Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[Balerion]

A local senior Baptist Minister, Tim Costello, Autralia was being interviewed on TV last night said in effect:

"What God is to me is that feeling , that urge, that need and desire to pick youself up after you've been knocked down a million times. That force that compells you to get back on that horse after you have fallen of."

It take a hell of lot more than science to provide the motivation to go on, even after science is telling us that it has managed to destroy or seriously disable our future.
what makes you get out of bed in the morning? not science I bet...

in the end on your very last breath, it is just you and your God, what and whom ever that may be and I can guarrantee you it aint rocket science...
If we only believed as Science believes we would all commit suicide immediately. For there would be absolutely no reason to go on as life therefore is an act of utter futility.

Wow, what a steaming pile of crap.

What does it mean to "believe in science?" Science is a tool, not an ideology.

And this nonsense that if we didn't believe in God we'd be suicidal is downright insulting, not to mention entirely false. You are surrounded by non-believers on this forum who are well-adjusted and content as well as being unbelievers. What do you make of people like us, who disprove your stupid theory by our mere existence?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Wow, what a steaming pile of crap.

What does it mean to "believe in science?" Science is a tool, not an ideology.

And this nonsense that if we didn't believe in God we'd be suicidal is downright insulting, not to mention entirely false. You are surrounded by non-believers on this forum who are well-adjusted and content as well as being unbelievers. What do you make of people like us, who disprove your stupid theory by our mere existence?

you don't have to believe in God.... silly....
answer me this: Is it science that get's you motivated to get out of bed in the morning. [ or the need to go to the toilet or eat something or have sex or put food on your table.]
If you believe in no after life and no connection between people and all the rest you guys are trying to force others to believe why are you still alive?
Why don't you end it? seriously...what's the point of going on for you when it amounts to nothing in the end.
Why do you need to sleep any way? According to science there is no reason for sleep...not really...
Why would you die if you didn't sleep, after all you get all the energy you need from food don't you? or do you?

You don't have to believe in God any more than you have to believe in the monitor your looking at...

 

[Quantum Quack]

What does it mean to "believe in science?" Science is a tool, not an ideology.

well then stop using it as an ideology...

 

[Gustav]

You are surrounded by non-believers on this forum who are well-adjusted and content as well as being unbelievers.

well-adjusted and content?
you?

What do you make of people like us, who disprove your stupid theory by our mere existence?

hmm
interesting question
lemme think.......yeah......you in particular appear to be a sociopathic troll

 

[Balerion]

you don't have to believe in God silly....

But that's what you just said.

answer me this is it science that get's you motivated to get out of bed in the morning.

No. Why would it?

If you believe in no after life and no connection between people and all the rest you guys are tryng to force others to believe why are you stiull alive?
Why don't you end it? seriously...what's the point of going on for you when it amounts to nothing in the end.

I've been asked this by believers before. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it, and it somehow makes even less sense now.

There's no reason to believe that life continues after death, and plenty of reason to believe that it doesn't. This means that this life is all we have. Why would I be eager to give that up? If anything, the belief that there is no afterlife would only serve to make this life all the more precious. In fact, the real question is why do believers not commit suicide en mass? After all, your reward comes in the afterward, does it not? Why not just off yourself and expedite your journey to the celestial kingdom you believe in? My belief puts priority on corporeal life; yours doesn't.

Of course, the premise of the question is flawed. I am alive for the same reason you are: we have self-preservation instincts. None of us actually need for there to be some cosmic meaning to life; you just happen to like that your faith provides one. Or at least you think it does. In reality, your belief is no more meaningful than mine. How does the promise of eternal life grant meaning to anything? What would be the meaning of that eternity? Does that not require meaning?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But that's what you just said.

No I did not, that is what you read not what I wrote: link and quote please...

God or what ever it is that provides the existance of life in what science refers to as matter and dead stuff, requires no belief. However your ego does, to survive.

Either believe in God or believe in science, it doesn't really matter to the ego. And it is the existential ego that keeps you awake during the day and separate from or oneness with "God" or the universe depending on whether you believe in science or religious theosophy. Either way the ego whether full of notions of God or science keeps the separation to the universal ego if you like.
Other wise known as Nacassistic personality .... "God complex" which persons from both fields of ideology have to, by virtue of existential ego, endure.
Your ultimate death is the final surrrender of existential egosim as your ego achieve oneness with God or the Universe [ theosophy=God or science=universe]

 

[Quantum Quack]

I've been asked this by believers before. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it, and it somehow makes even less sense now.

