DominO123 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Domino Sharp observation!Thoth you can't have it both ways either you don't know or you firmly believe to be an atheist which you stated several times. I wonder if you believe in anything at all like right from wrong, good and bad or is everything reletive for you. I feel that people who are so firm in their rejection of God keep trying to prove others how right they are. If “you” are so right in your rejection of God then you should rejoice in your existence and be content but why do I sense a guilty conscious here. Right and wrong are a phenomenology of conscienceness, just like order(from where right and wrong are derived from). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 just like order(from where right and wrong are derived from). Oh no. We have been through this before. Order does not quite work as a metric of good/bad. Or was this just a bait to suck me in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Oh no. We have been through this before. Order does not quite work as a metric of good/bad. Or was this just a bait to suck me in? Are you reffering to the discussions you had with Sasun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Are you reffering to the discussions you had with Sasun? Yes. And you were there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Sorry to disapoint you Armat - no guilty conscious and I believe that my conception of and internalization fo right and wrong - etc is as developed as anyones. Sorry - no need for a god belief for this one...I meanyou have to understand that humans for milenia - and a very many on the planet today do not share a belief in a Christian God - and they are able to make their way with these things...Boghos spoke of arrogance - I think claims like this are arrogance...or perhaps are just ignorance. And I really don't have doubt vconcening Go etc (as has been defined by humans)...and as undefined...well I don't see any point in worying about it - or in any way of needing to believe - and I still ask - in what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) Yes. And you were there too. Oh OK I see... yes! I remember you were able to convince me and that worthed many hours of meditation and sleepless nights. I think my problem is again the definition of the word order. BTW: What is your take regarding this discussion? Edited April 13, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) BTW: What is your take regarding this discussion? Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, if I can help it. Edited April 13, 2004 by Twilight Bark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Party pooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 I feel that people who are so firm in their rejection of God keep trying to prove others how right they are. If “you” are so right in your rejection of God then you should rejoice in your existence and be content but why do I sense a guilty conscious here. I want to make a point - it is the believers (mostly) who keep starting thse threads where they are classifying non-believers as haters or some such - otherwise disparaging our non-belief. So if believers are so secure - why the need to attempt to pigeonhole non-believers and such? etc etc And I do rejoice in my existance - that of my family, friends, humanity and all of our world and beyond..all truly wonderful and amazing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Anon, I stick by what I said - you do not observe evolution as it is taking place, and in fact you can't within your lifetime. Within your lifetime, though, you may observe mutation. This is a conversation I had with my best friend back in 6th grade! If you look at organism remains and you interpolate, that is not observing in the real sense of the word. That is why I drew up the example of pottery. It is the same way things are inferred, and I remind you of my previous posts where I mentioned contrarianism and arrogance. This is perhaps the best evidence of my argument which you have supported just by this above statement. In essence, the brunt of what I am saying is that evolution is a belief system, a metaphysical assumption. That it is, is evidenced by what you just said. Science is supposed to observe the world around us according to our senses. There is no possible way for us to observe evolution, and you just confirmed it. Therefore, building a make-belief model on how we evolved through time is a belief, since there is no way to observe it, test it and repeat it. In other words, it is not an empirical fact, it is a belief. The only way one can be sure of arriving at the true conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Since we are imperfect and limited in our knowledge, what sort of arrogant dogma demands that you suspend your critical judgement to accept something blindly simply because it is 'the best explanation' ( since this is the last refuge of those who support evolution ). And after that, I am the one called arrogant, when it is the very unfeminine and fry Stormtrooper that has verbally castigated people on the forum for not agreeing with her. "Artist's" rendition in museums - there are forensic artists, biological artists - certainly they have a better guess than you or me, who, a millenium ago, would've thought the remains of a dinosaur to be Saint George's slain dragon! Certainly Richard Neave of Manchester University has a better clue than the icon-creators about what Jesus might have looked like! A guess by a "forensic artist" is still a guess. Nothing more. There is no way of knowing what these dinosaurs looked like or how they died unless we were there to observe. We can only make explanations of what we believed to have happened, based on the present givens. The scientists dug up fossils, not pictures of what these organisms were supposed to have look like, so it is their