PDA

View Full Version : Evolution Debate



Pages : [1] 2

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 06:23 AM
I've been asked to start a new thread on this subject...the start of the conversation, if you haven't read it, starts here: Darwin too controversial for America - BTWIMHO Chat Forums (http://www.btwimho.com/showthread.php?t=414)

Alright...I'm going to start with the idea that we're all connected. To each other and to everything around us. There have been many studies of how we affect plants, water, each other, etc. Here is an example, and it's just one of many...check it out more if you'd like, and you'll see that this encompasses a mind boggling plethora of evidence that there's a connection that can't be explained with mere evolution.
Human Emotions Present in Matter, Plants and Animals Explained (http://ezinearticles.com/?Human-Emotions-Present-in-Matter,-Plants-and-Animals-Explained&id=1619541)
We have emotions. What is the need for emotions in a purely survival context? If we're all just a string of DNA that somehow came together to form a living, breathing being, then why the emotional connection we feel to one another? Why did we cry when the World Trade Center toppled, killing people that most of us didn't know?
Now, if we're all connected, and it's obviously not a physical connection, then there MUST be a spiritual connection. This points to a higher power of some sort. There is a basis for our spiritual connection that didn't come from a soup that developed life.
Some people believe that the spiritual connection is simply our energy sending out waves. Some believe in God. Some people think it's all hogwash, but there is evidence out there that there IS a connection. There's proof, all you have to do is look for it.
Now....touching on evolution, which this is ultimately about, the theory is that a string of RNA somehow found each other through some miracle (yes, I'm calling it a miracle, because the odds of this happening are so far out there it can only be considered a miracle), and we were all born of a single cell billions of years ago.
However, in order to really believe this, we have to assume that this cell had some sort of life. Primitive to say the least, but a life nonetheless. It had such a strong will to live, it formed the entire planet full of plants, creatures, and people. Where did this will come from?
Once again, pointing me in the direction of a higher power...that is if you're to believe that we all started from a single cell to begin with, which is something I hotly debate, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume that's what happened since most of you believe wholeheartedly that evolution is fact. There are so many questions and fallacies connected to evolution as it stands that it's really difficult for me to draw the conclusion that this is the ONLY force at work in the universe. Which leads me to a completely different line of thinking than most.
So if connectivity to one another has been proven...
and if there is scientific "evidence" of evolution, then why can't a conclusion be drawn that somehow they could BOTH be right? Why believe in one and completely discount the other? How can you have faith that one is true, but scoff at faith in another possibility?

Ferre
30-09-2009, 06:58 AM
Have you ever looked into pheromones?

pheromones - Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=pheromones&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws)

Interesting field :sqwink:

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 07:00 AM
Pheromones would explain our need to copulate...
but not our need to love.

Ferre
30-09-2009, 07:29 AM
You miss the big picture, we use Pheromones to communicate, not only within 'the group' but also to interact with other species.

There is a lot more to pheromones than just a signal for sex, it is a signal for fear too and science is only the past few years starting to find out (through experiments) that plants and animals all have receptors and their own pheromones system which to certain (but not fully understood yet) extend communicate with each other.

Pheromones are not just "a chemical", they are a wide variety of chemicals, like perfumes also have several different chemicals to blend in to one scent. plants and animals (as well as humans) compose the pheromones they release according to the circumstances of the moment, they are a language which we are just finding out about.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Saying that pheromones is the basis for the spiritual connection we all feel for one another is a stretch to say the least.
But let's entertain for the moment, for the sake of argument, that's the case.
It still doesn't explain emotion...it doesn't explain why that part of your brain that fires emotional responses does what it does...and it doesn't explain what triggers it.
It also doesn't explain how someone hundreds of miles away, with no ability to connect with the pheromones of that person, can still feel compassion for a loss or tragedy.

Ferre
30-09-2009, 09:55 AM
Where did I mention them being 'the basis'? :sqrolleyes:

What I am saying is that pheromones contribute to how we "feel", not only the pheromones of others have influence on how we "feel" but also those of other species.

What I am saying is that we communicate that way, those chemical particles are light and travel relatively long distances too after they are released. Earth species communicate apparently with a combination of senses and chemicals, of which human language is just one.

As for consciousness and how we get to think what we think, apart from the thoughts which are triggered by chemical signals like hunger, we can only guess, using the little information which is available to us at present time, what makes it so fascinating is that although little, we do have some information and more research is being done in that area, we are living in interesting times.

BTW, I believe that life and consciousness is the result of millions of years of evolution, not of deliberate design, I have no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

However, I am open to the hypothesis that this earth has become into a relative state of equilibrium and that, again due to evolution, the earth itself with everything on it has (or is becoming) a what I can only name as a "universal awareness system"

It's sort of what I found in the gaia hypothesis. I just think that evolution has done (and is still doing) the job without a designer.

Atom
30-09-2009, 10:16 AM
I think that a major concern of the big bang theory, and consequently the Gaia theory, is that it is obvious that there has to be something to begin with for it to explode. If the big bang theory is true then we have a big problem in defining not only what that something was, but how it got there.

Atom
30-09-2009, 10:33 AM
For example, the Gaia hypothesis suggests that the light from the big bang somehow spawned protons and electrons, yet we know of no way that it is possible for light or heat to produce these particles.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 10:37 AM
Human pheromones do contribute to the attraction we have for other humans,...but in no way control emotions or feelings as such.
Here is a rather detailed explanation of how pheromones work...there is NO connection with emotions or our ability to care about someone we're not attracted to.
NEL, Human Pheromones: "Integrating Neuroendocrinology and Ethology" (http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm)
Also, you have to be in close proximity to the pheromones for them to have an affect on you...note one instance where they had females wear them around their necks to determine behavior. You can only assume, by the evidence given, that you have to be at least in the same room with someone for them to affect you. We all know there is a chemistry that you share with someone that you are sexually attracted to...but pheromones have absolutely nothing to do with compassion or our feelings of right from wrong.

Atom
30-09-2009, 10:59 AM
Origin is everything in our world, to suggest otherwise of anything our senses can detect puts that suggestion in the god realm i.e. it simply was (is). The Gaia hypothesis does exactly that, it puts gasses as simply being there to begin with, with not even an attempt to explain their origin. It then has these gasses exploding and producing particles from the light and heat of this explosion. Rather hard to swallow IMO.

Atom
30-09-2009, 11:02 AM
And this is not to even mention what is suggested that happened after the particles were "borne".

Ferre
30-09-2009, 11:03 AM
I think that a major concern of the big bang theory, and consequently the Gaia theory, is that it is obvious that there has to be something to begin with for it to explode. If the big bang theory is true then we have a big problem in defining not only what that something was, but how it got there.

Yep, that will always be a challenge, because we can keep asking the question 'where did it come from' every time we found an answer to the previous question on where it all came from.

If it was energy, where did that originate? If it was matter, where did it originate. If it was made by a deity, where did the deity originate, and so on...

fascinating stuff :sqbiggrin:

iowadawg
30-09-2009, 11:15 AM
I have always believed that God, if there is a God, is a humorous being.

He just created the universe as a joke.
Humans on earth were a by product of his joke.

Seriously, there has been and still is a valid theory that there are many universes.
They come and go, just as our universe will go.

Atom
30-09-2009, 11:15 AM
Yep, that will always be a challenge, because we can keep asking the question 'where did it come from' every time we found an answer to the previous question on where it all came from.

If it was energy, where did that originate? If it was matter, where did it originate. If it was made by a deity, where did the deity originate, and so on...

fascinating stuff :sqbiggrin:It seems to me that we are always in this position of having to think backwards to a point of origin that defies explanation. It indeed is fascinating how these different theories do stimulate the mind though, and shift perception.

Ferre
30-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Oh well, we are getting closer to the answers though;

Did evolution come before life? - life - 15 September 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14726-did-evolution-come-before-life.html)

Atom
30-09-2009, 11:29 AM
Oh well, we are getting closer to the answers though;

Did evolution come before life? - life - 15 September 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14726-did-evolution-come-before-life.html)This seems a very informative link, Ferre, thanks. : )
I'll be fine-tooth combing it after I do some outdoor stuff to please the sun god. lol

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 11:41 AM
Oh well, we are getting closer to the answers though;

Did evolution come before life? - life - 15 September 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14726-did-evolution-come-before-life.html)

Wow, this opened a whole new can of worms didn't it?
Once again, the chemicals used are in question...so in reality, they don't know what chemicals were present at that time. So far, in order to believe evolution, I would have to assume that the conditions were perfect for a single cell to form (microbiologists tend to throw out the evolution theory once they start actually studying a cell, but that's another debate), then this single cell somehow morphed into two cells, possibly mitosis? Then this somehow turned into a worm of sorts, with a simple structure, and this worm crawled out of a murky soup to then father every creature on earth as we know it.
And not once has there been an answer to the question, why males and females? If we can just reproduce spontaneously from a cell using a magic concoction of chemicals, atmosphere, and tons of other improbable happenings, then why the need for different genders?

Ferre
30-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Funny enough are most of the questions you just asked already answered. :sqwink:

Read "The god delusion" from Richard Dawkins, he adresses many of those questions in there, like how that single cell "morphed" (your words) into two cells and so on.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 11:58 AM
I disagree that those questions have been answered...not in my mind, not even close. If you accept that the cell had this wild desire to live and become something living...then you have to accept the theory that evolution happened in response to life and survival only. There is no need for different genders if the sole purpose of evolution is to adapt to surroundings and survive.

Ferre
30-09-2009, 12:11 PM
There is no need for different genders if the sole purpose of evolution is to adapt to surroundings and survive.


Not if cells and life would not be influenced by corrosion, most chemical elements, the building blocks of cells and life, have a half-life, they don't exist forever, on a microbiological level this is partly compensated by cell devision, on a macro biological level I guess a more practical manner of reproducing was needed simply because species have a half-life as well, we see all sorts of that in nature.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 12:24 PM
So you're implying that, according to the laws of evolution, things evolved slowly over time, that there should be a half male, half female somewhere that's still left to be uncovered that would be the in between stages of evolving into separate genders? This is the other huge problem with evolution...there ARE no half formed anything. There are no bones found of a creature in the process of evolving...
They lend the explanation that it happens so slowly you can't see it...
then that would mean there would have been a period of millions of years that females and males were still trying to form different genitalia and would have been able to reproduce separately for some time before having to copulate to produce offspring. They would have died out...the species wouldn't have survived.

ewomack
30-09-2009, 10:36 PM
It's easier to explain cells evolving from sludge than it is to explain a wholly omniscient being with endless powers of creation and destruction that has always existed and always will exist. That "creature" is far more improbable than a single cell bubbling up from an ocean vent. How and where did such an unlikely thing arise from? Did it always exist? Is that possible? Why do creationists have such a problem believing in something as simple as cell evolution when the god they believe in is 500,000,000,000 times more improbable? You can't just say "because god exists" and stamp your foot. Even if evolution turns up completely wrong it was at least based on some form of tangible evidence. Arguments for god remain abstract and consequential. We have no test for god. No one has ever seen god. We have no idea where god is or what it or he or she is. God came from a book. We continue to believe in that book. That's okay, but when people begin denying evidence that's right in front of them to keep an ancient abstraction alive, that becomes worrying. People are animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. We have always been part of the animal kingdom.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 05:14 AM
So you're implying that, according to the laws of evolution, things evolved slowly over time, that there should be a half male, half female somewhere that's still left to be uncovered that would be the in between stages of evolving into separate genders? This is the other huge problem with evolution...there ARE no half formed anything. There are no bones found of a creature in the process of evolving...
They lend the explanation that it happens so slowly you can't see it...
then that would mean there would have been a period of millions of years that females and males were still trying to form different genitalia and would have been able to reproduce separately for some time before having to copulate to produce offspring. They would have died out...the species wouldn't have survived.

