Believing what you know ain't so

a reply to: OneManArmy

The universe could just be the inside of a giant easter egg, we just don't know,

Whats outside the barrier?

More Universe.

It goes on forever.

It is infinite.

It therefore has been there forever.

Life has been there forever.

It was brought here.


imo

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy


Im here to discuss what he speaks about in the video, which is a the way religious believers blindly follow. To be fair believers of any woo, but more particularly religious believers, they are the most zealous in their beliefs.

I know the bible advocates slavery. What is your stance on slavery?

I think evolution is atheists Woo, just a religious belief
Something that atheists have to blindly accept as a doctrine to live their lives.

Its tumultuous, I have seen atheists who struggle with evolution crucified because they see fault in some of its teachings. Some fundy atheists will tear at them for questioning the evolution doctrine.

I am a christian and know many christians who believe in evolution, I could as well and have no fear in my christianity.
jesus is my saviour, not creation.
You have a very simplistic understanding of what I can believe

I think atheist zealots like yourself are as bad as religious zealots, no question, your faith is as uncompromising.
You see no fault in evolution, I can see much fault in my faith, I am different to you.

Slavery is a long theological discussion based on many factors. Jesus could have started a slave revolt causing many deaths if He chose to call an end to it, it seems a wise decision that He chose to call His followers to love slaves as opposed to demand an end to it.
many non Christians would react violently if they lost their possesions


Think before speaking

Now you are making assumptions on my beliefs. Im not an atheist at all. And Im no zealot.
I believe in God, because of LIFE. Simple just that one small thing. God to me is the living universe.
But hey Im not here to discuss my beliefs, they are personal to me.
As for evolution, I havent argued for or against it.

So in regards to thinking before speaking...
Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. Unless its at a witch of course

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OneManArmy

The universe could just be the inside of a giant easter egg, we just don't know,

Whats outside the barrier?

More Universe.

It goes on forever.

It is infinite.

It therefore has been there forever.

Life has been there forever.

It was brought here.


imo

Yeah but....Why?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: peter vlar
It's laziness to ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist

Thats not laziness, that is ignorance.
That is stupidity.

I promise I wont ignore the science, can someone show me the science
Science is not assumption and or faith.

Evidence

No the geological timescale and fossil record is not science, its faith

Prove either one is a science
prove they are relevant
Prove they are accurate

You seem to be under the false impression that Im arguing for or against evolution.
Im arguing about the way religious people act, you are proving my argument.
You are the evidence.

Oh the irony.

Isnt it funny, you can end all the dramas all the flaming all the misconceptions by showing the evidence but you want to make it about individuals.
Thats not science, thats religion extremism

Look in the mirror and see the part you play in this game does not make you a great person.

You are on a lower level, you are just a drone parroting a personal argument against people hiding behind a science that doesnt exist

If you had anything valid relating to science you wouldnt have to make this thread about people, the fella in the video wouldnt need to talk about creationists and his brand of woo, he could win the creationist over with scientific fact, no need for attacking people if you have science validating your argument.

its evolution WOO

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: peter vlar
It's laziness to ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist

Thats not laziness, that is ignorance.
That is stupidity.

I promise I wont ignore the science, can someone show me the science
Science is not assumption and or faith.

Evidence

No the geological timescale and fossil record is not science, its faith

Prove either one is a science
prove they are relevant
Prove they are accurate

You seem to be under the false impression that Im arguing for or against evolution.
Im arguing about the way religious people act, you are proving my argument.
You are the evidence.

Oh the irony.

Isnt it funny, you can end all the dramas all the flaming all the misconceptions by showing the evidence but you want to make it about individuals.
Thats not science, thats religion extremism

Look in the mirror and see the part you play in this game does not make you a great person.

You are on a lower level, you are just a drone parroting a personal argument against people hiding behind a science that doesnt exist

If you had anything valid relating to science you wouldnt have to make this thread about people, the fella in the video wouldnt need to talk about creationists and his brand of woo, he could win the creationist over with scientific fact, no need for attacking people if you have science validating your argument.

its evolution WOO

Im not interested in evolution, you keep banging on about evolution.
Im talking about group psychology, propaganda, social engineering, mind control, mass hysteria.
Thats science my friend.

Thats all about individuals, acting within a group setting. You are a test subject. My test subject.
Im sorry if you think thats woo, I think its scary.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar


Or adaptation. Life is remarkable in that stead. I thought "life evolved" meant it began from lifelessness?

You're creating another strawman by introducing your own statement of "life evolved" and then giving your own definition.

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]

Thats impossible. Because it isn't happening today, the biosphere isn't filled with proto forms of life from microbes to complex organisms.

you may want to rethink that statement because it's absolutely false.

