Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yugopap4me

Next step in evolution

Recommended Posts

Evolution IS a religious debate--an attempt to use misuse science to explain past events that cannot be observed by present-day humans. For example, evolution offers no coherent or plausible explanation for the origin of life. If you read the literature, there are endless theories on how life began, but they change constantly as we gain greater understanding of how life actually works. Until someone can synthesize a colony of viable living organisms from inorganic materials in a lab, even a simple bacteria, it's all speculation and fairy tales, not actual science. Real science is observable and reproducible, and no theory of spontaneous origin of life has ever been corroborated with observations, or reproduced in a lab.

 

Believing that life started spontaneously requires a greater leap of faith than that demanded by any religion. If you look at the number of DNA base pairs needed to build even the simplest of organisms, the odds of evolution producing one single viable organism (something capable of living, finding food and shelter, and reproducing) anywhere in the universe since the Big Bang is about 1 in 10^100, even if you stipulate that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and every atom in the universe can sequence a billion sets of DNA base pairs per second, and no two atoms ever generate the same DNA sequence.

Of course, that glosses over the difficulty that any device or organism that can generate DNA sequences is necessarily composed of billions or trillions of atoms, and generates sequences at a much slower rate than 1 billion sequences per second. Bacteria generally have a generational interval of 5-15 minutes, for humans and other more complex organisms,the generational interval is a minimum of 12-14 years, but generally more like 20. Also, most of the atoms in the universe are parts of stars or floating in deep space, where extreme temperatures, radiation levels, or other hostile conditions would irreversibly damage or destroy DNA before it could be placed in a compatible host cell and start reproducing.

 

There's also the difficulty of the compatible host cell--it is even more unlikely to form by chance than the actual DNA, and the DNA and the compatible host cell have to be spontaneously assembled in both physical and temporal proximity in order to create a viable organism capable of sustaining itself and reproducing, all in an environment that doesn't destroy it immediately.

One can debate the scope and nature of a higher power or supreme being(s), but the notion that life happened by chance or accident is preposterously unscientific.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Theory of Evolution and Religion do not mix.  Evolution with religious concepts does not work.  The future evolution of mankind is a non religious subject.  Religion does not enter into it.  Thus any religious remarks or dogma including Bible Verses pulls down the question at hand.  Is that clear enough?  I want the thread killed because of the religious input.  Not required.  Not needed.  Not wanted. The subject is the future evolution of mankind.  Period.   Clear enough?  Respectfully. 

 

Of course I read it.  Is that germane to the point at hand?  What would you expect me to do?  Ignore it?  I helped create the mud.  I am responsible for it. In effect for those with religious points of view I sowed the wind.  Now I am reaping the whirlwind.  The discussion is getting out of hand.  Kill it please.  I am requesting this because, frankly, the religious input is beginning to piss me off.  One more time.  The Future Evolution Of Mankind.  Future EVOLUTION.  Non religious.  Respectfully.  HB.

Some would say that religion --> Christianity is the answer to the evolution of Man (Christ's return and the judgement with the future eternity of Mankind and God reunited.) so clearly evolution and religion do indeed mix.  I would like the thread left alive because it serves a purpose and engenders thoughtful discussion.  I am sorry that it "pisses you off" HB, you might want to take a hard look inside and ask yourself why.  If you honestly find an answer it may make much pain and anger go away.  All the best.

Edited by Odd Man Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up.  Perhaps it is the time rename this Forum.  How About Saigas And God?  Is this where this Forum is leading?  Please do not tell me this is true.  Please do not tell me this.  Respectfully HB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poolingmyignorance:  The sad point is that any religious input dilutes the thread.

 

HB,

 

That would be an opinion on the Evolution vs. Creation debate.  To presuppose evolution as a fact and proceed from there without raising the facts supporting creationism would be lopsided and contrary to the belief of millions upon millions of intelligent people.

 

It could be more a case of some feeling uncomfortable discussing their mortality and a full accountability to a Supreme being. 

 

The belief in evolution requires faith too as it can't be demonstrated.  What makes it superior to faith in a Creator who has revealed Himself to us in history?  The point is presupposing evolution exclusively while discounting or rejecting the objective evidence for Christianity is close minded at best....to the detriment of the individual who does so.