Please, you really need to quit forcing me to act like a bloody school teacher, learn what is KNOWN about the stuff you bring up or refrain from bringing it up, it only makes you look stupid and annoys the hell out of me because the only thing I do in this conversation is correct your misunderstandings of even the most basic science.

Read here why your post is a waste of my time:

Pharyngula::Penis evolution (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/penis_evolution/)
Intromittent organ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intromittent_organ)
Pharyngula::Evolution of the mammalian vagina (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/evolution_of_the_mammalian_vagina/)
BBC NEWS | Health | Q&A: How do you define sex? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8250609.stm)

When you are able to read the actual scientific language you can find out how the separate sexes evolved on the microbiological and biochemical levels when you do the reading here;

how did separate sexes evolve - Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&resnum=0&q=how%20did%20separate%20sexes%20evolve&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws)

And here is a nice graphic; http://evolution-textbook.org/content/free/figures/23_EVOW_Art/26_EVOW_CH23.pdf

Now, before we go on, please do a Google search on every single argument you want to bring up in this conversation and see what science actually found out already, the next argument that is based on misrepresentation's and misconceptions I will simply ignore, so if you do not find an answer to your posts, do a Google search and you will probably find out why that is, and learn something while at it.

And yes, evolution of separate sexes is fact, we know how it evolved, despite no fossil record of (your words); "half female somewhere that's still left to be uncovered that would be the in between stages of evolving into separate genders"

They are NOT left to be uncovered, they ARE uncovered and in fact we still have living species today which are in what might be called an in-between-state. Did you know that young oysters are male and transform into females when they grow larger? Did you ever learn at biology class how worms and snails reproduce?

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 06:58 AM
Since I'm apparently too stupid for this conversation...I shall see my way out of it.
Thank you for your time.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 07:15 AM
You could instead take my advice at hand and continue this conversation in a more constructive manner and go from there. Trying to debunk or make science look suspect and unreliable with arguments that clearly show that you are clueless about the science behind the substance you base your arguments on does not go well in any conversation, it forces others to become a corrector instead of a conversation partner.

:sqwink:

Atom
01-10-2009, 07:21 AM
Since I'm apparently too stupid for this conversation...I shall see my way out of it.
Thank you for your time.I think the best thing to do if you're offended by a post is just ignore it, I happened to find your post #21 rather stimulating, I'd actually never considered that before.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 07:22 AM
I actually did take the time to google the information before bringing it up. I have in the past, and did so again before making the argument. I found nothing, in the links you provided nor in the searches I did previously that actually prove anything. It's all a theories and guesses.
I've noticed instead of a constructive debate, you've chosen to try and rebut with corrections that aren't exactly valid to the discussion at hand. However, instead of assuming you're an idiot, I explored what you had to say and offer, without finding what you were trying to convey. It had nothing to do with stupidity on my part, but more or less a close minded point of view on your side on the subject.
At this point, I don't see the need to continue the conversation since it's turned into what it has. Being insulted pisses me off. I won't subject myself to it...

Ferre
01-10-2009, 07:32 AM
I actually did take the time to google the information before bringing it up. I have in the past, and did so again before making the argument. I found nothing, in the links you provided nor in the searches I did previously that actually prove anything. It's all a theories and guesses.

All you are actually saying is that you miss the ability to understand what you read, it is far from "guesses" as you call it, it is backed by experiments and biological evidence, you just don't understand the scientific method and academic language, even when it's translated for you in layman's language. Scientific "theories" are not the same as philosophical theories, you clearly don't even understand that concept so yes please, leave this conversation.

Bye! :yo:

Atom
01-10-2009, 08:13 AM
It's easier to explain cells evolving from sludge than it is to explain a wholly omniscient being with endless powers of creation and destruction that has always existed and always will exist. That "creature" is far more improbable than a single cell bubbling up from an ocean vent. How and where did such an unlikely thing arise from? Did it always exist? Is that possible? Why do creationists have such a problem believing in something as simple as cell evolution when the god they believe in is 500,000,000,000 times more improbable? You can't just say "because god exists" and stamp your foot. Even if evolution turns up completely wrong it was at least based on some form of tangible evidence. Arguments for god remain abstract and consequential. We have no test for god. No one has ever seen god. We have no idea where god is or what it or he or she is. God came from a book. We continue to believe in that book. That's okay, but when people begin denying evidence that's right in front of them to keep an ancient abstraction alive, that becomes worrying. People are animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. We have always been part of the animal kingdom.Jesus loves you.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 08:27 AM
All you are actually saying is that you miss the ability to understand what you read, it is far from "guesses" as you call it, it is backed by experiments and biological evidence, you just don't understand the scientific method and academic language, even when it's translated for you in layman's language. Scientific "theories" are not the same as philosophical theories, you clearly don't even understand that concept so yes please, leave this conversation.

Bye! :yo:

I have a bad habit of getting to answers sometimes without explaining my work...it's something that I had issues with in some of my math classes. Just to clarify my points, and forgive me, I quit smoking today and I'm a little foggy headed, of course you've already made the assumption that's a permanent condition for me, so it's no surprise to you.
Guesses: Carbon dating isn't accurate because there is no way to know the levels of carbon present at the time the animal was living. So anything that includes carbon dating is, in my opinion, a guess.
Theories: Anytime there is a jump from point A to point Z with no letters in between, in my opinion is a theory. So anytime one of the links of "proof" you provided made assumptions based on observation with no concrete evidence, but instead using assumptions, then I automatically discounted those as theories.
That explains my guesses and theories reference. I stand by it.
Now, I challenge you to actually read through every link you've sent me, and look at them with your eyes open. Google the methods used to come up with the data and determine accuracy, instead of just reading and believing. Challenge something that you've always believed and see how riddled with holes it is.
I've asked that Creation be taken out of it...and I meant it. I'm questioning evolution as a beginning stage of existence....

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 09:04 AM
For instance...here is a bold statement in the article you linked:
"As is typical, though, while the promise of salaciousness drew me in, it was the science and the evolutionary story that kept me interested. Amniote penises have had a complex history. They have evolved independently multiple times, and perhaps most troubling to the male ego, they have been secondarily lost at least a few times. And every time they have evolved, they converge on a remarkably similar morphological solution."

They are referring to birds not having a penis and jumping to the conclusion they ever had one. Now...I researched birds losing penises through evolution and came across this:
Birds themselves divide into two main groups, formally known as the palaeognathous and the neognathous. The palaeos comprises the big flightless birds such as ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries, as well as kiwis and an obscure (but flying) group of south American birds, the tinamous; the neos covers everything else. The palaeos have penises; like crocodiles, they keep them tucked into their cloacae. Again like crocodiles, the organ has an external groove for sperm. What’s more, the lineage leading to the other endowed birds, the ducks, geese, and swans, appears to have split off from that of the other neos relatively early.

This strongly suggests that the ancestor of all birds had a penis, and that at some point early in the evolution of the neognathous birds, the penis got lost. Since crocodiles have one, and ancestral birds almost certainly did, and since the two groups have such similar genital morphology, I think it’s a safe bet that the lineages between crocodiles and birds — that is, dinosaurs — had one, too.

OK, so they are making assumptions. Read closely...they observe that palaeos had penises. They don't make the same claim of the neos, yet they jump to the conclusion, without stating why, that they too had penises. Now I'm sure with further research I could determine whether they did or not, but this particular paper doesn't go there...it jumps from A to Z with no letters in between. So after reading this, I would discount what else this particular piece had to say, because this guy is obviously guessing.
This isn't particularly relevant to the actual conversation except to show you that I do indeed understand, and yet I still question. Unfathomable isn't it?

Muddy
01-10-2009, 10:18 AM
Way to rally Cry! Don't let that lovable Dutchman intimidate you! Hang in there and slug it out with him. You'll both love it and learn something too and afterward you can both lean back with your heads propped up, basking in the satisfaction, and have a smoke.

Speaking of that, better watch out! It starts in the brain and ends up in the loins and the next thing you know you're on a redeye flight to Amsterdam!!!

Zap
01-10-2009, 10:19 AM
I quit smoking today.

OT: Good for you! I'd like to do the same some time soon. Been smoking for too long now.
I wish you luck as I know how difficult it can be.

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:23 AM
Jesus loves tobacco.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 10:25 AM
Jesus loves tobacco.

Didn't he say, "Smoke this weed for it means my hair."?

I know it was somethin' like that...

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:27 AM
You heathens are all alike. :sqrofl:

Zap
01-10-2009, 10:28 AM
Jesus loves tobacco.

Let he who is without sin, spark this first joint.

http://www.e-stoned.com/files/images/164.jpg

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:33 AM
Let he who is without sin, spark this first joint. (...)If smoking weed is so bad then I think it should be used as a penance for sinning.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 10:36 AM
What if at the altar the priest went down the line poking lit joints in people's lips?

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:38 AM
I believe you've just described holy communion at Ferre's church. lol

Weed is a sacrament there.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 10:38 AM
I think you may be right! lol!

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:42 AM
Well if weed is a sacrament then I'd say there's a good chance my seat is secured in heaven. lol

Muddy
01-10-2009, 10:43 AM
I think you've got the wine covered too. lol

Atom
01-10-2009, 10:44 AM
LOL.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 10:52 AM
OT: Good for you! I'd like to do the same some time soon. Been smoking for too long now.
I wish you luck as I know how difficult it can be.

Thanks! =)

Ferre
01-10-2009, 12:09 PM
For instance...here is a bold statement in the article you linked:
"As is typical, though, while the promise of salaciousness drew me in, it was the science and the evolutionary story that kept me interested. Amniote penises have had a complex history. They have evolved independently multiple times, and perhaps most troubling to the male ego, they have been secondarily lost at least a few times. And every time they have evolved, they converge on a remarkably similar morphological solution."

They are referring to birds not having a penis and jumping to the conclusion they ever had one. Now...I researched birds losing penises through evolution and came across this:
Birds themselves divide into two main groups, formally known as the palaeognathous and the neognathous. The palaeos comprises the big flightless birds such as ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries, as well as kiwis and an obscure (but flying) group of south American birds, the tinamous; the neos covers everything else. The palaeos have penises; like crocodiles, they keep them tucked into their cloacae. Again like crocodiles, the organ has an external groove for sperm. What’s more, the lineage leading to the other endowed birds, the ducks, geese, and swans, appears to have split off from that of the other neos relatively early.

This strongly suggests that the ancestor of all birds had a penis, and that at some point early in the evolution of the neognathous birds, the penis got lost. Since crocodiles have one, and ancestral birds almost certainly did, and since the two groups have such similar genital morphology, I think it’s a safe bet that the lineages between crocodiles and birds — that is, dinosaurs — had one, too.

OK, so they are making assumptions. Read closely...they observe that palaeos had penises. They don't make the same claim of the neos, yet they jump to the conclusion, without stating why, that they too had penises. Now I'm sure with further research I could determine whether they did or not, but this particular paper doesn't go there...it jumps from A to Z with no letters in between. So after reading this, I would discount what else this particular piece had to say, because this guy is obviously guessing.
This isn't particularly relevant to the actual conversation except to show you that I do indeed understand, and yet I still question. Unfathomable isn't it?


You might understand a few details, but what you can not understand is that the theory of evolution and also how sexes evolved does not stand on a couple of findings, it stands on literally thousands of findings that all correlate with each other, like one three does not make a forest, and in every forest you'll also find a couple of odd plants, the same goes for those theories, they do have the old odd finding and the old mistake or two but all the rest of the thousands of findings combined make that science even when it guesses can make some pretty damn accurate guesses.

Point is that the way you talk might impress people without much academic background with the examples you used but for those who have an academic background you only (again) display your own ignorance of the scientific method and how theories come about.