There's no reason to believe that life continues after death, and plenty of reason to believe that it doesn't. This means that this life is all we have. Why would I be eager to give that up? If anything, the belief that there is no afterlife would only serve to make this life all the more precious. In fact, the real question is why do believers not commit suicide en mass? After all, your reward comes in the afterward, does it not? Why not just off yourself and expedite your journey to the celestial kingdom you believe in? My belief puts priority on corporeal life; yours doesn't.

Of course, the premise of the question is flawed. I am alive for the same reason you are: we have self-preservation instincts. None of us actually need for there to be some cosmic meaning to life; you just happen to like that your faith provides one. Or at least you think it does. In reality, your belief is no more meaningful than mine. How does the promise of eternal life grant meaning to anything? What would be the meaning of that eternity? Does that not require meaning?

If I gave you God Balerion, a lump of carbon [atomic number 6], a cup of water, and a whole swag of hormones [salts] with the task of creating organic life wiht an independant autonomous way of excercising ego centroc behaviour [ freewil] that doesn't automatically commit suicide upon birth.. could you? would you?
remember no DNA to work with, no reproductive systems to copy and plagerise...no instincts nor method of ineterco0nnectivity between beasts....

I think a lot of egocentric scientists severely, and chronically underestimate what is involved in not only creating life, but maintaining it in a way that is perpetual through out eternity in a way that is automatic and natural.

 

[Balerion]

No I did not, that is what you read not what I wrote: link and quote please...

It take a hell of lot more than science to provide the motivation to go on, even after science is telling us that it has managed to destroy or seriously disable our future.
what makes you get out of bed in the morning? not science I bet...

Your position is that one either believes in God or science. So this assertion that it is not science that gives us motivation to go on leaves only God as an alternative. Hence, you are saying we must believe in God to go on.

God or what ever it is that provides the existance of life in what science refers to as matter and dead stuff, requires no belief. However your ego does, to survive.

Nonsense. I do not believe in a god, no spiritual realm, no afterlife, no nothing. And yet I survive.

Either believe in God or believe in science, it doesn't really matter to the ego.

Science isn't a belief system, so there goes that idea.

And it is the existential ego that keeps you awake during the day and separate from or oneness with "God" or the universe depending on whether you believe in science or religious theosophy. Either way the ego whther full of notions of God or science keeps the separation to the universal ego if you like.
Other wise known as Naccasitic personality .... god complex which persons from both fields of ideology have to, by virtue of existential ego, endure.
Your ultimate death is the final surrrender of existential egosim as your ego achieve oneness with God or the universe [ theosophy=God or science=universe]

You are just talking straight out of your ass now. This is absolute nonsense.

 

[Balerion]

If I gave you God Balerion, a lump of charcole, a cup of water, and a whole swag of hormones [salts] with the task of creating organic life wiht an independant autonomous way of excercising ego centroc behaviour [ freewil] that doesn't automatically commit suicide upon birth.. could you? would you?
remember no DNA to work with, no reproductive systems to copy and plagerise...no instincts nor method of ineterco0nnectivity between beasts...

Where do you get the idea that hormones equate to salts? What does a lump of charcoal have to do with anything?

To answer your absurd question, though, no, I could not create life. That doesn't mean we won't one day be able to do exactly that. But again, I am an example of unbelieving life that does not commit suicide, so your whole foolish theory goes flying out the window.

I think as with a lot of egocentric scientists they severely, and chronically underestimate what is involved in not only creating life, but maintaining it in a way that is perpetual through out eternity in a way that is automatic and natural.

Ah, I see. The educated and thoughtful researchers have no idea what they're talking about, but the severely uneducated guy who can't get through a whole sentence without multiple spelling errors knows the score? Makes sense.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course, the premise of the question is flawed. I am alive for the same reason you are: we have self-preservation instincts

nope and I am sorry that your life is diminshed by your own belief.
I am not alive today because of the will to survive.. shit if that was the case for me personally I would have ended it years ago.
It is in the "why survive" question that provides a clue.
Innitially it was to hang around long enough to see my sons 18th birthday, I only had to wait 8 years after suffering a stroke.
Then after his 18th birthday I decided to hang around for his 21st birthday and hey 3 years more wasn't that bad after all... that [21st] was 8 years ago... so it wasn't a matter of survival it was something else that transends mere survival.
So why do I hang around today?
Go on guess?
Hint: I have two grandchildren...so far

 

[Quantum Quack]

Where do you get the idea that hormones equate to salts? What does a lump of charcoal have to do with anything?