 

Christians feel compelled to respond to the argument that evolution is exclusively true.  This thread is inclusive of both views as reflected in our society as well as around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observed evidence

Logical conclusion 

 

That is cornerstone of rational thought and science is only an extension of such thought into the nature of things.

Either the entirety of the universe(s) is a creation of a design or not. 

 

Coincidence does occur but never is it found to be the basis of any continuing system, it is always order that sustains.

If there is order there is design.

 

That is where I began but did not end, as did He, with the creation of the universe, and as my understanding of it increased so did my appreciation for the design and designer.

If that is religion so be it, in this case science and religion are one and the same.

 

The choice is always before us, choose well or poorly in the end it will matter only to the decider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observed evidence

Logical conclusion

 

That is cornerstone of rational thought and science is only an extension of such thought into the nature of things.

Either the entirety of the universe(s) is a creation of a design or not.

 

Coincidence does occur but never is it found to be the basis of any continuing system, it is always order that sustains.

If there is order there is design.

 

That is where I began but did not end, as did He, with the creation of the universe, and as my understanding of it increased so did my appreciation for the design and designer.

If that is religion so be it, in this case science and religion are one and the same.

 

The choice is always before us, choose well or poorly in the end it will matter only to the decider.

Of course one has never seen a burning bush, talking snake, talking donkey, or man formed from dirt... so logically there is no observable evidence..

One must also be able to present a universe in which life did not occur to conclude this is design and not inevitably.

So to conclude either way, evolution or creation is intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Observed evidence

Logical conclusion

 

That is cornerstone of rational thought and science is only an extension of such thought into the nature of things.

Either the entirety of the universe(s) is a creation of a design or not.

 

Coincidence does occur but never is it found to be the basis of any continuing system, it is always order that sustains.

If there is order there is design.

 

That is where I began but did not end, as did He, with the creation of the universe, and as my understanding of it increased so did my appreciation for the design and designer.

If that is religion so be it, in this case science and religion are one and the same.

 

The choice is always before us, choose well or poorly in the end it will matter only to the decider.

Of course one has never seen a burning bush, talking snake, talking donkey, or man formed from dirt... so logically there is no observable evidence..

One must also be able to present a universe in which life did not occur to conclude this is design and not inevitably.

So to conclude either way, evolution or creation is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

I point to the beginning and you rip pages out of the middle? 

Do you really think it is not obvious?

Beginnings are everything, as all intent and will is deposited into them.

 

Well I have never seen Earth from space, the conclusive observation, but I have seen evidence of it every time I see water go down a drain.

I have never seen an atom but I have seen evidence of the properties which reveal their existence.

 

Such conclusions are not held to those rules of evidence of the seen.

Yet there are people that will not hear nor see even those elementary realities for whatever agenda. 

 

I have never seen a burning bush but have seen the evidence of what followed, ancient Israel.

I have never seen a talking snake but I have seen the effect of the lie and evidence of it's source.

None of these did I witness no more than I witnessed the Civil War yet I see the evidence just as clearly as I see it of a design and creator.

 

We know man is apart from all other physical creation in the ability to contemplate the infinite and unseen. Unfortunately due to the circumstances we find ourselves that means his own death and the oblivion that perhaps follows.

 

If you are correct nothing matters, nothing. Paint it any way you wish, romanticize it any way you like, that is the final end of your universe and everything with in it.

You offer nothing, not truth nor fact, nor evidence of being correct. Congratulating yourself on sniping at the corners and pretending that invalidates the whole.

It is hardly now or ever a trait that I would consider valuable.

 

Something more pulls at me saying very clearly there is more, this could not have come about for nothing.

This is what separates us.

 

Do as you like, I've not the time or will to trace it out for you. I've no obligation to do more. Perhaps one day someone will perhaps not.

 

 

Good luck

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Observed evidence

Logical conclusion

 

That is cornerstone of rational thought and science is only an extension of such thought into the nature of things.

Either the entirety of the universe(s) is a creation of a design or not.

 

Coincidence does occur but never is it found to be the basis of any continuing system, it is always order that sustains.

If there is order there is design.

 

That is where I began but did not end, as did He, with the creation of the universe, and as my understanding of it increased so did my appreciation for the design and designer.

If that is religion so be it, in this case science and religion are one and the same.

 

The choice is always before us, choose well or poorly in the end it will matter only to the decider.

Of course one has never seen a burning bush, talking snake, talking donkey, or man formed from dirt... so logically there is no observable evidence..