Now, instead of going on with you trying to convince me that science doesn't know shit and me debunking the arguments you use to back them up we could talk about that idea you had, this dualism. I still wonder how you vision this "force"? or "being".

What, apart from biochemical processes would have "designed" life according to you?

Ferre
01-10-2009, 12:12 PM
I mean, according to you there is "more" to it than natural selection, in what direction do we have to think when you mention this dual eh, design?

iowadawg
01-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Tried smoking weed one time....just made me sick.

Then someone told me, not the damn weeds in your garden or lawn!

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 12:31 PM
Well now, that's the question isn't it? And that's what all this debate was supposed to be about initially...not trying to educate the other or to explain evolution.
I completely understand evolution...
I question is validity. As for a dual theory, I'm not sure what the second party is to be honest with you...but I know evolution needs more than what it has now for me to believe it hook line and sinker. If we did come from a little cell, I believe that cell had to come from some life form. As far as I know it's impossible to create life out of "non" life. In MY opinion, there has to be an alternative answer, or some other beginning, is it possible the cell was put there somehow?
God is just one of the theories I've touched on and researched...to be honest with you, there's some compelling arguments there as well. I even explored aliens (I know, crazy, but I'm open to anything and willing to check out all options)
However, the other alternatives, like the Gaia hypothesis you enlightened me to, are ill formed because no one is really considering them a viable option. They're too busy trying to tie a nose to a face void of one. If you have any alternate ideas, I'm open to suggestions. But evolution is played out as the beginning of mankind as far as I'm concerned.
As for religion and science...I honestly think we would come closer to the truth if they would actually try to come together on some things instead of butting heads every chance they get. For instance...the bible is full of historical information, some of it proven, viable information that could be used for scientific research...and some of it has, but mostly with the intention of proving it completely false, which they've failed to do on many occasions. For instance, the bible states the earth is round. They wouldn't have known that when the bible was written, it wasn't discovered until almost 1500 years later.
I could go on, but my point is...if neither one of those theories can be proven, then maybe there is a combination of the two or a completely different answer. Scientific evidence has fallen short in proving to me that evolution is the end all be all and there is no other option
Instead of trying to prove or disprove this and that, I think time would be better spent exploring other options and closing your mind to nothing.

iowadawg
01-10-2009, 12:36 PM
I subscribe to the theory we (humans) we dropped off on earth by a race so old that the universe was created by them.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 12:37 PM
As far as I know it's impossible to create life out of "non" life.

The problem is that no matter how you slice it, that's exactly what had to happen at one point somewhere, somehow.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Unless one believes that a being (god if you will) has always existed. Either way is a leap.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 12:42 PM
You might understand a few details, but what you can not understand is that the theory of evolution and also how sexes evolved does not stand on a couple of findings, it stands on literally thousands of findings that all correlate with each other, like one three does not make a forest, and in every forest you'll also find a couple of odd plants, the same goes for those theories, they do have the old odd finding and the old mistake or two but all the rest of the thousands of findings combined make that science even when it guesses can make some pretty damn accurate guesses.

Point is that the way you talk might impress people without much academic background with the examples you used but for those who have an academic background you only (again) display your own ignorance of the scientific method and how theories come about.

Now, instead of going on with you trying to convince me that science doesn't know shit and me debunking the arguments you use to back them up we could talk about that idea you had, this dualism. I still wonder how you vision this "force"? or "being".

What, apart from biochemical processes would have "designed" life according to you?

By educational background, are you simply stating that I am not a biologist? By that, you'd be correct. Now, if you could stop the personal attacks, unless that's the sole purpose of you being here, and actually consider that your beloved theory has too many little flaws and "old mistakes" to be a completely viable, stand alone option then maybe we could get somewhere with this conversation.
As for the examples I gave, I could give more, but what's the point? You'd rather call me an idiot and scoff than to actually listen to what I have to say. Self importance isn't attractive on anyone, and it's part of why this evolution thing has gone so far, with no one willing to put down their egos long enough to find the real answer.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Leggo my ego.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Unless one believes that a being (god if you will) has always existed. Either way is a leap.

And that's the thing...believing either takes either a faith in religion or a faith in science,...because neither have been proven

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 12:49 PM
I subscribe to the theory we (humans) we dropped off on earth by a race so old that the universe was created by them.

Or time travelers after realizing they destroyed mankind...:sqwink: But then, where did the original time travelers come from? And did they have a machine, or just use their minds? hehe...see, I can go off on a tangent on just about anything. Welcome to my mind folks! It's tough being me :3tongue:

Ferre
01-10-2009, 01:31 PM
And that's the thing...believing either takes either a faith in religion or a faith in science,...because neither have been proven

Oh boy :sqlaugh:

neither have been proven???

Excuse me but I think you missed the memo; Science is exactly about proven stuff and religion is exactly about the stuff that has never been proven.

Religion used to claim that every single word in the bible should be taken literally, the new testament states that nothing of the scriptures can be subject of interpretation ("Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" - 2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Then when religion got cornered because of simple developments in science and people became aware of the bullshit it was telling religion changed its course and suddenly claimed that you could read "the truth" when you fantasized another meaning to the words (interpretation) but still held on to the genesis story.

then, after darwin, many years after darwin and now that evolution is known to be a proven fact rather than a "theory" religion turns around again and starts to claim that we must forget what's in genesis but there still is ab god and you can find him in every question science has not found an answer for yet.

Makes more sense than sience, no?

The only place where the notion that science is faith comes from is from ignorant zealots, seriously. It's one of those typical intellectual fallacies creationists have been using for years now.

Here, specially for you;

LIm2H0ksawg

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 01:52 PM
I'm not above quoting ignorant zealots when the mood strikes.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 02:43 PM
Just got home and checked out the video. I never disputed the evolution itself of animals...I am disputing evolution being the beginning of life. It's obvious when breeding animals that you can change the basic structure of that animal...but to create a living animal without it's parents in a soup of chemicals is ludicrous.
So the video, although scathing yet entertaining was irrelevant to what I've been trying to say.

Muddy
01-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Oh boy :sqlaugh:

neither have been proven???

Excuse me but I think you missed the memo; Science is exactly about proven stuff and religion is exactly about the stuff that has never been proven.

Religion used to claim that every single word in the bible should be taken literally, the new testament states that nothing of the scriptures can be subject of interpretation ("Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" - 2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Then when religion got cornered because of simple developments in science and people became aware of the bullshit it was telling religion changed its course and suddenly claimed that you could read "the truth" when you fantasized another meaning to the words (interpretation) but still held on to the genesis story.

then, after darwin, many years after darwin and now that evolution is known to be a proven fact rather than a "theory" religion turns around again and starts to claim that we must forget what's in genesis but there still is ab god and you can find him in every question science has not found an answer for yet.

Makes more sense than sience, no?

The only place where the notion that science is faith comes from is from ignorant zealots, seriously. It's one of those typical intellectual fallacies creationists have been using for years now.

Here, specially for you;

LIm2H0ksawg



That girl is very hot.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 03:54 PM
Just got home and checked out the video. I never disputed the evolution itself of animals...I am disputing evolution being the beginning of life. It's obvious when breeding animals that you can change the basic structure of that animal...but to create a living animal without it's parents in a soup of chemicals is ludicrous.
So the video, although scathing yet entertaining was irrelevant to what I've been trying to say.

How can you claim not to dispute evolution itself of animals and at the same time say;


...I am disputing evolution being the beginning of life. It's obvious when breeding animals that you can change the basic structure of that animal...but to create a living animal without it's parents in a soup of chemicals is ludicrous.


While evolution teaches us that "life" began not with "animals" as you try to falsely claim it does, but "life" started with micro organisms composed of very basic biochemicals like amino acids and the science which answers that question is not biology or even cosmology but called Abiogenesis;

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

As you see there are many hypothesis on how those first micro organisms have formed, it were those first primitive cells that later evolved through evolution into "animals".

Now when did living creatures develop brains and become conscious? Would you think that was before or after those first micro organisms were formed?

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 04:03 PM
here we are back at square one. I am questioning the idea that one little cell fathered the entire world. Period. You can add all the implications to that you'd like, but that is my basic point, simply put. No amount of throwing links at me is going to change that question. You're really good at changing the direction of the conversation though, I must say, so I wanted to clarify the actual point as simply as possible.

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 04:12 PM
From the link you sent:
"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[11] The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen."

I know this is another one of those poor examples, but I'm using it anyway to prove a point. This shows that there are SCIENTIFIC theories, or "an accumulation of facts" as it were that turn out to be false.
It happens all the time.
The only time progress is made is when someone questions the "facts" and looks for the truth.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 04:13 PM
It was not one little cell, it were lots and lots of little cells. And do't go quote mining, it does make you look silly. :sqwink:

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Lots and lots of little cells just happened to show up at once? Really? Oh...and with the will to live and form everything under the modern day sun.
I think these were some pretty amazing cells.
Wonder where they came from? Oh...that's right...the 2000 year rain.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 04:16 PM
Quote mining - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Quote_mining)


Quote mining is the dubious art of using deliberate selection of quotes, normally out of context, and using them to refute the original author's point.[1] This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists to attempt to discredit evolution.

:sqlaugh:

Cryren8972
01-10-2009, 04:21 PM
Only that's not what I was doing. Actually, I was pulling it to prove a point that science isn't always so darn scientific.
I'm sure I could pull complete links for you to muddle through...if you'd rather.
Non creationist ones that have actual proof that science isn't full proof all the time.

Ferre
01-10-2009, 04:24 PM
Lots and lots of little cells just happened to show up at once? Really?

No, not at once.

Go read again on that link I send you, any chemist (and you are talking to one) can tell you that chemical reactions in general do not produce one single element.

In case you are intersted, "life" (micro organisms) can be made from a bunch of chemicals in a lab and it has been done already;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.


Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

So, do you still believe those things are (your words); "ludicrous"? :sqwink:

Cryren8972
02-10-2009, 06:23 AM
From your second link:
"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland."

So I'm guessing they let these molecules sit in dehydration for many years before adding more water? Molecules sitting in dehydration for thousands of years, or millions, whatever the case may be (I'm assuming earth didn't dehydrate and rehydrate many times in just a week or two) wouldn't have survived the process and instead, would have blown away in the wind.
Yes, ludicrous.

Ferre
02-10-2009, 06:25 AM
The only thing that's ludicrous so far are your comments, but please go on. :sqlaugh:

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 10:18 AM
OK, I've taken a deep breath, and here's the punchline.
First of all, the entire bible isn't God's word. For instance, the book of Corinthians was a group of letters written by Paul to the church of Corinth.
Anyone who said to take out Genesis was an idiot. Here's why:
The bible states earth was a mass of land void of water.
So does science.
The bible also states when water came, so did life....in the form of plants
So does science
The bible states there were then animals.
So does science.
Then along comes man in the bible.
Same with science.
All of this before science proved or discovered anything.
So how can you possibly believe one, and discard the other as rubbish?
Don't you think time would be better spent actually trying to figure out how the two actually fit together?
Even if you don't believe in God...how can that not peak your curiosity?
It does mine...

Ferre
03-10-2009, 10:36 AM
HA!

I wondered how long it took before you quit covering up the roots of your "dual theory".

Why I discard the bible as rubbish? That's easy, because the bible is a political manual for mind control, manipulation and indoctrination of the masses.

The bible is useful only to two kind of people; those who have a desire to submit themselves to a master and those who have a desire to be a master.

I'm none of those. :sqwink:

For scientific knowledge there are better books as well as for historical knowledge, and even for the search of what we call spirituality it isn't the best book either.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 10:43 AM
HA!

I wondered how long it took before you quit covering up the roots of your "dual theory".