To answer your absurd question, though, no, I could not create life. That doesn't mean we won't one day be able to do exactly that. But again, I am an example of unbelieving life that does not commit suicide, so your whole foolish theory goes flying out the window.



Ah, I see. The educated and thoughtful researchers have no idea what they're talking about, but the severely uneducated guy who can't get through a whole sentence without multiple spelling errors knows the score? Makes sense.

so you think spelling mistakes are important to uhm.... sleeping at night?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Science isn't a belief system, so there goes that idea.

[chuckle] I gotta giggle at this:

Do you believe science when they tell you that the universe is expanding and accellerating?
Did you witness the data first hand?
Do you know how old that data actually is due to light delays?
so is the universe expanding currently or not? Do you know?
Nope!

 

[Balerion]

nope and I am sorry that your life is diminshed by your own belief.
I am not alive today because of the will to survive.. shit if that was the case for me personally I would have ended it years ago.
It is in the "why survive" question that provides a clue.
Innitially it was to hang around long enough to see my sons 18th birthday, I only had to wait 8 years after suffering a stroke.
Then after his 18th birthday I decided to hang around for his 21st birthday and hey 3 years more wasn't that bad after all... that [21st] was 8 years ago... so it wasn't a matter of survival it was something else that transends mere survival.
So why do I hang around today?
Go on guess?
Hint: I have two grandchildren...so far

So in other words, it has nothing to with a belief in God. Your desire to see your children grow and succeed, and now to see their families grow, outweigh any desire you might have to die.

Thanks for proving my point.

so you think spelling mistakes are important to uhm.... sleeping at night?

They're not overly important, but they do speak to your education level and your claims of knowledge above those who actually study this stuff. I mean, your arguments fail on their merits alone, but when you say that scientists underestimate things, I have to laugh that this is coming from a guy who just dropped gems on us such as "charcole" and "freewil".

[chuckle] I gotta giggle at this:

Do you believe science when they tell you that the universe is expanding and accellerating?
Did you witness the data first hand?
Do you know how old that data actually is due to light delays?
so is the universe expanding currently or not? Do you know?
Nope!

Of course I know. The methods of measuring these things aren't a secret. For example, how else do you explain why a car horn coming at you is higher-pitched than a car horn as it goes away from you? These are basic principals that don't simply apply to measuring the distances between stars. It only seems exotic and insurmountable to you because you aren't educated.

 

[Aqueous Id]

so given the insult that you have just made to the vast majority of the population of this planet

Yes a vast number of humans are superstitious. It's not an insult by me, just something entirely self inflicted

Can you inform the board andn that vast majority,who exactly do you believe is responsible for the technology and industry that is supposedly destroying our little piece of heaven here on Earth? [re: climate change]God or science?

Can you pose a question that does not force an assumption in its premise? Is science destroying the planet? Science is knowledge. Is knowledge destroying the planet? What does that mean, why are you asking me, and what does this have to do with superstition?

or are you going to scientifically dispute the reality of climate change?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you going to dispute that denial of science by reliance on superstition is anything other than acting out of delusion, and/or being misled?

and you wish those ignorant fools to learn how to do what science has managed to do all by itself?

The topic here involves the supremely ignorant view that evolution is "wack". Have you made a relevant point yet? Science is not an entity, therefore incapable of "doing". You need to clarify who is doing whatever you are referring to.

How many rads did the atmosphere go up by since the disaster at Fukushima, Japan? How many cancerous tumors are or will be the result of it?

What does this have to do with the denial of evolution?

Was it's God's fault for bringing an earthquake 9.1 ish on the r/scale.
or was it man's fault for building a high tech, hyper potent nuclear power plant with six reactors on a well known tectonic fault line?

Ask me in a thread that relates to whatever you're railing about. The earth quakes as the crust cools. Unless you define God as thermal energy, I have no idea what you mean about God causing it.

You really need to reconsider your contempt before attacking people for your own failures.

My own failures do not include denial of evolution or adhering to ancient superstitions. So far the only contempt I sense is your ... wait a minute you admit to it here:

oh and sorry for the rant...

Yeah that. My contempt is against the policymakers who interfere with the teaching of evolution. The rest of my statement is that religious people are adhering to superstitions from ignorant societies long gone.

btw... 8 billion people just armed with sticks and clubs can't do that much harm can they.....it takes High tech for WMD's... yes?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You are all over the place.

so give me "tinker bell" any time and just remember you only have to imagine a happy thought......