One must also be able to present a universe in which life did not occur to conclude this is design and not inevitably.

So to conclude either way, evolution or creation is intellectually dishonest.

I point to the beginning and you rip pages out of the middle?

Do you really think it is not obvious?

Beginnings are everything, as all intent and will is deposited into them.

 

Well I have never seen Earth from space, the conclusive observation, but I have seen evidence of it every time I see water go down a drain.

I have never seen an atom but I have seen evidence of the properties which reveal their existence.

 

Such conclusions are not held to those rules of evidence of the seen.

Yet there are people that will not hear nor see even those elementary realities for whatever agenda.

 

I have never seen a burning bush but have seen the evidence of what followed, ancient Israel.

I have never seen a talking snake but I have seen the effect of the lie and evidence of it's source.

None of these did I witness no more than I witnessed the Civil War yet I see the evidence just as clearly as I see it of a design and creator.

 

We know man is apart from all other physical creation in the ability to contemplate the infinite and unseen. Unfortunately due to the circumstances we find ourselves that means his own death and the oblivion that perhaps follows.

 

If you are correct nothing matters, nothing. Paint it any way you wish, romanticize it any way you like, that is the final end of your universe and everything with in it.

You offer nothing, not truth nor fact, nor evidence of being correct. Congratulating yourself on sniping at the corners and pretending that invalidates the whole.

It is hardly now or ever a trait that I would consider valuable.

 

Something more pulls at me saying very clearly there is more, this could not have come about for nothing.

This is what separates us.

 

Do as you like, I've not the time or will to trace it out for you. I've no obligation to do more. Perhaps one day someone will perhaps not.

 

 

Good luck

"Sniping from the middle" is all we can do. We were there neither at the beginning and most likely not at the end. We take observation and make hypothesis then attempt to confirm or disprove them.

Causation and correlation are often confused in this process as men have many motives. I earlier touched base on the snake and original sin and how Christ sacrifice left that unforgiven. (Which leaves lots of room for other explanations to arise)

I'm not in the conversation to explain what becomes of us when we die. I do offer nothing, as we have no method of observation from that side. I don't need to romanticize it, it's inevitably is beyond my control and simply trying to knit myself a comfort blanket won't change it's reality one bit.

As far as historical reference goes for validation or as "evidence".. I think napoleon said it best " What is history but a fable agreed upon? "

Edited by poolingmyignorance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finished thinking.  It was difficult.  Had to look into the bathroom mirror and stare hard.  Critical self examination.  My final and firm conclusion is that by definition and history, Evolution stands alone from ANY Religious input.  It must.  It has to.  It is Evolution. It is not Religion.

 

It gets either better or worse. ... Any Religious interjections, comments, Bible Quotes or personal Religious observations or opinions are not based upon Empirical Science or Datum, but Religious Faith.  Faith alone.  Faith which is NOT provable by any scientific testing.  Some more.

 

Those who choose to inter the discussion of the Future Evolution Of Mankind using and employing scientific suggestions or opinions based upon accepted science are welcome to do so and they add to the discussion.  Religious input pulls down the discussion at hand.  My view only.

 

Too many individuals are pulling down this thread.  Thus my repeated requests to kill the entire thing.  Now you understand more.  We need to decide how to handle this division in the future.  Perhaps adding a Religion Only Section?  I'm OK with that. Do what must be done.  HB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Observed evidence

Logical conclusion

 

That is cornerstone of rational thought and science is only an extension of such thought into the nature of things.

Either the entirety of the universe(s) is a creation of a design or not.

 

Coincidence does occur but never is it found to be the basis of any continuing system, it is always order that sustains.

If there is order there is design.

 

That is where I began but did not end, as did He, with the creation of the universe, and as my understanding of it increased so did my appreciation for the design and designer.

If that is religion so be it, in this case science and religion are one and the same.

 

The choice is always before us, choose well or poorly in the end it will matter only to the decider.

Of course one has never seen a burning bush, talking snake, talking donkey, or man formed from dirt... so logically there is no observable evidence..

One must also be able to present a universe in which life did not occur to conclude this is design and not inevitably.

So to conclude either way, evolution or creation is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

I point to the beginning and you rip pages out of the middle? 

Do you really think it is not obvious?

Beginnings are everything, as all intent and will is deposited into them.

