes political clout.

by astra Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:38 pm

Only 2 discussion subjects GUARANTEED to start an argument and have the fur fly -

The Bible, and Sigmund Freud! (and to me, that's all they are good for, an argument)

If as in this country, people are turning their backs on the church in droves, I doubt the self serving zealots will change course and keep sailing full speed to the iceberg! Of course, said decline could NEVER be their fault could it?

by polyglide Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:47 pm

You can always get idiots taking hours to prove what total numbsculls they are.

I could take a year to disprove in theory anything you would like to mention
it would obviously include the innane but whose worried.

The only time I would be worried if the impossible took place and creation could be 100% disproved and the likelyhood is about the same as Shirina being able to comprehend the truth. But I do pray.

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:06 pm

The only time I would be worried if the impossible took place and creation could be 100% disproved and the likelyhood is about the same as Shirina being able to comprehend the truth.

Creationism has been disproved, and the only reason you are not worried is because you reject the incontrovertible evidence, this makes you delusional. Since your case is totally illogical and based purely on denying scientific evidence then my debate with you is over.

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:50 pm

[quote="Tosh"][quote]

Tosh said:

....Since your case is totally illogical and based purely on denying scientific evidence then my debate with you is over.

Snowyflake said:

"There is no point in discussing this with you. You are wrong."

Which one is the sock-puppet?

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:20 pm

Which one is the sock-puppet

My guess it is you, polyglide.

Now run along, it is obvious you are incapable of debating the thread topic, come back when you grow a pair sweetie.

by **Ivan** Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:51 pm

The only time I would be worried if the impossible took place

...and you learned how to spell 'numskulls', 'inane' and 'likelihood', but I won't pray for you because I left behind such nonsense with Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.

Shirina being able to comprehend the truth

Shirina can most certainly comprehend the truth. Unlike you, she only accepts proven facts, not Bronze Age superstition.

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:14 pm

Shirina can most certainly comprehend the truth. Unlike you, she only accepts proven facts, not Bronze Age superstition..

There is something about polyglides general persona, posting content, timing and repetition that just doesn't add up, its just too deliberate.

If if its not a wind up then I am checking behind my curtains.

by polyglide Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:49 am

Do you realise what over means Tosh?.

One usually packs in when one is beaten and the score so far is 100 to me and minus 100, to you, farewell my friend, on the same basis others will soon follow, the only one who I would allow to pull my strings is God.

by Tosh Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:02 pm

Ignore.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:13 pm

One usually packs in when one is beaten and the score so far is 100 to me and minus 100, to you, farewell my friend, on the same basis others will soon follow, the only one who I would allow to pull my strings is God.

You haven't got an evolved brain cell to stand on, polyglide. Only assertions. No evidence, no arguments. Just assertions with no basis in fact.

Don't equate man made objects like airplanes and houses to living beings.

Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions? - Page 4 E4450276-Modern_and_prehistoric_Alligator_skulls-SPL

Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions? - Page 4 E4450276-Modern_and_prehistoric_Alligator_skulls-SPL

This is a prehistoric animal that lived and breathed on the earth 65 million years ago. That is the physical evidence. Go to a Natural History museum and ask about their fossil library. You think scientists just sit around all day making shit up? Come on. Be honest with yourself and at least make an effort to look at the evidence before just discounting it because you don't know anything about it.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:11 am

snowyflake wrote:
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t644p120-should-governments-rescind-the-noble-lie-of-religions#28973

For Rock and Polyglide (just a beginning with some evidence unlike Genesis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=speciation+examples&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=q0n&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DIOJUO7ZJuOh0QXXv4DQBA&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1582&bih=717

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

There are thousands of science websites and journals about evolution. When the evidence is overwhelming and you can actually see it, read about it, experiment and reproduce the findings then only an idiot would deny the veracity of it. Whatever problems science has with anything, it delves further into finding out the answer which is unlike believers who just accept or twist the evidence to suit their belief. That is just lazy thinking in my view.

Unlike Genesis? Au contraire, mon amie. Genesis 1:11-13 through 20-30 pertains just a little bit to populating the sea, air, and land with various species. Check it out.

Hebrew Bible

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”, and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind, and God saw that it was good.1 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.2

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind, and God saw that it was good.1 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.2

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”, and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good.1

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you, and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”, and it was so.

Genesis 1:11-13, 20-30

טּוֹב ‎ ṭôb (tobe), good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman, the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well), beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, favour, be in favour, fine, glad, good deed, goodlier, goodliest, goodly, goodness, graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, loving, merry, pleasant, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, well, be well, well-favoured.

יוֹם ‎ yôm (yome), From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), age, always, chronicles, continually, daily, birthday, each day, today, (nowadays, days agone, end, evening, forever, everlasting, evermore, full, life, as long as, so long as, now, even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaining, required, season, since, space, then, time, process of time, as at other times, when, as when, awhile, the while, within a while, age, whole age, year, full year, yearly.

There is nothing in Genesis 1:11-13, 20-30 that precludes macro-evolution as a mechanism used by the designer to actuate his design. In fact, Genesis 1:11-13 through 20-30 has nothing whatsoever to do with my disbelief in and of macro-evolution. More on than below.

Speaking of the material you’ve provided:

Example of three-spined sticklebacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks

This appears to be an example of micro-evolution, fish to fish, individuals that prefer spawning with their own kind, as would be expected. Wolves prefer mating with wolves and coyotes prefer mating with coyotes. Nonetheless, re-introduction into the wild of an endangered wolf species is itself endangered by numerous coyotes mating with scarce wolves.
speciation examples
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=speciation+examples&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=q0n&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DIOJUO7ZJuOh0QXXv4DQBA&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1582&bih=717

The items I perused most definitely are examples of micro-evolution. Finches to finches, fish to fish, flower to flower, Canis lupus to 39 subspecies, micro-evolution documented.