Why I discard the bible as rubbish? That's easy, because the bible is a political manual for mind control, manipulation and indoctrination of the masses.

The bible is useful only to two kind of people; those who have a desire to submit themselves to a master and those who have a desire to be a master.

I'm none of those. :sqwink:

For scientific knowledge there are better books as well as for historical knowledge, and even for the search of what we call spirituality it isn't the best book either.

There was no cover up.
I was trying to make a point. And still, I see it's lost on you.
I was honestly trying to take Creationism out of it, and still....you want to smoosh it in there.
The point I'm trying to make is...the bible has a lot of information in it that couldn't have been known back then. Information in the bible came from ancient Egypt. We know they were an advanced people, right? I'd rather not get into explaining how we CAN'T explain the pyramids.
However, you have two theories in your head, and you're not opening it up to another idea.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 10:48 AM
http://home.austarnet.com.au/calum/egypt.html
I don't have an agenda to save your soul. =)

Zap
03-10-2009, 10:52 AM
@Cryren: If you believe in the Bible, how do you live with all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies? I'm not trying to be mean, but how do you overlook them enough to accept the book?

George Carlin said it best...
"There's an all knowing, invisible, all powerful being who has a list of ten things you're not supposed to do and if you do them, then you will go to hell, with the pain and the eternal torture and torment, fire, suffering and all that entails....

...but he loves you."

I love my kids. It wouldn't matter what they did. I could never torture them like that.

How can a God that supposedly loves us, do this to us, just because we didn't follow a few simple rules? It just doesn't make sense.

Put that together with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I know they aren't real. They are made up characters in a book. And, I can't, for the life of me, think of any real difference between God and the Tooth Fairy. And, by "real difference" I mean a significant difference, based in reality. Sure, they have different jobs, but that is only based in fiction. In the real world, there's no discernable difference to me.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 10:58 AM
@Cryren: If you believe in the Bible, how do you live with all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies? I'm not trying to be mean, but how do you overlook them enough to accept the book?

George Carlin said it best...
"There's an all knowing, invisible, all powerful being who has a list of ten things you're not supposed to do and if you do them, then you will go to hell, with the pain and the eternal torture and torment, fire, suffering and all that entails....

...but he loves you."

I love my kids. It wouldn't matter what they did. I could never torture them like that.

How can a God that supposedly loves us, do this to us, just because we didn't follow a few simple rules? It just doesn't make sense.

Put that together with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I know they aren't real. They are made up characters in a book. And, I can't, for the life of me, think of any real difference between God and the Tooth Fairy. And, by "real difference" I mean a significant difference, based in reality. Sure, they have different jobs, but that is only based in fiction. In the real world, there's no discernable difference to me.

Did you check out the link I provided? I'm saying this....
there is unexplained knowledge in the bible that everyone is overlooking because of God, and because of their personal beliefs.
What I'm TRYING to convey here, is that there is something worth looking at, if people would open their minds.
Read it, not as a religious document, not even for theology purposes.
LOOK at the information it has that shouldn't have been known back then. There is knowledge there,....why?
I wish I could somehow make you understand what I'm trying to say.
Take religion out of it.
Take God out of it.
Take all of the stuff that you hate about the bible, out of the equation.
And look at the fact that SOMEBODY back then already knew what we're just now discovering.
Period.
That's my point.
Sigh...I hope someone finally gets it.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 11:00 AM
I mean...did the ancient Egyptians have knowledge that we are just now tapping into?

Ferre
03-10-2009, 11:01 AM
I was honestly trying to take Creationism out of it, and still....you want to smoosh it in there.

No my dear, it was you who smooshed it in there by using creationist arguments from creationists sources like the discovery institute and such.

Those arguments are well known, we find them plastered all over the internet in every topic that by accident has the word "Darwin" in it. Usually the creationists will flock in (as you so clearly demonstrated) and start to add "the controversy" in the shape of ridiculous misconceptions of science and attempts to discredit the science. Even on a small forum like this one they'll flock in. You specially registered here to smoosh it in and now you try and accuse me for doing it?????

You guys are sooo predictable. :sqlaugh:

iowadawg
03-10-2009, 11:02 AM
See, that is where Christianity failed and the Nation of Islam succeeded.
Get people to read daily and pray daily.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 11:04 AM
No my dear, it was you who smooshed it in there by using creationist arguments from creationists sources like the discovery institute and such.

Those arguments are well known, we find them plastered all over the internet in every topic that by accident has the word "Darwin" in it. Usually the creationists will flock in (as you so clearly demonstrated) and start to add "the controversy" in the shape of ridiculous misconceptions of science and attempts to discredit the science. Even on a small forum like this one they'll flock in. You specially registered here to smoosh it in and now you try and accuse me for doing it?????

You guys are sooo predictable. :sqlaugh:

Are you accusing me of coming in here as a troll to propagate creationism? Paranoid much?

iowadawg
03-10-2009, 11:05 AM
You guys argue about God and lack of God.

Me, I will believe that there is a God of football.
Capricious, but still a God.

Now to go watch the Iowa Hawkeyes (#13).

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 11:08 AM
You guys argue about God and lack of God.

Me, I will believe that there is a God of football.
Capricious, but still a God.

Now to go watch the Iowa Hawkeyes (#13).

My goal is not to prove or disprove God.
I'm just trying to make sense of the world as we know it.
I guess it's way too difficult of a question, and I should give this big question in my own mind up....I ask too many. When one is answered, I think of another. It's part of what makes me me, and it's definitely what makes me such a pain in the rear.

Ferre
03-10-2009, 11:14 AM
I mean...did the ancient Egyptians have knowledge that we are just now tapping into?


Lots of knowledge has been lost during the ages, specially what we call the dark ages. During the 400 years of inquisition complete cultures and written languages have been destroyed, for example the Maya language was a written language, inherited even from their ancestors who were technically advanced enough to be able to not only calculate the path of many planets in our solar system but even their mass. Only four books have remained from that culture.

We can thank the bible and its followers for humanity's need to re-invent many things that were known before they came into power, it not thanks to the bible that humanity gained knowledge, it was despite the bible that humanity gained knowledge.

Ferre
03-10-2009, 11:17 AM
Are you accusing me of coming in here as a troll to propagate creationism? Paranoid much?

I don't know about the troll part but yes, you actually did. Remember your first posts on this forum?

Short time memory problem much?

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 11:25 AM
I see this is a hot topic for you. To be honest with you, I was doing a google on Darwinism and evolution...saw the statistics on this site claiming only 39% of Americans believed in evolution, thought it fascinating, and dove in here. I didn't come with the purpose of touting Creationism, I just had questions that apparently, they had thought of first.
I have ALWAYS questioned the bible and things in it...since I was a child. I've never been one to believe anything just because someone told me it was so.
However...once I stopped hating God, or the thought of God, and took a more objective view of things, there's a lot to be said for the amount of knowledge and understanding you can gain by being completely objective.
You're not objective, as most scientists aren't. Religious nuts aren't objective either. I'm trying to be. It's not easy.....to ask questions based on what you know or don't know, and try to determine the truth of it all.
I have faith in many things...I question more than I rest on faith.
The thing is, it's such a touchy subject for everyone involved, that it's truly hard to have questions answered. You're going to be answered one way or the other, but never an objective point of view.
That's what I'm looking for. Someone to open up enough to every aspect and be able to answer or debate with an open enough mind to not flinch or have a knee jerk reaction in one direction or another. I don't just have one sided questions. Believe me. You just happen to be a great sounding board for the scientific side.
Thanks for that.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 11:26 AM
I don't know about the troll part but yes, you actually did. Remember your first posts on this forum?

Short time memory problem much?

I said that I saw the post on Darwinism and came to check it out...above post explains more.

Zap
03-10-2009, 11:50 AM
Did you check out the link I provided? I'm saying this....
there is unexplained knowledge in the bible that everyone is overlooking because of God, and because of their personal beliefs.
What I'm TRYING to convey here, is that there is something worth looking at, if people would open their minds.
Read it, not as a religious document, not even for theology purposes.
LOOK at the information it has that shouldn't have been known back then. There is knowledge there,....why?
I wish I could somehow make you understand what I'm trying to say.
Take religion out of it.
Take God out of it.
Take all of the stuff that you hate about the bible, out of the equation.
And look at the fact that SOMEBODY back then already knew what we're just now discovering.
Period.
That's my point.
Sigh...I hope someone finally gets it.

I did check out your link. A lot of it, I knew already.
But, maybe I interpret the information there, differently than you do.
To me, it reinforces the point that the Bible is not to be taken as anything more than a story book. If so many of the stories of the Bible are just rehashed stories from other religious books and scriptures, then they have been translated, passed down, retold, retranslated, etc. so many times that the broken telephone syndrome comes into play.

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 12:02 PM
I did check out your link. A lot of it, I knew already.
But, maybe I interpret the information there, differently than you do.
To me, it reinforces the point that the Bible is not to be taken as anything more than a story book. If so many of the stories of the Bible are just rehashed stories from other religious books and scriptures, then they have been translated, passed down, retold, retranslated, etc. so many times that the broken telephone syndrome comes into play.

That was actually my intention.
To throw a link up there that dated it back to ancient Egypt...show what had been lost and subject to translation.
I wanted religion, Christianity, and God taken out of the equation, and objectify the bible.
Doesn't change that there is information in there that shouldn't have been known at the time.
I guess I'm the only one fascinated by it. :sqerr:

Cryren8972
03-10-2009, 12:06 PM
@Cryren: If you believe in the Bible, how do you live with all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies? I'm not trying to be mean, but how do you overlook them enough to accept the book?

George Carlin said it best...
"There's an all knowing, invisible, all powerful being who has a list of ten things you're not supposed to do and if you do them, then you will go to hell, with the pain and the eternal torture and torment, fire, suffering and all that entails....

...but he loves you."

I love my kids. It wouldn't matter what they did. I could never torture them like that.

How can a God that supposedly loves us, do this to us, just because we didn't follow a few simple rules? It just doesn't make sense.

Put that together with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I know they aren't real. They are made up characters in a book. And, I can't, for the life of me, think of any real difference between God and the Tooth Fairy. And, by "real difference" I mean a significant difference, based in reality. Sure, they have different jobs, but that is only based in fiction. In the real world, there's no discernable difference to me.

Actually...and I'm loathe to go here simply because I've been trying to NOT talk about religion, but focus on the discussion I was interested in,...but in reality, the bible actually teaches forgiveness for this stuff...
You won't go to hell as long as you believe in God and Jesus...that's what the bible teaches, not trying to change anyone's belief system here.
The list of rules are there for your benefit, not God's. Religion is the one teaching the hellfire and brimstone if you happen to err in the slightest.

iowadawg
03-10-2009, 12:16 PM
Bottom line, whether you believe in God creating us, or it was a fluke of a bunch of stuff getting together,,,,is that we are here.

Now to get back to the Hawkeye game.

And twitter, can not forget twitter.

Muddy
03-10-2009, 12:58 PM
@Cryren: If you believe in the Bible, how do you live with all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies? I'm not trying to be mean, but how do you overlook them enough to accept the book?

George Carlin said it best...
"There's an all knowing, invisible, all powerful being who has a list of ten things you're not supposed to do and if you do them, then you will go to hell, with the pain and the eternal torture and torment, fire, suffering and all that entails....

...but he loves you."

I love my kids. It wouldn't matter what they did. I could never torture them like that.

How can a God that supposedly loves us, do this to us, just because we didn't follow a few simple rules? It just doesn't make sense.

Put that together with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I know they aren't real. They are made up characters in a book. And, I can't, for the life of me, think of any real difference between God and the Tooth Fairy. And, by "real difference" I mean a significant difference, based in reality. Sure, they have different jobs, but that is only based in fiction. In the real world, there's no discernable difference to me.

