BrotherBuz
Active Member
Yeah, sure . . ."
Religions, Archaic Relics Of The Past?
- Thread starter Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
- Start date
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
He's a troll, or just stupid, i dont need to use logic or rationality any more, ive tried and if he doesnt care to learn then what should i do, this is a discussion and im done speaking to him, and variation occurs naturally, natural selection prunes the variation and weeds out the variants that cannot appropriately adapt or survive. evolution is a process that doesnt stop, its complex chemistry that occurs given the right boundaries in nature. its dictated by the environment.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a social engineer's theory.
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
what does nature have to do with social engineering? here ill make it simple, space is a vacuum, very cold, life cannot survive in that environment, therefore we have not found life in space. on earth we have an atmosphere with the necessary elements, compounds, gravity and light/dark cycles to allow life to flourish. if earth was like mars, we wouldnt have life. the environment dictates whether or not life can exist. now once life is set into motion in a healthy environment, and can sustain itself, thats when the theory of natural selection is true, and to this date, there has not been a better formulated and factual theory to compete, if you got one, let me hear it. otherwise keep believing whatever you want, and get ready to get called out on it. its easy to debate on the internet with anonymity but once you speak in the real world, you will find that nearly all reputable scientists understand the theory as factual and demonstrable.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Because several billion years are easily simulated in a laboratory.
malignant
Well-Known Member
if we could go back in time and kill abraham when he was a 7 year old boy, we might have had a shot at world peace.. but because of him and the people he led, we live in a world of turmoil.. imagine a world where christians, jews, and muslims had never existed to tear the world apart by war.. abraham was the worst thing that ever happened to humankind
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
we have done this in the lab, with fruit flies, they live very short lives, and we have used them and created new species that cannot interbreed, therefore evolution is a demonstrable, we do this with bacteria as well, and thats alot easier, you need something that has a short life span in order to have the effect. evolution is a process, the scientists are in control of the environment and can keep away from contamination.
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
yea, but islam was the center of almost all scientific research and philosophy up from the seventh till the twelfth century, the reason it died was because of a change in fundamentalist philosophy, where experimentation and free though was thrown out in favor of literalistic interpretation of the Koran and Islamic literature.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The whole earth is a laboratory. Your myopic view of scientists in white lab coats with bubbling beakers and flasks is not what science is about. There is no requirement in science for laboratory conditions. The only requirement is testing while controlling one or more variables. if you are going to discount any historical science, then you should just as readily discount forensic evidence in a court of law.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
That sounds more like it disproves evolution. To the tune of, 'Too much much "mutation" causes sterility and an inability to backcross." Way I understand it, It's just comparing a bunch of bones and saying "This one looks like that one, now lets go troll us some christians."
Incidentally, I do not have a myopic view of science. I appreciate the value of the scientific process to society greatly. I don't appreciate political types exaggerating an observation and touting the assumtions used to bridge the gaps to compensate for their fear of origin and the unknown to make war and give rise to yet another religion with a hard-headed myopic (yay vocabulary) constituancy who has to be indoctrinated to a six-shooter of sketchy logic in order to represent.
But then I'm a skeptic's skeptic.
Incidentally....a lot of other major cultures summarily executed those consitutants 'chosen by God'. namely the Aztecs & Druids. Some of them did it themselves (i.e. Jim Jones)
malignant
Well-Known Member
actually hombre everything stems from vedic cultre, and once the world culture was vedic.. the ramayana is 3 million years old. western (abrahamic) culture teaches weve been on the planet since 12000 bc give or take? dawarka has been found off the coast of india, and this city pre dates when the west said mankind were monkeys... in fact they cant even get an accurate date of dawarka... like crete, oh and dawarka is under water, because it was a coastal city before the last shift in the ocean.. which is before the west says humans had existed yet.. not to mention all the stories in the abrahmic traditions are a warped perverse version of something much much older in the vedas. its almost like its existence is here to insult and spit at vedic culture. and its a very ugly school of thought.. helbent on keeping people repressed, supressed, guiltridden, and easy to control.. and the killing of cows to slap vedic society in the face.. i honestly believe abraham was your great satan, and he tricked them all in to following his ways and worshipping him. keeping people ignorant. there is much proof that once, paleolithic culture was vedic, and the first images of god are still in india, because we dont destroy anything.. remember the christians are responsible for the dark ages, and all of the lost knowledge of the ancient world when they burned any non christian texts at alexandria. i dont hate them i just think that thier actions throughout history seems satanic and evil. abrahams children were some twisted fucks, and they have cast the world into turmoil, war, and created horrible weapons that shouldnt have ever been a part of someones worst nightmare. and this is all because of the concousness of an ignorant mass of mayavatis. but what can you expect from a society of people who eat meat 3 times a day? that will lock one into a lower level of concousness.. and you cant expect much from that.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
i've never claimed that there was a better method of investigating the world around us. i only wish to point out that our cynicism should point its critical eye at the conclusions of science just as aggressively as at the outrageous claims of religion. no matter what instrumentation may be employed, observation is still the cornerstone of the scientific method and any observation is as flawed as the observer. we may strive to remove our biases from the equation, but no amount of good intention can completely achieve that goal. any instruments we devise or fail-safes we employ still contains the flaws of their creators. in the end it is men who must interpret any findings and we all know how flawed that creature may be.