Life favors what you call it, not the mutation. The mutation dies. it can't divide or, if it does is malignant, and then dies.

Genetics strongly disagrees with you in this. Life favors whatever allows for survival. The vast percentage of mutations are by themselves neutral, neither positive nor negative. If a mutation or adaptation is not beneficial, then the organism will certainly perish. Some mutations or adaptations are beneficial in one environment or ecological niche and detrimental in another. This is the cornerstone of adaptation.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: peter vlar
It's laziness to ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist

Thats not laziness, that is ignorance.
That is stupidity.

I promise I wont ignore the science, can someone show me the science
Science is not assumption and or faith.

Evidence

No the geological timescale and fossil record is not science, its faith

Prove either one is a science
prove they are relevant
Prove they are accurate

You seem to be under the false impression that Im arguing for or against evolution.
Im arguing about the way religious people act, you are proving my argument.
You are the evidence.

Oh the irony.

Isnt it funny, you can end all the dramas all the flaming all the misconceptions by showing the evidence but you want to make it about individuals.
Thats not science, thats religion extremism

Look in the mirror and see the part you play in this game does not make you a great person.

You are on a lower level, you are just a drone parroting a personal argument against people hiding behind a science that doesnt exist

If you had anything valid relating to science you wouldnt have to make this thread about people, the fella in the video wouldnt need to talk about creationists and his brand of woo, he could win the creationist over with scientific fact, no need for attacking people if you have science validating your argument.

its evolution WOO

how about instead of debating the validity of evolutionary theory, you stick to the topic of the thread and discuss the video. Your ad nauseum has been addressed in thread after thread specific to that topic. Let's stop derailing this thread and discuss the OP and the videos presented and you can create a new thread to debate the merits of evolution, give your counter hypothesis and the evidence for it and discuss it all there in the proper forum.

And yes...I am equally guilty of allowing myself to drift farther and farther off topic so I'm not singling you out.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OneManArmy

The universe could just be the inside of a giant easter egg, we just don't know,

Whats outside the barrier?

More Universe.

It goes on forever.

It is infinite.

It therefore has been there forever.

Life has been there forever.

It was brought here.


imo

Yeah but....Why?

Why not?

a reply to: peter vlar

You're creating another straw man by introducing your own statement of "life evolved" and then giving your own definition.

I said, Imo, life was brought here.

It explains the gaps and the beginning. We can debate any adaptation all day, how life originated must be included. Thats why evolution is still called a theory. Neither it nor religion creation theory explains life's origins.

'Poof' doesn't do it for me.

He does what Scientists do--completely disregard subjective experience because it is not independently verifiable or able to be replicated in a controlled environment.

I suppose that's the way science is supposed to work, however it reveals the fundamental flaw of science--subjective experience is not included in any description of reality.

Hypothetically, let's say I'm walking through the woods and Jesus appears to me, converting me to Christianity. Now, I know it happened because I was there and I experienced it... but no one else did, and I can't summon Jesus back through my will to prove it to anyone.

Therefore, we have two different versions of "fact". There is the subjective fact, which is indisputable to the subject, and there is the objective fact, which must be independently verified ("peer reviewed", if you will). It doesn't even have to be Jesus. If SO lands a black helicopter in my backyard and lectures me about my anti-Atheist posting habits, and I'm the only one who experienced it, and I can't prove to anyone else that it happened, then according to this guy's conceptualization of a "fact" it didn't happen.

See my point? There's no way to make a subjective fact objective for you. I can't prove the subjective fact that I have spiritual experiences. I nonetheless have them. I know because I was there.

This is, of course, the point at which rabid Atheists will claim I'm either hallucinating or just insane. Lazy work, guys. And that's how the debate ends, because the objective is all that matters. Subjective experience is not valid in any scientific description of reality.

That isn't a criticism of science, per se, just pointing out a limitation.

originally posted by: intrptr

'Poof' doesn't do it for me.

The gay marriage debate is another thread altogether.




Joke.

a reply to: intrptr

I get that and I'm not debating your opinion. I was commenting directly on your statement that "Life evolves meant it began from lifelessness". It's a strawman and works for you to think that life was brought here from elsewhere but what you don't get to do is redefine what evolutionary theory covers and what it has no part of is the origin of life i.e. abiogenesis or panspermia. They are two completely separate fields of study whether you want them to be or not. Thus your equation of all of this being the reason "evolution is still called a theory" is indeed an addendum to your strawman argument. In science theory has a very different meaning than it does on Scooby Doo when the gang has a hunch. Gravity is also "just a theory", electromagnetism... "just a theory".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability

People seem to think there is some huge difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law and this just isn't the case at all. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.