impression. These are not facts, because we were not there. There is no way to be 100% sure of something. We can only deal with the present. We didn't observe that past. People who are fanatics in the scientific fields seem to act as if science alone can establish 100% certainty, yet here we are talking about evolution, and in the process plugging holes in it. The longer your posts, the deeper you sink. If you hadn't been so shameless and fallen flat on your face the first chance you got, you wouldn't have been sinking. What desperation? Someone pass me tissue paper, I'm going to cry for this poor bloke... Ahh yes yes, Stormtrooper yet again resorts to her one and only defense mechanism, name calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Well Anoan - sorry you fail again. While nothign can be 100% certain - who ever said such...your knock on scinece and scientific method and your failure to undertand how evolutionary science (incl genetics) tell us a great deal. And they basic conspt of evolution is sound. Specific theories - along the lines of survival of the fittest - and genetic mutation (micro/macro et al) are established - sure more is being understood all of the time - its amazing really- and we should celebrate today - 1 year of the human genome being mapped out - and so many discoveries are occuring...and these keep suporting the idea of (positive) genetic mutation and show a clear history of deveolpment of even DNA - where different DNA lead to different RNA sequences/combinatiions and different protiens/amino acids and how even this itself has evolved with more advanced life forms and over time...alll fasciating stuff..this is science- real science - exiting science - the best we are able - and sure - while limited - while unable to give us all of the answers - maybe not even close - well its the best we have for understanding the world around us...and it should be embraced - not rejected - and you would embrace such if you were truly intellignet enough to understand what it can show us - and sure accept its limitations as well...unless you'd rather just pray for inspiration/revelation....or consult some old books - live in a world where knowledge stopped hundreds of years ago - where scientific discovery is shunned because it goes against the edits of church belief etc etc..yeah there is belief for ya..and its categorically a ver different thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Well Anoan - sorry you fail again. While nothign can be 100% certain - who ever said such...your knock on scinece and scientific method and your failure to undertand how evolutionary science (incl genetics) tell us a great deal. And they basic conspt of evolution is sound. Specific theories - along the lines of survival of the fittest - and genetic mutation (micro/macro et al) are established - sure more is being understood all of the time - its amazing really- and we should celebrate today - 1 year of the human genome being mapped out - and so many discoveries are occuring...and these keep suporting the idea of (positive) genetic mutation and show a clear history of deveolpment of even DNA - where different DNA lead to different RNA sequences/combinatiions and different protiens/amino acids and how even this itself has evolved with more advanced life forms and over time...alll fasciating stuff..this is science- real science - exiting science - the best we are able - and sure - while limited - while unable to give us all of the answers - maybe not even close - well its the best we have for understanding the world around us...and it should be embraced - not rejected - and you would embrace such if you were truly intellignet enough to understand what it can show us - and sure accept its limitations as well...unless you'd rather just pray for inspiration/revelation....or consult some old books - live in a world where knowledge stopped hundreds of years ago - where scientific discovery is shunned because it goes against the edits of church belief etc etc..yeah there is belief for ya..and its categorically a ver different thing... No one castigated science. The issue is evolution. Science and genetics are science and genetics, exclusive of evolution. Evolution is just a belief system, a structure of thought, a construct of a world view that purports to show how life developed and its origins. It is a belief system. That is not science. By the way, mutations don't mean anything, and for the most part, mutations are always more harmful than positive, therefore limiting "evolution" with regard to probability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 All untrue - evolution theory and all that surrounds it are good science and I've posted plenty of links that clearly explain this postion. If you reject evolution you are in all senses rejecting science as a whole. And you are wrong about muttions being primarily negative. The current thinig among geneticists is that there are many check mechanisms that limit negative mutation yet propel positive - actually hurrying evolution essentially. Please pick up the latest Scientific American if you are interested - really great stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 All untrue - evolution theory and all that surrounds it are good science and I've posted plenty of links that clearly explain this postion. If you reject evolution you are in all senses rejecting science as a whole. And you are wrong about muttions being primarily negative. The current thinig among geneticists is that there are many check mechanisms that limit negative mutation yet propel positive - actually hurrying evolution essentially. Please pick up the latest Scientific American if you are interested - really great stuff... When will you stop posting links and actually debate something for once? You think that by posting endless links you are somehow contributing something of intellectual value to the