the other great problem with "true science" is that we sometimes attempt to apply it where it simply doesn't belong. it may certainly give us the clues to answer questions of who/what/where, but it often fails miserably when we attempt to answer the many intangible questions of humanity. cursed with a questioning intellect, we constantly search for some meaning to this life and understanding its mechanics is of little use in this quest. we refuse to admit these questions are unanswerable and aim our analytical eye in their direction, inventing a series of half-baked pseudo-sciences to fill in the gaps.
i'm certainly no fence-sitter. my decisions were made long ago. i am and always have been a major proponent of the sciences and have long since abandoned both religion and the god myth. that being said, i also recognize the limitations of science and the positive influence of spiritual endeavor.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
I'm quite familiar, acutally, but vedic culture isn't the only one with monumental cities dating back 12000 years. Is your Avatar an Aghori? I've always found them to be quite close to my own heart. Have you read Aghora: At the left hand of God by Robert E. Svoboda?
malignant
Well-Known Member
no naga baba, and not yet, but its actualy on my stack
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The second completely contradicts the first.
You have a severe lack of understanding of forensic anthropology, paleontology and evolution and decided it is somehow anti-xian. Why is it that fundies don't seem to have a problem when small details and comparison of bones are used to identify a victim and solve a murder but when it comes to the history of life on earth it somehow becomes junk science?
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
I have respect for the scientific process. Pardon me for being dubious of individuals proclaiming evidence of conclusions made long before the evidence cropped up. Now shit on me if I fail to accurately understand the scientific process but 'peer-review' is supposed to be a 'critical' as in skeptical analysis of each others work and evidence. Not a circle jerk of affirmation and job security.
Also, punching the glaring holes in logic of these pre-concluded paradigms is not myopic but indeed in line with the scientific philosophy. I find it absolutely fuckin lulzy that any time someone is skeptic of a self-named "skeptic's" personal conclusions (which are usually just a bastardized understanding for rehash of dawkins) then you gotta resort to personal insults. "You have a sever lack of understanding..." "Your myopic view of science..." Seriously, I know there's a latin for that one in your six-shooter.
Also, punching the glaring holes in logic of these pre-concluded paradigms is not myopic but indeed in line with the scientific philosophy. I find it absolutely fuckin lulzy that any time someone is skeptic of a self-named "skeptic's" personal conclusions (which are usually just a bastardized understanding for rehash of dawkins) then you gotta resort to personal insults. "You have a sever lack of understanding..." "Your myopic view of science..." Seriously, I know there's a latin for that one in your six-shooter.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Being a denier is not the same as being a skeptic.
Observation about your general mischaracterization of evolutionary science is not a personal insult. When you can come up with real criticisms of evolution and not rehashed, debunked, theistic arguments, we can talk. Until then, it is clear you have a personal anti-evolution bias, not because of the science but because it conflicts with your individual beliefs.
Observation about your general mischaracterization of evolutionary science is not a personal insult. When you can come up with real criticisms of evolution and not rehashed, debunked, theistic arguments, we can talk. Until then, it is clear you have a personal anti-evolution bias, not because of the science but because it conflicts with your individual beliefs.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
If I had individual beliefs then that might be the case. The only 'belief' I have is knowing that when I believe I know something that I'm most probably wrong somewhere. I might be a christian but I could a shit less if christ was real, or not or how old the world is. I certainly don't think it's 6, 10 or 12 K years old.
Just because you debunk someone else's idea or theory doesn't validate your own. Science doesn't work that way. Quite frankly, many of the holes in evolutionary theory have not been 'debunked'. Atg best, patched with cheap plaster. Evolutionary theory is, at best, psudeoscience. Sure, there's lots of suggestive evidence. But none if it really proves much of the theory of evolution. If scientist stopped looking at the evidence as trying to support their theory. And started looking at the evidence itself then we might get soemwhere toward figuring out what the fuck is going on and prove something.
Also, my 'understanding' of paleontology is that most of the evidence that exists is miscellaneous pieces that weren't destroyed by some unscrupulous competitive sabotage of shitty scientists. Try not pretending that the foundation of the evidence for evolution isn't plagued by glaring holes purely because petty egotistical Edison style sabotage and credit mongering.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I'm saying that scientists aren't exactly the model of integrity so pardon me for being dubious of their claims.