Upon close examination, one finds that the bible doesn't support the existence of any so-called hellfire or place of eternal torture, etc. That is just another scare tactic dreamed up and disseminated by the clergy in a further effort to control people. The god of the bible would no more inflict that kind of punishment than we as human parents would. He sure did have the Israelites slaughter a bunch of people though...hard to figure that guy out. lol!

Zap
03-10-2009, 05:23 PM
Upon close examination, one finds that the bible doesn't support the existence of any so-called hellfire or place of eternal torture, etc. That is just another scare tactic dreamed up and disseminated by the clergy in a further effort to control people. The god of the bible would no more inflict that kind of punishment than we as human parents would. He sure did have the Israelites slaughter a bunch of people though...hard to figure that guy out. lol!

I beg to differ, Dude...

Matthew 25:41

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!

Revelation 20:10

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:15

If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

Matthew 13:41.50

13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There's plenty of good stuff in store for us non-believers.

No question, it's used as a scare tactic, and often. Even more often if you're Anglican. LOL!
But there's plenty of passages in the Bible for these "leaders" to use to scare the bejeebers out of us.

Atom
04-10-2009, 10:08 AM
(...) then, after darwin, many years after darwin and now that evolution is known to be a proven fact rather than a "theory" (...)Ferre, you are contradicting yourself here, in the very same post that I took this excerpt from, your post #57, you posted a video that proves that evolution is neither fact nor theory but both, and here you are stating that evolution is known to be a proven fact rather than a theory. Just thought I'd better point that out to you.

Ferre
04-10-2009, 10:39 AM
It is proven fact Atom, but "some" don't understand that it is "also" a theory, with the word "theory" in the scientific meaning, not the philosophical one.

Atom
04-10-2009, 10:47 AM
What you probably should have said is then, after darwin, many years after darwin and now that evolution is known to be a proven fact as well as a "theory". You said rather than, which is a mistake according to the video, and the AND in the video title is even capitalized. No biggie though, I just wanted you to be aware of the contradiction.

Atom
04-10-2009, 11:00 AM
I actually find this Fact AND Theory video an important one for everyone to watch, as well as the Pat Condell video in the arrogance of clergy thread.

Muddy
04-10-2009, 01:31 PM
I actually find this Fact AND Theory video an important one for everyone to watch, as well as the Pat Condell video in the arrogance of clergy thread.

Yeah, the fact and theory video is a must see.

I haven't made up my mind about Condell yet. He seems to lump all religions into a Catholic model which is a less than accurate thing to do and also if he's going to claim atheism and a loathing for anything but, then he shouldn't use Jesus' teachings to support his arguments. I'm not talking about referring to them sarcastically to point out hypocrisy. That's totally fair play. All in all I agree with him though and he makes many excellent points.

Muddy
04-10-2009, 01:41 PM
I beg to differ, Dude...

Matthew 25:41


Revelation 20:10


Revelation 20:15


Matthew 13:41.50


There's plenty of good stuff in store for us non-believers.

No question, it's used as a scare tactic, and often. Even more often if you're Anglican. LOL!
But there's plenty of passages in the Bible for these "leaders" to use to scare the bejeebers out of us.

Yeah Zap, there are a lot of passages that have been used as scare tactics, but have been applied in error. Contrary to what it actually says in the bible about not adding to or taking away from it, over the years that's exactly what has happened. (Particularly since good ol' Constantine got involved.) Things were added, taken away, changed and mostly just plain misinterpreted to the clergy's advantage. Take Revelation for example. The very first verse in Revelation makes it clear that the book is symbolic. Yet the clergy will take those scriptures you quote and say they're literal to scare you. I'll need to dust off that part of my brain I guess to show you what I mean, but first, which bible are you using?

Atom
04-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Yeah, the fact and theory video is a must see.

I haven't made up my mind about Condell yet. He seems to lump all religions into a Catholic model which is a less than accurate thing to do and also if he's going to claim atheism and a loathing for anything but, then he shouldn't use Jesus' teachings to support his arguments. I'm not talking about referring to them sarcastically to point out hypocrisy. That's totally fair play. All in all I agree with him though and he makes many excellent points.Yes, I did notice his reluctance to mention all those millions of rug kneelers etc, but I personally included them as I watched. I was just watching a PBS doc yesterday where in one country, can't remember which, the people gather and pray five times a day every day at the sound of a bell. I don't know if I could hack that. lol

Ferre
04-10-2009, 02:01 PM
He did make s few video's specially dedicated to the rug kneelers though. :sqwink:

Atom
04-10-2009, 02:05 PM
He did make s few video's specially dedicated to the rug kneelers though. :sqwink:Well good then, I hate to think that Christians are the only fools in the world. lol

Strong
05-10-2009, 04:11 AM
I notice a couple of you using the term 'rug kneelers'. I wish you would not use such derogatory terms in this discussion. You may not have much respect for their religious views but there is a point where such language turns into an unsavoury and deprecating way of referring to people which I abhor.

This is the kind of crap that leads to racist abuse and I for one do not wish to hear it. If you mean Muslims than please use the term Muslim. There is no need to debase yourselves in this way.

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:25 AM
Ah, I for one welcome our new tought police overlords :yo:

*I'll also send a request to the world dictionary to explain them that religion now has to be considered a race and they should change the definition to include religious wackaloonery.

Isn't that already coverd in the new UN blasphemy laws? :sqlaugh:

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:28 AM
Does that mean that the term "Pinguins for Jesus" to describe nuns isn't allowed too? :sqeek:

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:31 AM
Good thing that free speech is "regulated" in the english speaking part of the woods, it might give those poor sensitive people an unconfortable feeling and we can't have that now can we?

:sqlaugh:

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:37 AM
Funny that, every time I step foot outside my own country into any other one I feel like I'm visiting a prison, the internets seem to be no different, as soon as I leave the media in my own language the professional and voluntarily thought and censor police watches every step you take.

Nice. :sqrofl:

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:38 AM
Everything is OK, move on folks, nothing to see here

Ferre
05-10-2009, 04:40 AM
KGA9ZUEa3ZY

Strong
05-10-2009, 04:42 AM
Me? Your kidding :sqlaugh:

But you know what I mean and I know you agree with me, there is a point where such language is perceived to be more than friendly banter. It is wrong when it is directed at others just as much as it is wrong when it is directed at you or me Ferre.

Ferre
05-10-2009, 05:03 AM
Everything is ok :sqwink:

Strong
05-10-2009, 05:26 AM
Funny video BTW. It has got to the point where you need permission from the police to hold a demonstration anywhere in London.

Ferre
05-10-2009, 06:22 AM
I think you missed the point. It was not a "demonstration" but it has gotten to a point where freedom of speech and expression by individuals is criminalized.

..and it all starts where people start to restrict other people's freedoms only to protect "feelings".

But you my friend, don't know what it's like to live freedom, you my friend, just displayed where it all starts; with 'politically correct' language in order not to hurt a bunch of religious bigots their "feelings".

Good on you. All's well, everything's OK. :sqlaugh:

Atom
05-10-2009, 06:37 AM
I notice a couple of you using the term 'rug kneelers'. I wish you would not use such derogatory terms in this discussion. You may not have much respect for their religious views but there is a point where such language turns into an unsavoury and deprecating way of referring to people which I abhor.

This is the kind of crap that leads to racist abuse and I for one do not wish to hear it. If you mean Muslims than please use the term Muslim. There is no need to debase yourselves in this way.I didn't mean Muslims. I meant rug kneelers. Don't like it? Ban me.

Atom
05-10-2009, 06:40 AM
I don't know a goddamned muslim from a tibetan monk you bean head. Smarten up!

Atom
05-10-2009, 06:49 AM
You're just not the Family kinda Guy are you, Strongy? It's dummies like you that spark racism.

Atom
05-10-2009, 06:55 AM
You're just mad because I gave you hell for making fun of Americans. Too bad.

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:03 AM
Americans are the superior race.

:3tongue:

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:06 AM
Oh, and one more goddamned thing, go to hell.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 07:09 AM
Hey...can we inject some love in this thread? Holy cow...

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:24 AM
Sure. I love you, Strongy. :sqbiggrin:

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Thanks! Much better....:armybiggrin:

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:32 AM
I also love all [Edit: Americans. Fuck you Atom too!]. I'm not sure what countries they frequent, but if the rug fits, wear it. :sqlaugh:

Strong
05-10-2009, 07:34 AM
Where you want to go with this arse hole!

Strong
05-10-2009, 07:34 AM
BTW, I still love you too!

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:36 AM
I don't know, I guess when we get tired of the rug kneelers we can pick on the [Edit]. :sqlaugh:

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:37 AM
Catholics have some of the weirdest rituals, I can verify that for a certainty. lol

Strong
05-10-2009, 07:41 AM
I don't know, I guess when we get tired of the rug kneelers we can pick on the [Edit]. :sqlaugh:

And guess what? I find that just as disrespectful!

The censorship isn't about stopping you guys from arguing evolution, it is about making sure you do it respectfully! I find the abuse gets right up my fucking nose!!!

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:47 AM
And guess what? I find that just as disrespectful!

The censorship isn't about stopping you guys from arguing evolution, it is about making sure you do it respectfully! I find the abuse gets right up my fucking nose!!!Really? Did you take your pills this morning?

:sqlaugh:

Strong
05-10-2009, 07:53 AM
:sqlaugh:

Well I think I took all of them! How about you? :sqwink:

Zap
05-10-2009, 07:53 AM
*Waiting to see if it's going to be Atom or Ferre to begin using the word "nigger"*

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:56 AM
:sqlaugh:

Well I think I took all of them! How about you? :sqwink:I don't take those kind, maybe I should start. :sqlaugh:

Atom
05-10-2009, 07:59 AM
I take a water pill, blood pressure pill, cholesterol pill and vitamin, that's it. I also take two types of inhalers.

Strong
05-10-2009, 08:03 AM
I take the diabetes stuff, aspirin, cholesterol and an anti-depressant (although that is for neuropathy, it is the worst, it does have effects on my moods strangely enough.)

Atom
05-10-2009, 08:08 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot aspirin, I take one a day. I've started keeping them by the bed as Krisma suggested, parts of my body such as limbs, hands, fingers, thigh etc have been going numb so I figured it wasn't a bad idea.

Strong
05-10-2009, 08:12 AM
The chemist told me recently aspirin eats away at your stomach lining, hence the advise to have it with food. Acid/indigestion a couple of times a week, while taking it, may be indicative of a problem. Hence another medication on top to counter that.

Atom
05-10-2009, 08:18 AM
I honestly think that the cholesterol and blood pressure pills are the only thing keeping me alive, this body parts going numb thing is pretty weird, I'm thinking that I'm just a stroke waiting to happpen. I'm not too worried about it though, I have no spouse or dependents.

Strong
05-10-2009, 08:24 AM
I guess that is my real worry, I have both. I guess if the drugs can keep me going until the young one is old enough to stand on his own two feet I'll be happy enough. Although by then they may actually have a cure for diabetes and indeed old age.

Atom
05-10-2009, 08:35 AM
One thing I get plenty of is exercise, I'm a worker. My emphysema has been crimping my style with that lately though. Used to be I could do the work of a 20 y/o. It's real work though that I'm talking about, the kind that people used to have to do before backhoes and such.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 08:37 AM
OK, you two just went from sounding like testosterone driven youths to old men...
in a flash.
What's up with that? :sqcool:

Strong
05-10-2009, 08:40 AM
I hope you've recovered from your concreting. I could do with more exercise. In fact I'd be in the garden today if it wasn't for the rain. Been raining since five this morning and hasn't stopped.

And talking of dependants, school run. Catch ya later!

