Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:29pm PT
|
There is a dark side and a light side and I look to the light. He is the light in me, illuminating the dark places of my soul (bitterness,despair, envy,hate,jealousy etc.) Replacing it with peace and love.
No argument with that part of it at all.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:31pm PT
|
So at the present moment both simple and complex forms are existing.
One did not develop into the other. For example, childhood body has developed into adult body, and the child’s body is no longer there.
So if the higher, complex species developed from the simpler, lower species, then we should see no simple species.
But all species are now existing simultaneously.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:32pm PT
|
Christians have discoved that through Christ, there is a grander vision of the granduer that is available to all men. You won't find these things through science. You'll find these things when your heart is willing to admit, "Maybe I don't have it all figured out."
Sorry, nice story, but you're absolutelty wrong. Creationists would never admit this. It is an intellectually stagnant belief, unchanged in thousands of years. They would never admit that the story is much more complex and beautiful. They deny, dismiss and outright lie sometimes to expunge new evidence that would contradict their sacred texts.
The difference is that theories explaining evolution have changed in response to new evidence that arises. But while explanations may somewhat change, the pattern remains: life on earth has evolved over the ages. Nothing honest or credible has yet sunk that.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:36pm PT
|
The difference is that theories explaining evolution.
That means you don't know.
So it's ultimately worthless.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:40pm PT
|
Werner do you understand what a theory is?
A theory is an idea that has not been disproven. It's an idea that has weathered a lot of knocks against it. It's the best explanation still standing. The notion that life has evolved has weathered evolved has weathered an awful lot of knocks against it.
This is the problem with creationism. There have been many knocks against it: fossil evidnece, molecular evidence, etc. etc. and yet people still believe it. That makes no sense.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:42pm PT
|
Whose the stagnant one here?
Creationism is stagnant. It was laid out thousands of years ago and has not been receptive--in fact, it has been often hostile--to considering new evidence to the contrary. It is what it has always been. In that frame of thinking, new learning about the origin of life has essentially stopped. That's stagnation.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:45pm PT
|
Yup. I'm honest about that as I try to be in all things. However, the irony of this thread's title was just to much to let slide. But I am the one who is wrong and has egg on his face so to speak. This article was about Ida, not Ardi.
Oh, I liked your "turns out to be a ball not a strike". I thought it was clever and funny! But also funny to me was the immense irony that an article purported to minimize the import of Ida (or Ardi, or whatever) was a perfect example of how science marches on, rolling right over popular belief, even when that belief is much cooler, or would be a great and important truth... if it were true! The article is a validation of science, and a repudiation of belief for its own sake.
However
I do have a beef in that the media in particular loves to use 'science' to push an agenda. Documentaries were broadcast about "IDA the missing link' when many scientists believed otherwise.
I'm with you on this one! Although I think the only agenda the media has is to make a cool story. Cool stories are what sell, true or not. Same has been happening for 1000s of years.
So much of science is based on assumption - it has to be since we don't know all things and have to make assumptions to hopefully get to the truth.
Yes and no. Science is based on making an assumption and then *testing* it. If it does not fit the data, or cannot be tested, an individual scientist may still claim it's true, but most other scientists will not base their work (and reputation) on the assumption, and eventually the assumption will die a forgotten death. Science is only interested in assumptions that work.
As skipt pointed out science is is the wrong hammer to use to disprove the existence of God.
Hmm... this one is complicated. Science really has nothing to do with God, per se. There is no way to prove or disprove something not of this world. However, if those who believe in God make claims about what their god does or doesn't do in this material world, then those claims can be tested. They become theories, like any other theory.
If a theory doesn't pass the test, then it's reasonable to throw it on the scrap heap. If, however, these people stick to their beliefs (say, that the world is 6,000 years old) then I think it's perfectly reasonable to claim that those people are simply wrong. However, if they fall back on God's authority, and God cannot (by definition) be wrong, then what does this mean?
The answer to that question is entirely up for interpretation. But certainly, for the practitioners of many religions, the "untruths" of those practicing other religions are seen as reasons to believe that the practitioners of the other religions are worshiping a "false God". Therefore the practitioners of many religions deny the existence of hundreds of other Gods.
The Atheist simply continues the practice to its logical conclusion.
GO
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:45pm PT
|
Fact; a piece of information being presented as having objective reality.
This is not the same as saying a fact is something "known" "absolutely" to be "True".
It says the fact describes something that is observed in the real world when certain conditions apply.
For instance you say it is a fact that things fall when you let them go. That's not always what is OBSERVED.
You can be on the orbiting space shuttle. Things don't fall of their own accord in that FRAME OF REFERENCE. The reason they don't is because they are accelerating at the same rate as is the shuttle. There is no RELATIVE acceleration.