Also incomprehensible. But OK here's a happy thought: introducing religious persuasion in the classroom could be made a criminal offense. Happy now?

 

[Quantum Quack]

[chuckle] I gotta giggle at this:

Do you believe science when they tell you that the universe is expanding and accellerating?
Did you witness the data first hand?
Do you know how old that data actually is due to light delays?
so is the universe expanding currently or not? Do you know?
Nope!

Of course I know. The methods of measuring these things aren't a secret. For example, how else do you explain why a car horn coming at you is higher-pitched than a car horn as it goes away from you? These are basic principals that don't simply apply to measuring the distances between stars. It only seems exotic and insurmountable to you because you aren't educated.

wki:
Technically, the metric expansion of space is a feature of many solutions to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, and distance is measured using the Lorentz interval. This explains observations which indicate that galaxies that are more distant from us are receding faster than galaxies that are closer to us (Hubble's law).

do you know how far those galaxies they are referring to actually are according to astrophysicists?
What is the minimum distance of galaxies required to be before being able to make any conclusions?
100 light years or a billion light years?
a lot of light years maybe.....hmmmm

so based on ancient light information, most likely in excess of a million years old you are prepared to believe that the universe is expanding today?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So in other words, it has nothing to with a belief in God. Your desire to see your children grow and succeed, and now to see their families grow, outweigh any desire you might have to die.

Thanks for proving my point.

Like I have already written belief in God or not is irrelevant....btw I am an athiest myself based on your understanding of athiesm [Pantheist actually]
try again...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes a vast number of humans are superstitious. It's not an insult by me, just something entirely self inflicted


Can you pose a question that does not force an assumption in its premise? Is science destroying the planet? Science is knowledge. Is knowledge destroying the planet? What does that mean, why are you asking me, and what does this have to do with superstition?


I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you going to dispute that denial of science by reliance on superstition is anything other than acting out of delusion, and/or being misled?
The topic here involves the supremely ignorant view that evolution is "wack". Have you made a relevant point yet? Science is not an entity, therefore incapable of "doing". You need to clarify who is doing whatever you are referring to.


What does this have to do with the denial of evolution?


Ask me in a thread that relates to whatever you're railing about. The earth quakes as the crust cools. Unless you define God as thermal energy, I have no idea what you mean about God causing it.


My own failures do not include denial of evolution or adhering to ancient superstitions. So far the only contempt I sense is your ... wait a minute you admit to it here:


Yeah that. My contempt is against the policymakers who interfere with the teaching of evolution. The rest of my statement is that religious people are adhering to superstitions from ignorant societies long gone.


I have no idea what you're talking about. You are all over the place.


Also incomprehensible. But OK here's a happy thought: introducing religious persuasion in the classroom could be made a criminal offense. Happy now?

Your post that I was responding to makes no mention of evolution. It clearly is motivated to be as harmful and hurtful as possible.
You demonstrated with your words that
1]It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest
1a]I prefer to call us, normal people. [as opposed to what?]
2]one of the worst personality disorders on earth
3]It goes way beyond being lazy.
4]is afraid to learn something
5]preconceived notion of how the physical world works

a well rehearsed attack yes?

your contempt for alternative thought to that of yours [science] is rather extreme, thus proving it as an intolerant ideology.

here is your post again:

There is a conflict in your first sentence. You are saying God is not physical yet you use the male pronoun. Yet maleness is nothing more than a trait evolved for the purposed of fertilizing eggs. Maleness is quintessentially physical.

It's not just that God isn't physical. It goes way beyond that. God is said to be like a person, yet disembodied, having a personality, yet without a brain to host it. Most notably, God is said to overturn physical reality "on a whim", which is universally considered both impossible and absurd.

Most often, God is used as a placeholder to explain phenomena for which modern people do not wish to apply science. This version of God is the one most vulnerable to attack by pro-science anti-religion atheists or, as I prefer to call us, normal people.

The slightly more elaborate version of this God is the belief that identifies with pseudoscience. It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, because this kind of believer is saying "I don't want to learn."