Strong
05-10-2009, 08:41 AM
Cry: I'm too old to do otherwise. :sqlaugh:

Atom
05-10-2009, 08:45 AM
I hope you've recovered from your concreting. I could do with more exercise. In fact I'd be in the garden today if it wasn't for the rain. Been raining since five this morning and hasn't stopped.

And talking of dependants, school run. Catch ya later!Wow, that's weird, it's been raining here too, it rained the entire day yesterday and this morning non-stop, and it's just a couple of hours ago that it let up.

I noticed your spelling of dependants, I may have erred using an e instead of an a earlier, I didn't pay much attention to anything at all in school. lol

Atom
05-10-2009, 08:52 AM
I mixed and poured 7 and a half 80lb bags of concrete the other day by hand and it near killed me, but I just keep on doing stuff like that because I can. I've a feeling that if the heart attack doesn't get me the emphysema will, I'm thinking it'll eventually put the kibosh to me doing any of that type of physical labor, that'll be a sad day for me, I actually enjoy hard manual labor for some strange reason, I think it may be in my genes or something, or it could be the adrenaline thing.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 09:06 AM
I mixed and poured 7 and a half 80lb bags of concrete the other day by hand and it near killed me, but I just keep on doing stuff like that because I can. I've a feeling that if the heart attack doesn't get me the emphysema will, I'm thinking it'll eventually put the kibosh to me doing any of that type of physical labor, that'll be a sad day for me, I actually enjoy hard manual labor for some strange reason, I think it may be in my genes or something, or it could be the adrenaline thing.

Do you smoke?

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:07 AM
Do you smoke?Yes, Jesus and I love tobacco.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:09 AM
Seriously though, I've smoked all my life and I love tobacco.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:10 AM
It's been one of my main pleasures in life.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:11 AM
Many people with emphesema curse tobacco, but not me, I really love smoking.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:14 AM
I'm currently rolling vanilla flavored pipe tobacco, it's great. Much better than packaged cigarettes, and much cheaper.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:22 AM
I've got 15 and a half bags of concrete left to mix. I do everything alone, no help. The hard thing about that is that it has to be poured quickly, one bag right after the other, you can't mix and pour a few bags then have a rest, it cures too quickly, that's why the 7+ bags near killed me lol.

Atom
05-10-2009, 09:28 AM
If I had money I'd at least have rented an electric cement mixer.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 09:50 AM
This is where I should chime in and say that you need to quit smoking...and start taking better care of yourself.
I have a funny feeling though, you wouldn't listen. :sqwink:

Atom
05-10-2009, 10:17 AM
This is where I should chime in and say that you need to quit smoking...and start taking better care of yourself.
I have a funny feeling though, you wouldn't listen. :sqwink:No way, I've seen what happens to those people that live 20 years longer than I do, they die.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 10:22 AM
No way, I've seen what happens to those people that live 20 years longer than I do, they die.

LOL! Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. :sqlaugh:

Strong
05-10-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow, that's weird, it's been raining here too, it rained the entire day yesterday and this morning non-stop, and it's just a couple of hours ago that it let up.

I noticed your spelling of dependants, I may have erred using an e instead of an a earlier, I didn't pay much attention to anything at all in school. lol

Yeah, stopped here a couple hours ago.

Dependant (http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/dependant)

de‧pen‧dant British English ; dependent American English
someone, especially a child, who depends on you for food, clothes, money etc

Looks like we were both right :sqbiggrin:

Strong
05-10-2009, 12:54 PM
I mixed and poured 7 and a half 80lb bags of concrete the other day by hand and it near killed me, but I just keep on doing stuff like that because I can. I've a feeling that if the heart attack doesn't get me the emphysema will, I'm thinking it'll eventually put the kibosh to me doing any of that type of physical labor, that'll be a sad day for me, I actually enjoy hard manual labor for some strange reason, I think it may be in my genes or something, or it could be the adrenaline thing.

I know what you mean. Those aching muscles give a satisfaction that no amount of posting on forums quite matches.

(I might go so far as to say, even searching for porn don't bring the same kind of satisfaction :sqwink:)

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 12:54 PM
If you spell it dependant here, it will underline it as if incorrect.
So in England it underlines it if you spell it dependent? Or does it accept both spellings?

Muddy
05-10-2009, 12:56 PM
If you spell it dependant here, it will underline it as if incorrect.
So in England it underlines it if you spell it dependent? Or does it accept both spellings?

It's the same software installed on a server in Canada, soooo...:sqwink:

Atom
05-10-2009, 01:11 PM
Yeah, stopped here a couple hours ago.

Dependant (http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/dependant)


Looks like we were both right :sqbiggrin:Good well I don't feel so bad then, I hate having to look every little thing up but with this OCD and all, well, I kinda get tired of it so I let that one go, I thought that it was incorrect after I thought about it, I'm actually a bit surprised to hear that it's not.

Strong
05-10-2009, 01:19 PM
It is just one of those American British spelling differences. No biggie if you are aware of it. Language is always changing. Look at the spelling they use in text messaging, that's gonna stick one day.

Cry: I assume you mean the dictionary attached to your browser. The forum itself doesn't make any suggestions about spelling. As for the dictionary attached to your browser you should be able to set which language you use and hence effect whether you get Queen's English or American English spelling. Different browsers do things differently.

Muddy
05-10-2009, 01:24 PM
Cry: I assume you mean the dictionary attached to your browser. The forum itself doesn't make any suggestions about spelling. As for the dictionary attached to your browser you should be able to set which language you use and hence effect whether you get Queen's English or American English spelling. Different browsers do things differently.

Talk about a senior moment! Strong's right Cry so just scratch post #158. I have no idea what I was thinking. I need some fermented grape juice. In a cup.

Cryren8972
05-10-2009, 01:28 PM
This forum does underline misspelled words though...at least it does for me. But that could be the actual software on my computer I suppose...

Strong
07-10-2009, 05:54 AM
Does it only happen when you are creating or editing a post? If so it is your browser. I'm not sure which browser you are using, but they usually have a dictionary attached and spell checking is done by the browser in edit fields on the fly. You should be able to set which dictionary to use, English or US English or whatever language you choose.

The forum itself has nothing to do with that. For instance spell a word wrong intentionally while creating a post here at BTWIMHO, then go to another site and do the same thing. You should get the incorrect word underlined at both sites.

Trapper
07-10-2009, 12:44 PM
I've read three pages of this circle jerk and had enough. Here is my 7 year old summing it all up for her sister and friend. (She's 11 now)

Epps9UU97mw

Strong
07-10-2009, 12:48 PM
Well I believe her :sqbiggrin:

Ferre
11-10-2009, 06:41 AM
This video is a must-see for anyone who ever gets into a debate with a creationist aka intelligent design advocate.

ba2h9tqNYAo

Atom
11-10-2009, 11:41 AM
I find this lecture a very interesting one. One thing that I did notice throughout though, is that Mr. Myers is very careful to avoid any type of subjective thinking, which to me made it a bit dull, but I think it is very interesting for the most part.

Ferre
11-10-2009, 12:51 PM
Well, I'm a daily reader of his blog Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) and I can assure you he is not as dull when he writes.

:sqlaugh:

Ferre
11-10-2009, 12:52 PM
Read this here; The worst article on Ardipithecus yet : Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/the_worst_article_on_ardipithe.php)

Atom
11-10-2009, 01:26 PM
I fully agree with Mr. Myers that monkeys are a beautiful thing, I just wish that they would learn to stop masturbating at my dinner parties.

Ferre
11-10-2009, 01:30 PM
Must be something in the food :sqlaugh:

Atom
11-10-2009, 02:05 PM
Well if it's going to take 10 million years for them to learn that there is a time and a place for such activity, I suspect that it might be best for me to start inviting less attractive guests.

Atom
11-10-2009, 02:18 PM
Sure, I myself could train my pets much quicker, but I hate to alter the natural course of evolution.

Atom
11-10-2009, 02:24 PM
And I suppose either solution would trump a monkey-brain appetizer, as is popular in some cultures.

Atom
11-10-2009, 02:32 PM
http://3t9.com/Atom/monkeybrain_appetizer.jpg

Atom
11-10-2009, 04:18 PM
BTW, for those that might think that the pic is photoshopped, it isn't. Monkey brains are a delicacy among certain cultures, and the monkey is actually killed at the table to insure freshness, from what I understand.

iowadawg
11-10-2009, 04:21 PM
Shades of Indiana Jones!

Can not think of the name of the movie, but it was in India and for the meal everyone was served monkey brains still in the head.

Atom
11-10-2009, 04:27 PM
I just wonder if this isn't a clear cut case of evolution in reverse. lol

Muddy
11-10-2009, 09:49 PM
http://www.realestateradiousa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/monkeybrain.jpg

julien_simon
11-10-2009, 09:51 PM
stop following me

Ferre
12-10-2009, 09:08 AM
If anyone wonders why and when humans invented god and religion, that's a field anthropology is working on, here's an example of this particular field of science;

Religion a figment of human imagination - life - 28 April 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html)

Cryren8972
12-10-2009, 09:34 AM
2012 CHANGES ARE NOW: Russian Scientist Photographs Souls Leaving The Body (http://2012changesarenow.blogspot.com/2009/08/russian-scientist-photographs-souls.html)
Bold Scientists Say: PROOF Soul Exists
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx)
a book on the subject:
Science of the Soul: Scientific Evidence of Human Souls (http://www.scienceofsouls.com/)
Maybe this is why only humans have this "problem"

Zap
12-10-2009, 09:57 AM
2012 CHANGES ARE NOW: Russian Scientist Photographs Souls Leaving The Body (http://2012changesarenow.blogspot.com/2009/08/russian-scientist-photographs-souls.html)
Bold Scientists Say: PROOF Soul Exists
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx)
a book on the subject:
Science of the Soul: Scientific Evidence of Human Souls (http://www.scienceofsouls.com/)
Maybe this is why only humans have this "problem"

I checked out the links.

The first one points to some findings about what appears to be electrical energy of some kind that we can measure in the human body. To go from that to calling it a soul is a giant leap. We can observe something, but that's where the evidence ends and speculation begins.

On the second link, I keep getting a popup wanting me to submit my e-mail address for a nice helping of spam. I couldn't find a way to disable the message without bending over, so I passed.

On the third link, it looks like an infomercial to sell that book and if the book is as faulty as the logic in the description, then it's not evidence of anything.

The book identifies human capabilities and characteristics that cannot be explained by science as natural phenomenon and which are thus “supernatural” phenomenon.
They are not "thus" supernatural. I guess the author of that comment can not fathom a world where humans don't have all the answers. Just because things can not be explained as nautral phenomenon, does NOT mean that they are not natural. We just haven't got the ability to explain it right now.
We wouldn't call the Earth's orbit "supernatural", yet there was a time when we couldn't explain that either. :sqwink:

Ferre
12-10-2009, 10:23 AM
yeah, a load of speudo scientific hogwash without any peer review or other scientists anywhere backing it up, food for the gullible.

It are those charlatans like Mr. Favero that feed all that rubbish to gullible people who repeat it and believe it is true because it is in a book.

Here's something on that whole aura subject, it appears to be electromagnetism.

http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~kuldip/My-Web/USC2001/Aura.pdf

Muddy
12-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Don't get me started on auras, etc.! lol! Talk about a load of hogwash!

Atom
12-10-2009, 10:31 AM
I checked out the links.

The first one points to some findings about what appears to be electrical energy of some kind that we can measure in the human body. To go from that to calling it a soul is a giant leap. We can observe something, but that's where the evidence ends and speculation begins.

On the second link, I keep getting a popup wanting me to submit my e-mail address for a nice helping of spam. I couldn't find a way to disable the message without bending over, so I passed.

On the third link, it looks like an infomercial to sell that book and if the book is as faulty as the logic in the description, then it's not evidence of anything.