“Canis lupus has 39 subspecies currently described, including two subspecies of domestic dog, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, and many subspecies of wolf throughout the Northern hemisphere. The nominate subspecies is Canis lupus lupus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
The Central European blackcap
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

This item is also most definitely an example of micro-evolution. The Central European blackcap that migrates in one direction has spun off a population that migrates in another direction. Blackcap to blackcap. Micro-evolution proves itself; it does not prove macro-evolution.

snowyflake wrote:
Darwin is where it's at my friend. And the knowledge that has piled up in the last 150 years has verified the theory. You may disbelieve it because it doesn't jive with your religious belief but that doesn't make it any less a fact.

My “religious belief” has no bearing on anything, probably because I have no “religious belief.” I don’t believe in a religion. I know YHVH Elohim; because I know YHVH Elohim, I believe YHVH Elohim. Knowing and believing YHVH Elohim precludes belief in a religion. Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod.

I was taught macro-evolution from as far back as I can remember. Belief in this unproven speculative guess as to the origin of species resided within me (a) before I doubted (pre-agnostic period), (b) as I doubted (during agnostic period), (c) after I ceased doubting (post-agnostic period) and before embracing the Baha’i Faith, (d) during my embracement of the Baha’i Faith, (e) after my embracement of the Baha’i Faith and prior to my realization that YHVH Elohim whom I sought was right there, and (f) after coming to know, embracing, and believing YHVH Elohim through Y’shua Moshiach (Hebrew terms used in an attempt to avoid the multiple mental misconceptions attached to the customary English translations).

Thus, to conclude that my disbelief on macro-evolution is incident to my knowledge of YHVH Elohim is a misconception of such magnitude as to make understanding of my disbelief impossible to you as long as you hold to that conclusion. My disbelief in macro-evolution has nothing to do with YHVH Elohim; in fact, eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power most likely can populate earth with whatever species he chooses in whatever manner he chooses, so knowledge of YHVH Elohim cannot prelude macro-evolution.

My disbelief in macro-evolution stems from one simple fact: I don’t believe it; it makes no sense to me. When I first challenged my own belief in macro-evolution during my fourth decade of life, I realized that, in order to believe that macro-evolution is the mechanism whereby species have originated, I must believe that orca evolved from the hippo’s predecessor. Let’s examine what that presumption entails.

I assume the hippo’s predecessor strongly resembled the modern hippo.

A hippo has legs; orca has no legs. A hippo has feet; orca has no feet. A hippo has outer ears; orca has no outer ears. A hippo has a nose; orca has no nose. A hippo has an acute sense of smell; orca has no sense of smell. A hippo’s internal structure supports its weight for an indefinite time out of water; orca’s internal structure cannot support its weight for an indefinite time out of water (beached orcas eventually die).
Orca has flippers; a hippo has no flippers. Orca has flukes; a hippo has no flukes. Orca has a dorsal fin; a hippo has no dorsal fin. Orca has a hydro-dynamically streamlined body; a hippo has no hydro-dynamically streamlined body. Orca has a blowhole; a hippo has no blowhole. Orca has a “melon”; a hippo has no “melon.” Orca has precise active sonar; a hippo has no active sonar. Orca has precise passive sonar; a hippo has no passive sonar.
Orcas are exclusively carnivorous; hippos are omnivorous but primarily herbivorous.

For me to believe that something resembling a hippo has in effect great grandchildren (to whatever degree of “ great” it might be) that are orcas requires such a leap of faith as to be absolutely unbelievable. I know that the preceding statement is nonsensical; to me, it is far less nonsensical than believing that orca’s great grandmother was a hippo.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:02 am

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time. Whales were once land animals and went back to the water. This did not happen over night but over millions of years. Tiny genetic mutations over time can explain macro-evolution. You are clinging to the last refuge of the believer in the supernatural to something that has already been explained quite reasonably by science. Macro-evolution and the evolution of the eye are classic arguments believers use to discredit evolution. It doesn't wash.

Something resembling a fish came out of the water and evolved legs and arms and eventually all the species in the world. Some species went back to the water and became whales, dolphins, manatees.

It doesn't matter whether you 'believe' it or not. The evidence is there and as I said previously, any holes cannot filled by God. They will be filled by science.

by polyglide Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:26 am

The one thing you tend to forget is that there has never been an uninterupted period of millions of years for the process you put forward to have occured.

Life has been completely wiped out on several occasions that we actually know about and no doubt others that we do not.

To think that after each such occasion life started from where it left off is nonsense.

Everything points to instant creation after each such event involving different species etc; the remains of which we can find of some.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:17 pm

The one thing you tend to forget is that there has never been an uninterupted period of millions of years for the process you put forward to have occured.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. How many mass extinctions have you been to, polyglide? Did you know that you can follow your own genetic code backwards in time and find the most likely place that you came from? They do this through population genetics and the distribution of genes in a population. And we are talking about thousands of years.

Life has been completely wiped out on several occasions that we actually know about and no doubt others that we do not.

No. Not all life was wiped out. A large percentage was wiped out but not all.

To think that after each such occasion life started from where it left off is nonsense.

No. Those animals that survived adapted to their new environment. Their genes mutated improving their chances of survival.

Everything points to instant creation after each such event involving different species etc; the remains of which we can find of some.

No. 1 + 1 + ? does not = God. 1+1+?=more research using the scientific method

by Sponsored content