I think this is one of the worst personality disorders on earth. It goes way beyond being lazy. This kind of person is afraid to learn something that might alter their preconceived notion of how the physical world works.

and you are upset at my defense against such an unjustified attack?
I happen to agree with some of your position.
That schools maintain a secular position. That religions plural be taught as apart of the human condition.
There is a lot to learn from all religious theosophy IMO.
However systemic evangelising either science or religion is a no no as it prevents the ability to use critical thought from developing in our students.
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and nothing more until it becomes more than just another belief system.
When you or other like minded persons wish to tell the world that science of evolution is FACT and not just qualified speculation then you can expect the real world to confront you on it. After all we don't want our scientists wafting off into lah lah land and telling us all what to think...now do we...:m:

 

[Balerion]

do you know how far those glaxies they are referring to actually are according to astrophysicists?
What is the minimum distance of galaxies required to be before being able to make any conclusions?
100 light years or a billion light years?
a lot of light years maybe.....hmmmm

so based on ancient light information, most likely in excess of a million years old you are prepared to believe that the universe is expanding today?

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. "Ancient light information?" Seriously?

Like I have already written belief in God or not is irrelevant

No, that's not at all what you said. You said that the ego requires belief, either in science or in God. You clearly do not believe in science, so...

btw I am an athiest myself based on your understanding of athiesm [Pantheist actually]
try again...

You're all over the place. First you say that belief in God or science is required to not kill oneself, then you say that you stay alive because of your love for your children and grandchildren; first you say "God or something" created the universe, now you say that you're a pantheist. You seem to have absolutely no qualms with contradicting yourself at times when you would otherwise have to admit being wrong. (That, or spewing absolute gibberish, which you're also quite good at)

I don't know what else to say to you. Maybe you should pick a position and stick with it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

do you know how far those glaxies they are referring to actually are according to astrophysicists?
What is the minimum distance of galaxies required to be before being able to make any conclusions?
100 light years or a billion light years?
a lot of light years maybe.....hmmmm

so based on ancient light information, most likely in excess of a million years old you are prepared to believe that the universe is expanding today?

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. "Ancient light information?" Seriously?

well ....how long does it take the information carried by photons to reach your eyes from 1 million light years away?

btw I don't believe in science nor do I believe in a Christian type God...nor a Hindu type God or a Muslem type God either...I had to redefine the notion and definition of a God entirely.

 

[lightgigantic]

How do you propose to get evidence without investigation?

Its more that taken in the best of all possible lights, abiogenesis is completely inconclusive ... so its clearly your ideology and values speaking (and not science) when you start ranting about it as doable

There are plenty of doable activities associated with abiogenesis research. The synthesis of amino acids was one of the first, followed by peptides and polypetides. Abiogenesis research isn't like creationists dreaming up a bunch of what-ifs. It's real scientists working in real labs with real chemicals.

good point.

A key structure of such arguments is to dumb down the definition of life, as if there is no essential difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes and produces

What's at stake is knowledge about how life, the universe and everything works. That includes, for example, the discovery of insulin and the synthesis of insulin.

the discovery and application of insulin has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis ... the idea that life must be materially reducible and capable of being synthesized from elements devoid of life supports absolutely nothing but the fragile egos of the before mentioned

I think most atheists would be willing to accept the existence of God if there was any evidence. Of course, existence itself doesn't imply summum bonum. That would require separate evidence.

I think Jan just established how, from your own statements, you are prohibiting yourself from approaching an issue of evidence at the onset

I'm not talking about ideologies at all and I'm not talking about atheism. I'm talking about science.

actually you are talking about abiogenesis and the necessity of this being incorporated in a world view, which - in case you haven't noticed - is a claim totally outside of any credible scientific discipline (dumbing down life to be non-different from the chemicals it produces and cerebral sojourns into science fiction aside )

walks like a chicken, sounds like a chicken, etc etc
:shrug:

The essence of science is objectivity - i.e. the removal of biases based on, among other things, ideology. That objectivity is maintained by such things as peer review.

the irony is that you circumvent this first maxim

As for "pure reason and logic", in my experience it's the religionists who trumpet pure reason while the science-minded are more likely to use reason only as a tool applied to evidence.

which then begs the question why you think its reasonable to expect evidence for god in a discipline that cannot even theoretically approach the given subject (while simultaneously blowing your own trumpet about being objective, impartial and wotnot)

You may have missed it because I didn't suggest anything of the kind. I have never relied on evolution to grant credibility to anything. Both evolution and abiogenesis have their own credibility.

then I guess the real question then is why did you bring the topic of evolution, teh fossil record and the discovery of insulin to a discussion about abiopgenesis

Exactly. That's why logic is only useful when it operates on reality.

hence jumping the gun on "it could happen" to "it did happen" is the occupation of fools and other rascals