They are not "thus" supernatural. I guess the author of that comment can not fathom a world where humans don't have all the answers. Just because things can not be explained as nautral phenomenon, does NOT mean that they are not natural. We just haven't got the ability to explain it right now.
We wouldn't call the Earth's orbit "supernatural", yet there was a time when we couldn't explain that either. :sqwink:All good points I think.

"Now scientists have taken GDV photographs of a person as he was dying. In the photos, it could be seen that the area of the belly lost its life force (the purported soul) first, followed by the head. The heart and groin were the last to lose their life force, in that order."

I do find this interesting though, and especially where it is said that this energy returns in a person that experienced a violent death as opposed to a calm one. Weird stuff.

Zap
12-10-2009, 10:42 AM
I do find this interesting though, and especially where it is said that this energy returns in a person that experienced a violent death as opposed to a calm one. Weird stuff.

Yeah. I found that interesting too. Deserves a much closer look.

Ferre
12-10-2009, 10:49 AM
One has to know that a lot of the activity in our body and brains are regulated by (bio)chemical and also electromagnetical pulses, this activity not only produces heat but naturally also produces all kinds of (very weak) electromagnetic fields which of course with modern techniques can be made visible, an interesting field of research indeed, but just as creationists attribute every non answered question to god-or-jesus they are just as eager to attribute every non answered question on consciousness or in this case electromagnetic activity to "prove for a soul".

:sqlaugh:

Muddy
12-10-2009, 10:53 AM
Yes, and I can agree that energy produced by our bodies can in fact be measured with the right equipment. It's these "palm-reading", "potion-pushing" charlatans that irritate me.

Atom
12-10-2009, 11:04 AM
The fact these observations have been equated with the word soul is a shame in my opinion, but I give that fact little to no consideration in relation to the importance of the actual research, I find that rather interesting.

Ferre
12-10-2009, 11:04 AM
Yes, and I can agree that energy produced by our bodies can in fact be measured with the right equipment. It's these "palm-reading", "potion-pushing" charlatans that irritate me.

Does that mean you have no interest in that bridge I have for sale? :sqerr:

Muddy
12-10-2009, 11:06 AM
Does that mean you have no interest in that bridge I have for sale? :sqerr:

LOL!

Zap
12-10-2009, 11:14 AM
One has to know that a lot of the activity in our body and brains are regulated by (bio)chemical and also electromagnetical pulses, this activity not only produces heat but naturally also produces all kinds of (very weak) electromagnetic fields which of course with modern techniques can be made visible, an interesting field of research indeed, but just as creationists attribute every non answered question to god-or-jesus they are just as eager to attribute every non answered question on consciousness or in this case electromagnetic activity to "prove for a soul".

:sqlaugh:

I get that, Dude.
And I'm not saying it's a soul. Far from it. I'm saying it's a huge leap to call it one.
But, I do find it interesting that this energy completely leaves the body, yet returns later.
I think that deserves more study.

julien_simon
12-10-2009, 11:20 AM
do you guys have seen or read any interesting research about that and dare sharing it here? I'd like to take a look at this.

Atom
12-10-2009, 11:21 AM
(...) I'm saying it's a huge leap to call it one.Yes I think so too.

But, I do find it interesting that this energy completely leaves the body, yet returns later.
I think that deserves more study.Yes I agree, I think that there's a possibility for this to actually yield some useful results.

Muddy
12-10-2009, 11:24 AM
We need to harness this energy and not let go back into the bodies! Toyota could build a hybrid that runs off of it.

Atom
12-10-2009, 11:29 AM
lol.

No but seriously, some of the results from further research in this area could prove useful to medicine.

Cryren8972
12-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Interesting hypothesis:
in other words...hypothetical...but there are more studies pending.
http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html
I know, I know, it's ghostweb...but the author is MacDougall, who was the first to try and measure souls. There has been speculation as to how accurate the measurements were, and if there is another cause for the weight loss...but thought I'd throw it in here so Ferre would have something to do.

Ferre
12-10-2009, 12:51 PM
Bullshit hypothesis based on nothing but wrong assumptions, no wonder you have to digg into crap sites like ghostweb to find such nonsense.

Please, didn't you learn by now? :sqlaugh:

Atom
12-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Bullshit hypothesis based on nothing but wrong assumptions, no wonder you have to digg into crap sites like ghostweb to find such nonsense.

Please, didn't you learn by now? :sqlaugh:I found it interesting. I guess I just am partial to both objective and subjective thinking.

Ferre
12-10-2009, 05:32 PM
Check this lecture out, although it is not about evolution per se it does give you a little idea on how science connects the information available to come to conclusions. In this case it has an additional bonus of an interesting story about how New York looked like 400 years ago, with pictures.

Eric Sanderson pictures New York -- before the City | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderson_pictures_new_york_before_the_city.h tml)

Ferre
13-10-2009, 07:20 AM
And here, for the interested readers amongst you; Why and when species developed sexual organs to reproduce themselves (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728223020.htm)

Zap
13-10-2009, 07:27 AM
And here, for the interested readers amongst you; Why and when species developed sexual organs to reproduce themselves (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728223020.htm)

You're, like, Mythbusters on steroids!

Ferre
13-10-2009, 07:47 AM
That's exactly what science is; Mythbusters on steroids. :sqlaugh:

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 08:47 AM
And here, for the interested readers amongst you; Why and when species developed sexual organs to reproduce themselves (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728223020.htm)

This doesn't prove the need for sexual reproduction. There are animals in all environments that can produce both ways, still today.
Here is a link that's informative and shows there are pros and cons to each...
Parthenogenesis - Sexual Vs. Non-sexual Reproduction (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5047/Parthenogenesis-Sexual-vs-non-sexual-reproduction.html)
With that said...I must say that this thread is actually starting to bore me somewhat. I hadn't intended it to turn into a bait and tackle situation. I've actually tried to abandon the thread several times, to have you post link after link of information irrelevant to the actual topic. I was hoping to find open minded individuals that would actually lend thought to both sides of the equation. You've proven to be rather closed minded in that area...as have I. I don't think either one of our opinions or beliefs are going to change on this....which actually wasn't my intention. My intention was to have a frank discussion...not badgering or sarcastic remarks, nor ridicule from you.
If you're ever open to actual discussion, and want to stop the brow beating, we can talk.

Muddy
13-10-2009, 08:53 AM
"Brow beating". Now where did that term come from?

Zap
13-10-2009, 08:55 AM
"Brow beating". Now where did that term come from?

Early on, he gave it to her pretty good.

Muddy
13-10-2009, 09:26 AM
I meant etymologically.

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 09:29 AM
I meant etymologically.

I looked Muddy, and I can't find the origin of the term...

Zap
13-10-2009, 09:47 AM
I meant etymologically.

I figured that, right after I posted, but I got nothin'.

Ferre
13-10-2009, 09:48 AM
This doesn't prove the need for sexual reproduction. There are animals in all environments that can produce both ways, still today.
Here is a link that's informative and shows there are pros and cons to each...
Parthenogenesis - Sexual Vs. Non-sexual Reproduction (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5047/Parthenogenesis-Sexual-vs-non-sexual-reproduction.html)
With that said...I must say that this thread is actually starting to bore me somewhat. I hadn't intended it to turn into a bait and tackle situation. I've actually tried to abandon the thread several times, to have you post link after link of information irrelevant to the actual topic. I was hoping to find open minded individuals that would actually lend thought to both sides of the equation. You've proven to be rather closed minded in that area...as have I. I don't think either one of our opinions or beliefs are going to change on this....which actually wasn't my intention. My intention was to have a frank discussion...not badgering or sarcastic remarks, nor ridicule from you.
If you're ever open to actual discussion, and want to stop the brow beating, we can talk.

You ridicule yourself my dear, all I did so far is point it out. :sqwink:

What's your point anyway? If your point is to prove that science is "wrong" you fail at that. If your point is to prove that natural evolution processes did not produce all species including humans you fail at that too.

You started out with this topic to discuss your "dual theory", so far I am still waiting to hear this theory, all you come up with till now is attempts to discredit current scientific knowledge while using arguments that clearly show you have no real understanding of the science you criticize.

Can you explain your dual theory and can we go on from there?

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 09:56 AM
You ridicule yourself my dear, all I did so far is point it out. :sqwink:


Uncalled for.
As for my dual theory you're referring to, I've actually tried to touch on the subject a few times in this thread (check it out). I can show you several instances where Genesis actually correlates with current scientific findings. However, any time the bible is brought up, you scoff and post numerous links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You've made it clear that to discuss the subject is beneath you and a waste of your time. At this point, you're just drawing pleasure from trying to make me out to be a simpleton.
I haven't used that tactic with you....although it would have been possible on more than a few occasions.

Muddy
13-10-2009, 10:00 AM
At this point, you're just drawing pleasure from trying to make me out to be a simpleton.
I haven't used that tactic with you....although it would have been possible on more than a few occasions.

Try giving it a go! Might be fun! :sqlaugh:

Ferre
13-10-2009, 10:00 AM
I will explain it to you nicely; If you want to have a serious discussion on science with intellectual people leave the references to genesis and the bible out of it, save that for the pseudo-intellectuals who swallow pseudo science and myths.

BTW, I have a bridge for sale, PM me for the details. :sqlaugh:

Ferre
13-10-2009, 10:02 AM
Try giving it a go! Might be fun! :sqlaugh:

So far she did an excellent job at that. :sqlaugh:

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 11:05 AM
I will explain it to you nicely; If you want to have a serious discussion on science with intellectual people leave the references to genesis and the bible out of it, save that for the pseudo-intellectuals who swallow pseudo science and myths.

BTW, I have a bridge for sale, PM me for the details. :sqlaugh:

We will have to agree to disagree. I think a purely scientific point of view is a bit stagnant. I had higher hopes for you in that regard, and was actually quite surprised at your vehement outbursts of anger and insults.

Ferre
13-10-2009, 11:35 AM
No anger my dear, this is the internets and I'm not really emotionally involved with or effected by the creationists that lure out there, you guys bring nothing new to the table, in fact it is boredom rather than anger that you guys provoke, don't try and give yourself too much credit, anger is an expression of fear and loss of control, the only emotion you provoked in me so far have been a few yawns.

now, to address your 'argument';



I can show you several instances where Genesis actually correlates with current scientific findings

En then what? Ever heard of the Vedas? I can show you several instances where the Vedas actually correlates with scientific findings, all depends on how one is to come up with an interpretation that fits the shoe.

Interpretation is the magic word for creationists, they use that to re-define scientific findings to make them suit their ideology and their own scriptures all the time, it's typical and one of the trademarks of the creationist mind, in politics that is called "spin" and some would name it deceit.

Do you remember your very first post on this forum (http://www.btwimho.com/showpost.php?p=11078&postcount=20)?

you said;


"Darwinism" is based on faith.

Fail


If you consider that first of all, it's a theory and NOT fact

Fail


If this is all true...then why the need for males and females to be formed at all? Why, if DNA, or RNA as they say now, were capable of somehow coming to together and forming a complex, breathing, eating, pooping machine, would there be a need for a male AND female?

Explained here ; Sex In The Caribbean: Environmental Change Drives Evolutionary Change, Eventually (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728223020.htm)

Every time you open your mouth on science it is to display your own ignorance on the subject, but please go on...