Or you can be at very large distance from any significant mass and travelling in an inertial frame of reference. Based upon the precision of your measuring system you can calculate how far you must be from the mass of the largest nearby object -
for the body not to accelerate detectably when you release it.
Now we can keep on using............religiously charged words.............. and we will sit here accomplishing nothing till long after the cows come home. Or we can use language acknowledging that we have to use words that have yet to be rendered useless because of their being charged.
Why do we use these words? Because they are charged words, have impact, and we think they carry extra information. (Spin.) They do all right, but they can no longer be used because their emotional burden causes them to be VARIOUSLY interpreted.
Fact: Something only god "knows." (But he does not tell us his plan.)
Tomorrow he may change this fact altogether. So this fact is something you have to see each morning to see if it still applies. So keep an apple by the bed. Drop it on your head when you get up and see if it still hurts. Then you can start your day - confident.
"Spin" by the way is way emotionalized. If a body had mass it used to mean it also had angular momentum.
Now "spin" makes many of us start looking for our AK-47's.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:50pm PT
|
Cragman:
That's the densest collection of charged meaningless words we have seen since the last daily reading.
Great example!
Perfect.
Oops!
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:51pm PT
|
Cragman, next you'll be hunting witches. Good time of year for it anyway.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:52pm PT
|
WB wroteSo at the present moment both simple and complex forms are existing.
One did not develop into the other. For example, childhood body has developed into adult body, and the child’s body is no longer there.
So if the higher, complex species developed from the simpler, lower species, then we should see no simple species.
But all species are now existing simultaneously.
Hahaha! That's too funny! I think you may be one of the better trollers here, WB.
Cheers!
GO
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:58pm PT
|
Dirtbag
I understand theory perfectly.
Theory is the indirect method: we figure it out independently ( there is no God, nor creator).
The direct method is go straight to the source (Superior energy of the Lord) to understand; (Knowing we are not ultimately independent).
The atheist class still has to submit to the superior power of material nature which remains supreme to them (external energy of the Lord). They can not ultimately control nor become independent to that fact.
Otherwise the destruction of the material body could not occur.
This is where the two are opposite.
One side gains knowledge with the ascending process, (gross material science) and the descending process, (bonafide spiritual disciplines).
Thus the differences
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:02pm PT
|
But Werner, that information is passed through Holy books, whatever that book might be, written by people. Those books have often been shown to be wrong. So how do we really know what has been said, or even if anything has been said at all?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:06pm PT
|
When one is guilty, one tends to run from truth, call it wrong, anything to take truth's revealing light away from exposing weakness.
Funny I could say the same thing except replace guilty with fearfull. People are afraid of dying, they want eternal life, so they will believe what religious dogma tells them even if it contradicts uncorrupted powerful evidence given by Nature's God himself.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:06pm PT
|
Dirtbag -- throw your books bias away and look at ....
Sound vibration
Study that like a real scientist and you will find the answer.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:09pm PT
|
WBraun wrote:
The atheist class still has to submit to the superior power of material nature which remains supreme to them (external energy of the Lord). They can not ultimately control nor become independent to that fact.
Had to let the C-word slip, huh?
Well, great, if that's what it's all about, then.
“The 1991 Government survey of India states that on an average day, two Dalits are killed, three Dalit women are raped, two Dalits’ houses are burned and fifty Dalits are assaulted by people of a higher caste.” High-caste Brahmins formed a private army, the Ranvir Sena, to stop communists from encouraging Dalit field workers to demand higher wages."
http://rupeenews.com/2008/02/03/why-did-buddhism-disappear-from-the-south-asian-subcontinent-summary-of-brahmin-atrocities-that-destroyed-buddhism-in-the-subcontinent/
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:21pm PT
|
Cragman!
Thanks for such a wonderful story!
Alex is a gift indeed.
God used him to give sight to you. And I can only imagine He will continue to use this very special gift that is Alex.
Keep pouring!!!
Gets kinda dry around here at times!
PEACE TO YOU DR!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:23pm PT
|
Cintune give it up.
You don't have a clue wtf you're talking about.
You're still pissing into the wind.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:28pm PT
|
Give up, Kshatriya? Where's the fun in that?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 02:30pm PT
|
Christians aren't afraid of dying, they embrace it.
"To die is great gain!"
Exactly. That is a incredibly powerful motivator to believe what the people who wrote the Bible want you to believe.
I feel incredibly blessed by the creator to have this life and this Earth. I'd love it if there's more and an afterlife, but even if there's not I'm thankful to God for what he's provided. I don't need to ask for more.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!