For the record, "poof" doesn't do it for me either. But I've also never utilized "poof" as part of any evidence for any hypothesis or theory. "poof" isn't part of any of the hypothesis or experiments showing the applicability of any of the hypothesis for the origins of life either for that matter.

And finally, none of this has any bearing on the OP or the topic of this thread. It's got nothing to do with evolution or the origins of life on Earth.

a reply to: NthOther

in your example you are assuming that there would be no way to test for your subjective experience being real in the physical world. THAT is what science does, it investigates claims and tests for evidence of them.

a reply to: NthOther

Subjective experiences are not good evidence and the more outlandish the experienced claim the more it needs to be verified.

As with your hypothetical of a black helicopter landing and someone lecturing you, as outlandish as that sounds it is within the realms of probability. Black helicopters exist and can be verified as well as people who would lecture you.

A claimed supernatural experience does not fall in the realm of probability. The very nature of supernatural events make them unverifiable. No aspect of the supernatural can be verified to exist aside from people's claims.

People all across the world claim alien abduction they have had a subjective experience yet as far as I know none have been verifiable either.

We know that mental illness exists we know people have hallucinations. I see it all the time with a family member that has subjective experiences of seeing my father and my brothers and sisters. That family member is my mother, my father passed away 2 years ago and I am an only child yet it is real to her to the point she has convinced her own doctors or at least had them thinking their memory and records were wrong. There had been times she had me questioning my sanity. Her experiences were very real to her, but subjective experience is not evidence.

The more extrodinary a claim the more extrodinary the evidence needs to be if you expect/want others to believe it.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Thats all about individuals, acting within a group setting. You are a test subject. My test subject.
Im sorry if you think thats woo, I think its scary.

Thats so funny because I think exactly the same
I just see you as a person who is lead by another religious sect is all

The preacher in the OP is your minister, no different
he is preaching what you want to believe, just imagine for a dot you are wrong and you are being lead astray.

One coin, two sides

originally posted by: peter vlar


how about instead of debating the validity of evolutionary theory, you stick to the topic of the thread and discuss the video. Your ad nauseum has been addressed in thread after thread specific to that topic. Let's stop derailing this thread and discuss the OP and the videos presented and you can create a new thread to debate the merits of evolution, give your counter hypothesis and the evidence for it and discuss it all there in the proper forum.

And yes...I am equally guilty of allowing myself to drift farther and farther off topic so I'm not singling you out.

My point is relevant, without evidence to justify the preacher on the first posts claim he is just a faith preacher talking to the converted

The preaching is based on the assumption he is right and is using science to justify his statement
The fact he is wrong proves he is operating out of faith and is reflecting his own attitude on creationists

Its hypocrisy at its finest

a reply to: borntowatch

watch the video first. It's got nothing to do with evolution other than in your mind atheism and evolution are tied together at the waist. Hypocrisy at its finest? That would be ragging on someone about something you can't understand when you haven't taken part in the OP. Discuss the video instead of making the thread into another forum for the same rant you have scripted. If I'm wrong and you've actually watched the video from the OP then I'm wrong but your position is even less justified in my opinion because the video has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory. You're not interested in that though, you're interested in preaching your own views and rationalizing it away by shifting the focus and hypocrisy you exude upon someone else. For what it's worth, I definitely give you credit for being unwavering in your persistence. I just feel it's misplaced in this particular thread and taking away from the actual topic at hand which going by past performances I would think would be right up your alley but since you're not tackling it in that fashion you come off as though you haven't actually seen the video. but again, who knows. I've been wrong before and will be many more times in the future.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The more extrodinary a claim the more extrodinary the evidence needs to be if you expect/want others to believe it.

I suppose that's where my spiritual philosophy differs from the Religious. The proof is in the experience itself. It doesn't need to be sold. If you get it, you get it. If you don't, you don't, and I don't expect you to. There's no way to prove anything or will some manifestation of confirmation, so why bother.

I just find objectivism to be more of a handicap in exploring the nature of reality than anything else. Gazing upon the mysteries of the universe with one eye shut.

a reply to: NthOther

If someone else comes to you with an extraordinary claim, do you just automatically believe them? Are you suggesting we should just take people at their word?

Also, if you had a vision of Jesus, how do you know it was really Jesus? How do you know it wasn't just Satan in disguise (he is supposed to be the deceiver, after all), or a hologram projected by aliens from the ninth dimension, or Osiris, or electromagnetic fields messing with your temporal lobes, or brain rot? Do you believe you are infallible ?

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

If someone else comes to you with an extraordinary claim, do you just automatically believe them? Are you suggesting we should just take people at their word?

No. Neither do I categorically reject personal, experiential knowledge as irrelevant to the nature of reality and our place in it.

That's foolish, in my opinion.