 

Well I have never seen Earth from space, the conclusive observation, but I have seen evidence of it every time I see water go down a drain.

I have never seen an atom but I have seen evidence of the properties which reveal their existence.

 

Such conclusions are not held to those rules of evidence of the seen.

Yet there are people that will not hear nor see even those elementary realities for whatever agenda. 

 

I have never seen a burning bush but have seen the evidence of what followed, ancient Israel.

I have never seen a talking snake but I have seen the effect of the lie and evidence of it's source.

None of these did I witness no more than I witnessed the Civil War yet I see the evidence just as clearly as I see it of a design and creator.

 

We know man is apart from all other physical creation in the ability to contemplate the infinite and unseen. Unfortunately due to the circumstances we find ourselves that means his own death and the oblivion that perhaps follows.

 

If you are correct nothing matters, nothing. Paint it any way you wish, romanticize it any way you like, that is the final end of your universe and everything with in it.

You offer nothing, not truth nor fact, nor evidence of being correct. Congratulating yourself on sniping at the corners and pretending that invalidates the whole.

It is hardly now or ever a trait that I would consider valuable.

 

Something more pulls at me saying very clearly there is more, this could not have come about for nothing.

This is what separates us.

 

Do as you like, I've not the time or will to trace it out for you. I've no obligation to do more. Perhaps one day someone will perhaps not.

 

 

Good luck

 

What an awesome post!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finished thinking.  It was difficult.  Had to look into the bathroom mirror and stare hard.  Critical self examination.  My final and firm conclusion is that by definition and history, Evolution stands alone from ANY Religious input.  It must.  It has to.  It is Evolution. It is not Religion.

 

It gets either better or worse. ... Any Religious interjections, comments, Bible Quotes or personal Religious observations or opinions are not based upon Empirical Science or Datum, but Religious Faith.  Faith alone.  Faith which is NOT provable by any scientific testing.  Some more.

 

Those who choose to inter the discussion of the Future Evolution Of Mankind using and employing scientific suggestions or opinions based upon accepted science are welcome to do so and they add to the discussion.  Religious input pulls down the discussion at hand.  My view only.

 

Too many individuals are pulling down this thread.  Thus my repeated requests to kill the entire thing.  Now you understand more.  We need to decide how to handle this division in the future.  Perhaps adding a Religion Only Section?  I'm OK with that. Do what must be done.  HB

HB

 

You said;

"Those who choose to inter the discussion of the Future Evolution Of Mankind using and employing scientific suggestions or opinions based upon accepted science are welcome to do so and they add to the discussion."

 

Do you realize that in the 13th century it was accepted scientific fact that the world was flat?  Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order.  To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God.

 

You have the right to disagree with what some others may write here -- you do not have the right to limit others rights to post here or anywhere.  Segregating religion into its own little space?  Ain't gonna happen -- get used to it my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not ONE of you who quote the Bible can read a single word of it in the languages in which it was written. Same for the science argument.

There will never be a consensus opinion formed by discussion, as there is no true understanding of either position by those who debate the loudest!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am finished thinking. It was difficult. Had to look into the bathroom mirror and stare hard. Critical self examination. My final and firm conclusion is that by definition and history, Evolution stands alone from ANY Religious input. It must. It has to. It is Evolution. It is not Religion.

 

It gets either better or worse. ... Any Religious interjections, comments, Bible Quotes or personal Religious observations or opinions are not based upon Empirical Science or Datum, but Religious Faith. Faith alone. Faith which is NOT provable by any scientific testing. Some more.

 

Those who choose to inter the discussion of the Future Evolution Of Mankind using and employing scientific suggestions or opinions based upon accepted science are welcome to do so and they add to the discussion. Religious input pulls down the discussion at hand. My view only.

 

Too many individuals are pulling down this thread. Thus my repeated requests to kill the entire thing. Now you understand more. We need to decide how to handle this division in the future. Perhaps adding a Religion Only Section? I'm OK with that. Do what must be done. HB

HB

 

You said;

"Those who choose to inter the discussion of the Future Evolution Of Mankind using and employing scientific suggestions or opinions based upon accepted science are welcome to do so and they add to the discussion."

 

Do you realize that in the 13th century it was accepted scientific fact that the world was flat? Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God.

 

You have the right to disagree with what some others may write here -- you do not have the right to limit others rights to post here or anywhere. Segregating religion into its own little space? Ain't gonna happen -- get used to it my friend.