Kind of like I'm not saying crack and meth are good for you, but I'm a little dubious that the government isn't lying to me when I have the evidence that it already has, repeatedly.
I mean seriously, tell me if I'm wrong but I bet you're not even getting paid to participate in this psuedoscientific circle jerk. Sucker. LOL
Just because you debunk someone else's idea or theory doesn't validate your own. Science doesn't work that way. Quite frankly, many of the holes in evolutionary theory have not been 'debunked'. Atg best, patched with cheap plaster. Evolutionary theory is, at best, psudeoscience. Sure, there's lots of suggestive evidence. But none if it really proves much of the theory of evolution. If scientist stopped looking at the evidence as trying to support their theory. And started looking at the evidence itself then we might get soemwhere toward figuring out what the fuck is going on and prove something.
Also, my 'understanding' of paleontology is that most of the evidence that exists is miscellaneous pieces that weren't destroyed by some unscrupulous competitive sabotage of shitty scientists. Try not pretending that the foundation of the evidence for evolution isn't plagued by glaring holes purely because petty egotistical Edison style sabotage and credit mongering.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I'm saying that scientists aren't exactly the model of integrity so pardon me for being dubious of their claims.
Kind of like I'm not saying crack and meth are good for you, but I'm a little dubious that the government isn't lying to me when I have the evidence that it already has, repeatedly.
I mean seriously, tell me if I'm wrong but I bet you're not even getting paid to participate in this psuedoscientific circle jerk. Sucker. LOL
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Evolution of life on earth is clear to anyone that wants to examine it, there is no question. The only theory is how evolution occurred. You mention suggestive evidence but seem unwilling to discuss these 'problems.' Look at my avatar. I'm sure I can explain any area that you are having trouble understanding. The evidence is overwhelming. Just look at how life can be categorized. Humans can create all kinds and ways to categorize things. We can file books by author or subject. We can put a German Physics book into foreign language section or in the science section. We can put all of Isaac Asimov into one section but then we have both fiction and non-fiction. Languages can be categorized by how they developed and evolved. However, even now, we have words that cross-over from one to another. We now have an English word, 'schmuck' which originally was Yiddish, a mix of Hebrew and German, where Hebrew evolved from Aramaic, the language that gave rise to Arabic as well.
Just as we can tell Latin is ancestral to Spanish, Italian, and French we can tell that different plants and animals are ancestral to one another. The difference is that each species has one and exactly one spot in the tree of life. If you examine all of the similarities along with the differences, you will find that characteristics -- anatomically, physiologically, and embryologically, allow all species to be put in one specific spot in this ever branching tree with no crossing over or borrowing from other branches like there is with language or cars or books, or anything else you want to attempt to categorize. There is no cross-over or intermixing. No mammals can 'borrow' copper containing blood from the cephalopods. We won't see a kitten born with feathers. All life on this planet fits into a perfect, nested hierarchy. Nothing else can be categorized so perfectly, with NO exceptions. Find those exceptions and you disprove common descent.
Every time science discovers more about life, it is an opportunity for evolution to be disproved. When the code of DNA was finally cracked, it could have turned evolutionary theory on it's head, instead it confirmed it in a most elegant way. DNA also shows a perfect nested hierarchy with small changes building up over time. Not surprising the two DIFFERENT sets of data, fit perfectly with one another! DNA confirmed the tree of life from the bottom up and matched innumerable species that were originally categorized from the top down. Modern genetics shut the door on any claim that common descent was not a fact of biology.
You want to call evolutionary science pseudo-science, go ahead but you have a mountain of evidence to overcome. You need to be able to give a good explanation that fits the data. You have to come up with reasonable explanation as to why the simplest organisms appeared on earth first and got progressively more complex as time went on.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
No. No I don't. I'll accept that evolutionary theory is the most probable candidate for the explanation of origin. That doesn't make it a fact. Very few of the experiments are repeatable and a lot of the evidence has been trashed. The last time some jackass tried to preach and pillage a story of origin while editing the facts and evidence as they went along YOU came along and trolled the fuck out of him.
Quite frankly, I'm just sick of jackass know-it-alls coming along telling ME I'm a dumbass uneducated moron for not believing their story of some stupid bullshit story that has little bearing on how we live life today until they try to slip in some bullshit fascist laws like a government pretending it's not a religion.
/me shrugs
I just don't buy it. Nor do I really care. I do however, think you're an asshole for insulting my intelligence for being dubious about some bullshit story that really has no bearing on how we live day to day. Go do real science and invent something useful to society like Tesla if you want to call yourself a scientist.
Don't try to sell me another bible and pretend you're anything but a salesman though.