forum, and then name calling people, when in reality you are just creating an intellectual Berlin Wall only to be toppled. For one thing, evolution is not provable or testable. As far as mutations, this is one of the pillars of evolutions mechanism, yet easily doubtful. That new living things evolve into other more complicated living things with new functions and such, is a belief. No evidence can support this. Since the DNA is the blueprint for life, and arranged in a specific sequence of nucleotides all arranged in a purposeful manner - to change them is to ruin the DNA, and hence we have a mutation, mostly negative. In other words this is a copying error during replication, if you think of it in terms of computers. Hence these errors are the causes of many of the diseases we know. As the French evolutionist Pierre Paul Grasse said: "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Your understanding (?) of how mutations occur - and how they are channeled etc is out of date at best. As for the rest - well I provided links which show evolution to be good science - and I have amply stated my views (isn't this a religion thread? I though so)..anyway - you have offered no alternative. Your stated position - not demonstratable is innacurate - if you have read some of my links. You really have no argument at all yet you persist (talk about a religious fanatic - you very much seem as one). Bottom line - evolution is good science - ther are thousands and thousands and thousands of examples and reasons why this "belief" is held...(LOL)...and your attempts to argue against such are meaningless. The precipts of evolutionary theory are proven to the extent of sciences abiltity at this time and it is clear that we have the evidence that evolution - via mutation, natural selection (of some sort) etc did occur - is occuring. There is a plethroa of proof. Sorry if your belief system just doesnt include understanding it - its your deficiency... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 I cannot resist and have to ask what you really believe in Domino. Anoushik jan, just why couldn't you resist? Don't you know whatever you ask Domino will surely tell you about the multi-universe theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted April 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Anoushik jan, just why couldn't you resist? Sasun, that was hilarious! I’d just gotten home from work and was going through this thread with utmost curiosity, already absorbed in the mystery of the multiple universes, (and thinking what did I get myself into, since now I’ve got a lot of reading to do) when suddenly, out of the blue, I saw your message. What a laugh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted April 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 On a more serious note, thank you Domino. I just need the time to read all that you've posted today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 This is perhaps the best evidence of my argument which you have supported just by this above statement. In essence, the brunt of what I am saying is that evolution is a belief system, a metaphysical assumption. That it is, is evidenced by what you just said. Science is supposed to observe the world around us according to our senses. There is no possible way for us to observe evolution, and you just confirmed it. Therefore, building a make-belief model on how we evolved through time is a belief, since there is no way to observe it, test it and repeat it. In other words, it is not an empirical fact, it is a belief. The only way one can be sure of arriving at the true conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Since we are imperfect and limited in our knowledge, what sort of arrogant dogma demands that you suspend your critical judgement to accept something blindly simply because it is 'the best explanation' ( since this is the last refuge of those who support evolution ). And after that, I am the one called arrogant, when it is the very unfeminine and fry Stormtrooper that has verbally castigated people on the forum for not agreeing with her. Anon, I have just one thing to say - since we can't "observe," for example, the rock cycle, you just threw out the sciences called geology, petrography, mineralogy, etc. They're not theories, or laws, nor belief systems; they are sciences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 i have a question to atheists... not being sarcastic or sinical or anything.. just straight foraward.. If you do not beleive in God, then is it neccasarily true that you beleive in evolution? if not then how do you explain our being as we are? thx in advance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 i have a question to atheists... not being sarcastic or sinical or anything.. just straight foraward.. If you do not beleive in God, then is it neccasarily true that you beleive in evolution? if not then how do you explain our being as we are? thx in advance... Evolution has very little to do with atheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 "According to the Bible 1/3 of the worlds population will die at the end time, whos side are you on?" Gevo what sense does your signature make, if it’s the END what happens to the other 2/3? <_< I don’t recall any lines in a Bible that states such a stupid claim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 "According to the Bible 1/3 of the worlds population will die at the end time, whos side are you on?" The other 2/3's will be the muslims that will kill the remaining 1/3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/consc.html Nice read, near the way I see things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Evolution has very little to do with atheism. must you try to relate the two? i am not relating one vs the other.. please it was a simple question.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.