That's not a very good comparison. It long before the concept of science was spoken. That was when religion guided study. It was a contamination of thought process in which all results must lead to a congruence with biblical teachings.

So before you bring up ancient attempts at explaining the world you need to recognize the guiding principal was religion and not scientific method as was written centuries later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does that change anything in the statement I made?:

"Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order.  To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God."


And not ONE of you who quote the Bible can read a single word of it in the languages in which it was written. Same for the science argument.

There will never be a consensus opinion formed by discussion, as there is no true understanding of either position by those who debate the loudest!

You are sounding a bit like a committed muslim -- many believe that if the koran is not read in the language it was originally written in (arabic) then it is illegitimate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I am an Agnostic.  If there were any religious discussions on this site, I for one would not rain on your parade.  I know the scientific method and religion do not mix. I believe others understand.

 

It would also be expected that scientific discussions like The Future Evolution Of Mankind would be not diluted by any scientifically unproven religious input or comments.  Common expected courtesy. 

 

This has not happened.  Thus the division with this post.  Again ... by definition, Evolution and Religion do not mix.  Ever.  They can not.  We will leave other behaviors for another time. Not here and now. 

 

PS:  Has the owner considered a Religion Only Sub Forum?  How about a Science Only Sub Forum.  This might have the advantage of keeping the hot subjects off the main board?  Sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does that change anything in the statement I made?:

"Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God."

 

 

And not ONE of you who quote the Bible can read a single word of it in the languages in which it was written. Same for the science argument.

There will never be a consensus opinion formed by discussion, as there is no true understanding of either position by those who debate the loudest!

You are sounding a bit like a committed muslim -- many believe that if the koran is not read in the language it was originally written in (arabic) then it is illegitimate...
Because you threw the word "science" into an age where it did not exist. There was only observation and assumption.

You point out the ABSENCE of science. Not it's failures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I ask again since it was not answered in the post above:

 

So how does that change anything in the statement I made?:
"Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God."

 

Again, I am an Agnostic.  If there were any religious discussions on this site, I for one would not rain on your parade.  I know the scientific method and religion do not mix. I believe others understand.

 

It would also be expected that scientific discussions like The Future Evolution Of Mankind would be not diluted by any scientifically unproven religious input or comments.  Common expected courtesy. 

 

This has not happened.  Thus the division with this post.  Again ... by definition, Evolution and Religion do not mix.  Ever.  They can not.  We will leave other behaviors for another time. Not here and now. 

 

PS:  Has the owner considered a Religion Only Sub Forum?  How about a Science Only Sub Forum.  This might have the advantage of keeping the hot subjects off the main board?  Sounds good to me.

HB

No one here is upset -- I think we all (you being the exception) are amiably chewing the fat over the subject.  You say religion and science do not mix, others say they do.  So be it.  No need to segregate things into little boxes.  Humans have a penchant for wandering in discussions.  No big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda like asking if Chevy pistons will fit into the bolt carrier of a Saiga 12 and then trying to intelligently discuss why they may or may not fit.   Rather futile.  Or another example might be trying to explain the needs of a 80 year old broken hip hospital patient to a 8 year old Cub Scout trying to get his first aid merit badge.  Respectfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth to learning is we never perceive the real truth but think we do for the moment.

Our concept of things are always being refined . We hold on to what is solid,discard what is not as we reach out to the next ferm idea with the hope of it being solid,we call this learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does that change anything in the statement I made?:

"Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order.  To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God."

And not ONE of you who quote the Bible can read a single word of it in the languages in which it was written. Same for the science argument.

There will never be a consensus opinion formed by discussion, as there is no true understanding of either position by those who debate the loudest!

You are sounding a bit like a committed muslim -- many believe that if the koran is not read in the language it was originally written in (arabic) then it is illegitimate...

No I most certainly am not!  They tried to raise me Catholic, but by 3rd grade we saw through that heresy. There are many good 'christians', there are damn few that claim to be preachers of Christianity, that have any veracity, or knowledge of the history and tenants of the creed.

God does NOT speak thru preachers, Imams,rabbis and such. And the God that created ALL men does NOT call on any man to cheat other men in buisness, nor to judge other men. If your god does these things, then he is a god,not THE God.