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 11:35 AM
Some of this is questionable, of course, just like anything else that's been posted on this thread.
However, it does touch a little on the point I'm trying to make,..although it misses some key points.
The Bible, Genesis and Science (http://historycycles.tripod.com/genesis1.html)

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 11:45 AM
Your link proves nothing...there is no evidence that there were ever people or people-like creatures that ever existed in any other way than male and female.
Crustaceans are a completely different animal, not to mention, I saw nothing in the link provided that claimed there was an actual evolution taking place. There were some that were and some that weren't. Period.
As for being scientific, no, I'm no scientist...I've said that before. Which makes your constant condescending tone even more ridiculous. I came to talk, learn, and possibly discuss something that was out of the normal way of thinking...
You've just proven to me that scientists really can't see past their own noses. You condemn everyone that has another opinion, and refuse to believe there might be a little truth in something else. Which means...that YOUR way of thinking is ignorant. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. If you refuse to open yourself up to knowledge, or any new ideas, then you're forever ignorant.
I for one, would rather explore, ask questions, and wonder with an open mind.
Sorry that offends you.

Muddy
13-10-2009, 11:48 AM
Now that's what I'm talking about! We might need to stay in the bleachers after all folks!

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 11:48 AM
And if you're so incredibly bored...then why keep revisiting the thread?

Muddy
13-10-2009, 11:50 AM
And from the right corner Cry raises up and bites Ferre in the ankle! How will he react folks? Stay tuned!

Ferre
13-10-2009, 11:50 AM
Some of this is questionable, of course, just like anything else that's been posted on this thread.
However, it does touch a little on the point I'm trying to make,..although it misses some key points.
The Bible, Genesis and Science (http://historycycles.tripod.com/genesis1.html)

WOW! now I'm convinced (http://historycycles.tripod.com/myself.html)! :sqlaugh:

Please go on...

Ferre
13-10-2009, 11:56 AM
And if you're so incredibly bored...then why keep revisiting the thread?

Because sometimes it is also funny to feed creationists, like when I'm bored. :sqlaugh:

Muddy
13-10-2009, 11:58 AM
She's not a Cryrentionist! Er..I mean.

Sorry Cry, just funnin' with ya!

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 11:58 AM
Once again, you miss the point. My objective is not to try to convince. I'm going to get no further in trying to convince you as you would convincing me. Now it's just a matter of who's more bullheaded than the other isn't it?

Atom
13-10-2009, 11:59 AM
This doesn't prove the need for sexual reproduction. There are animals in all environments that can produce both ways, still today.
Here is a link that's informative and shows there are pros and cons to each...
Parthenogenesis - Sexual Vs. Non-sexual Reproduction (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5047/Parthenogenesis-Sexual-vs-non-sexual-reproduction.html)
With that said...I must say that this thread is actually starting to bore me somewhat. I hadn't intended it to turn into a bait and tackle situation. I've actually tried to abandon the thread several times, to have you post link after link of information irrelevant to the actual topic. I was hoping to find open minded individuals that would actually lend thought to both sides of the equation. You've proven to be rather closed minded in that area...as have I. I don't think either one of our opinions or beliefs are going to change on this....which actually wasn't my intention. My intention was to have a frank discussion...not badgering or sarcastic remarks, nor ridicule from you.
If you're ever open to actual discussion, and want to stop the brow beating, we can talk.In a cyber situation, your brow may be beaten only if you allow it to be, it's a lot harder to not allow it in an auditory situation I think.

Atom
13-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Ferre is a tough nut, but that's ok, I still admire him for the times that he is spot on.

Ferre
13-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Once again, you miss the point. My objective is not to try to convince.

So what is your objective?

Muddy
13-10-2009, 12:03 PM
So what is your objective?

The $64,000 question!

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 12:05 PM
So what is your objective?

I don't have one.
I digress.

Atom
13-10-2009, 12:17 PM
Your link proves nothing...there is no evidence that there were ever people or people-like creatures that ever existed in any other way than male and female.
Crustaceans are a completely different animal, not to mention, I saw nothing in the link provided that claimed there was an actual evolution taking place. There were some that were and some that weren't. Period.
As for being scientific, no, I'm no scientist...I've said that before. Which makes your constant condescending tone even more ridiculous. I came to talk, learn, and possibly discuss something that was out of the normal way of thinking...
You've just proven to me that scientists really can't see past their own noses. You condemn everyone that has another opinion, and refuse to believe there might be a little truth in something else. Which means...that YOUR way of thinking is ignorant. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. If you refuse to open yourself up to knowledge, or any new ideas, then you're forever ignorant.
I for one, would rather explore, ask questions, and wonder with an open mind.
Sorry that offends you.Some scientists I believe actually can see past their own noses, it depends on the scientist, but I realize that you are upset with Ferre's style, so I'll let that slide of course, but let us not forget about the if you allow it part of my previous post, I know it's tough but certainly not impossible. I'm starting to get a bit drunk atm, and I just got up lol, so, I thought I'd just better mention that at this time. Anyway...

I think that both you and Ferre are highly intelligent people and I enjoy most all of your semi-intelligent bickering. Just saying..

lol

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Some scientists I believe actually can see past their own noses, it depends on the scientist, but I realize that you are upset with Ferre's style, so I'll let that slide of course, but let us not forget about the if you allow it part of my previous post, I know it's tough but certainly not impossible. I'm starting to get a bit drunk atm, and I just got up lol, so, I thought I'd just better mention that at this time. Anyway...

I think that both you and Ferre are highly intelligent people and I enjoy most all of your semi-intelligent bickering. Just saying..

lol

You're right Atom...I shouldn't have stereotyped. Thanks! :sqwink:

Muddy
13-10-2009, 12:23 PM
I think that both you and Ferre are highly intelligent people and I enjoy most all of your semi-intelligent bickering. Just saying..

lol

Me too and me too!

Atom
13-10-2009, 12:55 PM
(...)Do you remember your very first post on this forum (http://www.btwimho.com/showpost.php?p=11078&postcount=20)?

you said;



Fail



Fail



(...)I agree with Ferre here. Can we at least establish that fact that evolution is not one or the other, but both theory and fact?


BTW, Ferre, see what happens when you don't quote properly? Notice the lack of quotes. :sqwink:

Zap
13-10-2009, 01:09 PM
I think that both you and Ferre are highly intelligent people and I enjoy most all of your semi-intelligent bickering. Just saying..

lol


Me too and me too!

Me three!

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 01:20 PM
I agree with Ferre here. Can we at least establish that fact that evolution is not one or the other, but both theory and fact?


BTW, Ferre, see what happens when you don't quote properly? Notice the lack of quotes. :sqwink:

Oh boy...I really don't want to go here again.
Theories, according to the lovely video link that Ferre provided, is a group of facts used to formulate a theory.
In the early theories of life and where it came from, a scientist (can't remember the name, and I'm feeling lazy) used the facts that where there was hay, there was mice...so mice MUST come from hay.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
So he used facts to formulate a THEORY that wasn't fact at all...and was proven to be inaccurate. So, is the theory of evolution based on facts? I've never said it wasn't. I believe the facts can be put together in a different way to come to another conclusion though....even taking Creationism out of it. How? I have no clue. But I don't think the answer they have now has been proven to be the correct one.

Atom
13-10-2009, 01:28 PM
(...) I believe the facts can be put together in a different way to come to another conclusion though....even taking Creationism out of it. How? I have no clue. But I don't think the answer they have now has been proven to be the correct one.I don't either, but I think that it is a pretty damned good runner up, to be quite honest.

Ferre
13-10-2009, 01:57 PM
The most common tactic in "evolution vs creation" debates for creationists is to keep on throwing misinterpretations of the real science into the discussion in the hope that when they are persistent enough the other party will get tired of correcting their mistakes and give up and thus giving them the last word.

This is how they believe debates are won and indeed, they do win many debates this way because their arsenal of nonsensical arguments is bottomless and the patience of sane people often isn't as strong as the believe system of creationists.

..and here we go again...

Atom
13-10-2009, 02:00 PM
The most common tactic in "evolution vs creation" debates for creationists is to keep on throwing misinterpretations of the real science into the discussion in the hope that when they are persistent enough the other party will get tired of correcting their mistakes and give up and thus giving them the last word.

This is how they believe debates are won and indeed, they do win many debates this way because their arsenal of nonsensical arguments is bottomless and the patience of sane people often isn't as strong as the believe system of creationists.

..and here we go again...I think that this is a good point, I myself am often driven by feelings that are not based in fact, strong as they may be.

Ferre
13-10-2009, 02:06 PM
Well, I know you as a person with a very open mind and not driven by dogmas, if one considers lawn mowing not to be a dogma, that is.

;)

Atom
13-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Well, I know you as a person with a very open mind and not driven by dogmas, if one considers lawn mowing not to be a dogma, that is.

;)LOL!

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 02:57 PM
The most common tactic in "evolution vs creation" debates for creationists is to keep on throwing misinterpretations of the real science into the discussion in the hope that when they are persistent enough the other party will get tired of correcting their mistakes and give up and thus giving them the last word.

This is how they believe debates are won and indeed, they do win many debates this way because their arsenal of nonsensical arguments is bottomless and the patience of sane people often isn't as strong as the believe system of creationists.

..and here we go again...

I see that you like making assumptions about me. Regardless of how I react to you or your statements, you're just going to continue to try and make a mockery of me and what I'm trying to say.
I have no problems ending this "debate". I understand that you'll never see my side...because you're not willing to look around the Creationists long enough to see it.

Atom
13-10-2009, 03:01 PM
I see that you like making assumptions about me. Regardless of how I react to you or your statements, you're just going to continue to try and make a mockery of me and what I'm trying to say.
I have no problems ending this "debate". I understand that you'll never see my side...because you're not willing to look around the Creationists long enough to see it.Yes but you need to learn to look past all that, and carry on. Like I said, Ferre's a tough nut, but looking past that could strengthen you, you must push ahead.

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 03:07 PM
Yes but you need to learn to look past all that, and carry on. Like I said, Ferre's a tough nut, but looking past that could strengthen you, you must push ahead.

I can look past a lot of things...but being rude and insulting isn't one of them. Sorry...I've tried to get a proper debate going, but when you infuse your side of things with sarcasm, mockery, and flat out finger pointing, then it makes it difficult to keep your mind open to what the other person has to say. I've tried to be respectful...but I think I'm losing my respect, and I don't want to travel that road with anyone.
I'm done with this debate.
Seriously

Atom
13-10-2009, 03:32 PM
I can look past a lot of things...but being rude and insulting isn't one of them. Sorry...I've tried to get a proper debate going, but when you infuse your side of things with sarcasm, mockery, and flat out finger pointing, then it makes it difficult to keep your mind open to what the other person has to say. I've tried to be respectful...but I think I'm losing my respect, and I don't want to travel that road with anyone.
I'm done with this debate.
SeriouslyOk. But if you change your mind, I will be the better for it, because I think that you have a lot to offer. When you have learned to use people like Ferre to your advantage, you will have achieved success. I look forward to the day. I think you are quite intelligent, just maybe not quite enough yet. I've enjoyed your posts and links.

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 03:34 PM
I didn't say I was done with the forum...
just this particular debate.
And if intelligence is measured by being able to use people, then I'd rather stay simple.

Atom
13-10-2009, 03:43 PM
I didn't say I was done with the forum...
just this particular debate.And if you'll notice, I didn't insinuate that either. :sqwink: But good to know, none the less.

And if intelligence is measured by being able to use people, then I'd rather stay simple.Yes well that is a big if, isn't it. Notice that no one has insulated that either? lol Calm down now. lol

Cryren8972
13-10-2009, 03:47 PM
Ok. When you have learned to use people like Ferre to your advantage, you will have achieved success. I look forward to the day. I think you are quite intelligent, just maybe not quite enough yet.

Did this not imply that intelligence was based on using people? Hence, success? I may have misunderstood...and I'm taking into consideration that you've had a little to drink as well..
but if this isn't what you meant, then by all means, explain.

iowadawg
13-10-2009, 03:48 PM
As they have said of centuries.
Only when you die will you find out the truth of god, soul, heaven, hell, eternity, and whether your father is your true father.