 

I am out of here on this subject. My views are my own. I am at peace with my God, and have no fear of his judgement. Some of those here will be damned surprised when they are judged - assholes go to hell same as thieves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to know the objective truth.  The answer to the epistemological dilemma:

 

John 14:6New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I ask again since it was not answered in the post above:

 

So how does that change anything in the statement I made?:

"Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God."

 

 

Again, I am an Agnostic. If there were any religious discussions on this site, I for one would not rain on your parade. I know the scientific method and religion do not mix. I believe others understand.

 

It would also be expected that scientific discussions like The Future Evolution Of Mankind would be not diluted by any scientifically unproven religious input or comments. Common expected courtesy.

 

This has not happened. Thus the division with this post. Again ... by definition, Evolution and Religion do not mix. Ever. They can not. We will leave other behaviors for another time. Not here and now.

 

PS: Has the owner considered a Religion Only Sub Forum? How about a Science Only Sub Forum. This might have the advantage of keeping the hot subjects off the main board? Sounds good to me.

HB

No one here is upset -- I think we all (you being the exception) are amiably chewing the fat over the subject. You say religion and science do not mix, others say they do. So be it. No need to segregate things into little boxes. Humans have a penchant for wandering in discussions. No big deal.

Because it doesn't take into account what is observable,measurable, and repeatable. It was RELIGION, belief in the church that made those errors. Political interest ( the churches power) that held back man kind... ever heard of the dark ages?

Science isn't about faith... its about measure, consistency, and rejection of that which does not fit the criteria.

Yes mistakes are made in science..but when it's performed correctly and the observationsame are honest, it's solid.

Political agenda in science is just as useless as religion is in political agenda. This is why we have a different definition of what is ethical and what is moral.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not ONE of you who quote the Bible can read a single word of it in the languages in which it was written. Same for the science argument.

There will never be a consensus opinion formed by discussion, as there is no true understanding of either position by those who debate the loudest!

 

There are three languages Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek if it is the original language in the cannon declared in 325AD and later. Interesting matter if you've a bent to know how things come to be as they are. This can be very important.

 

For instance the word that is translated "day" from the ancient Hebrew contained in the first chapters of Genesis actually means period of time, age, sun in the sky day, or 24 hour day depending on the usage. Think about just that one word and what people will unknowingly base ridiculous ideas due to it.

 

This is why care must be taken with an eye for mistakes of the past and not to much ego involved in the understanding.

Above all knowing what is most important, and it aint what most argue over.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Science isn't about faith... its about measure, consistency, and rejection of that which does not fit the criteria.

Yes mistakes are made in science..but when it's performed correctly and the observationsame are honest, it's solid.

Political agenda in science is just as useless as religion is in political agenda. This is why we have a different definition of what is ethical and what is moral.

 

That's surprising to me, what is your definition of ethical and moral?  Are you one of those LGBT activists?  ;  )

 

 

 I think I will rest with my statement:

 

Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith as to believe in an Almighty God.

Edited by Odd Man Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Science isn't about faith... its about measure, consistency, and rejection of that which does not fit the criteria.

Yes mistakes are made in science..but when it's performed correctly and the observationsame are honest, it's solid.

Political agenda in science is just as useless as religion is in political agenda. This is why we have a different definition of what is ethical and what is moral.

 

That's surprising to me, what is your definition of ethical and moral? Are you one of those LGBT activists? ; )

 

 

I think I will rest with my statement:

 

Accepted science is only what is known at the current time and to think that we now know all that there is to know is lunacy of the highest order. To have a blind belief in science to answer all questions takes at least as much faith to believe in an Almighty God.

Activist? No. I'm rather indifferent. If you don't like homosexuality ,don't be a homosexual.

Don't like religion? Don't go to church.

Don't like drugs? Don't do drugs.

Don't like guns? Don't buy a gun.

See how that works? No need to aggress values upon you.

 

As far as your original question, I don't think ever in this conversation have even hinted toward knowing all, or even that all can be known. Quite the opposite. That's YOUR contention. That it's all contained in a book penned in a language you cannot read, translated under the watchful eye of rulers whom required it to support them... rulers whom as I pointed out held back real study. Remember what I said earlier abut corruption?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the next step in human evolution will be cyborgs.  What if limbs and organs could be replaces with permanent robotics?  We are already in the beginning stages of this happening.  After that, I believe we will create sentient artificial intelligence, which will ultimately replace organic human life.    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×