What God Would Say

[eyeswideshut]

Isn't the reality that I was born with feelings and you were born with feelings and we are social animals?

The human race has progressed because of working together. Empathy much?

Yes, oh boy if we acted on feelings, have you ever bited to your tongue wanting to hit somebody? Thanks God we have morals guiding our actions and not feelings alone.
No empathy in forum discussion ;] Why we invented God then if we got our morals from feelings (derivating from working together) ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, I know, there we X many variations on the line, which you cant prove though. ? .

I don't think you do.

What we evolved from was not monkeys at all. There are no monkeys anywhere in our ancestral line, and no monkey DNA in human DNA.

Monkeys and humans both evolved from a common ancestor - a more primitive primate - that was not a monkey.

We can show this by examining the DNA, and we can see that humans and monkeys went on divergent paths - each going their separate way genetically. The DNA we share with monkeys is from the common ancestor of both.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, I know, there we X many variations on the line, which you cant prove though. ? .

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, oh boy if we acted on feelings, have you ever bited to your tongue wanting to hit somebody? Thanks God we have morals guiding our feelings.
No empathy in forum discussion ;] Why we invented God then if we got our morals from feelings?

Wow! See a psychiatrist.

 

[paddoboy]

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Particularly used by at least one "disguised" god botherer, whenever he can fit it in, and he'll fabricate, tell tall tales, deny scientific data and observations, to reflect exactly that whenever he has the opportunity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Particularly used by at least one "disguised" god botherer, whenever he can fit it in, and he'll fabricate, tell tall tales, deny scientific data and observations, to reflect exactly that whenever he has the opportunity.

And he'll try to discuss things he does not understand.

 

[eyeswideshut]

I don't think you do.

What we evolved from was not monkeys at all. There are no monkeys anywhere in our ancestral line, and no monkey DNA in human DNA.

Monkeys and humans both evolved from a common ancestor - a more primitive primate - that was not a monkey.

We can show this by examining the DNA, and we can see that humans and monkeys went on divergent paths - each going their separate way genetically. The DNA we share with monkeys is from the common ancestor of both.

Context, please. I just used monkey as in general mainstream expression, I was challenging the thought process,
the morals and that angle, have you anything to say about that?
I have read Dawkins and such books (I´m a science freak), just stories, connecting bit and pieces, no real hard science with absolute truth, not even if looking by the definitions of the science itself.
Yes, believe me, I know much about the evolution theory, its just that, a theory. Intelligent designtheories seems to on a rise. With DNA there is now which was first dilemma, which one was first, chicken or egg, it seems its really hard to explain how dna would appear with chance, by scientific calculation they come up so big number that it should be "impossible", but here we are, or the fact that the balance between contraction/expandin forces in the first pikosecond turn out to be mathematically "impossible" too.
Now, can we move on or not? I can show many "errors" in the evolution theory in proper thread but not here, not now.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Wow! See a psychiatrist.

Thats your response to "why we invented God?" Well, sorry if so.

:[

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Thats your response to "why we invented God?" Well, sorry if so.

:[

The post I quoted didn't even make sense. Do you even understand the word empathy?

And for you, it would seem mathematically "impossible" to win the lottery.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Particularly used by at least one "disguised" god botherer, whenever he can fit it in, and he'll fabricate, tell tall tales, deny scientific data and observations, to reflect exactly that whenever he has the opportunity.

Are you referring to me? Or just throwing mud generally?

Is there no point pondering why we invented something we didnt/dont need in the first place?
We need to invent God? For what needs?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I´m a science freak

Evidently not, since you managed to also write this:

its just that, a theory.

Evolution is fact. The "theory" (and you really should look up what the word means in a scientific context) is about how it works.

 

[eyeswideshut]

The post I quoted didn't even make sense. Do you even understand the word empathy?

And for you, it would seem mathematically "impossible" to win the lottery.

What you didnt you understand in the question?

Believe me, we are talking numbers that makes lottery looks like a coinflip, scientist themselves acknowledge that.
Its by statistical mathemics impossible. But, I know there is always the possibility, I hope you give the God the same chance at least ;]

Ofcourse, I feel emphaty , for you believe me, for brief little moments, I know how is in these forums, with alkinds of loonies like me, I dont take too seriously in personal sense in forums, but with subject matter I´m dead serious ;]

We were talking "what would God say" and it turned to is there God.

Why challenge one aspect of the premise if one cant prove the counter-premise of that aspect to be true either, on which he bases the challenge?

Same old, same old.

 

[spidergoat]

Context, please. I just used monkey as in general mainstream expression, I was challenging the thought process,
the morals and that angle, have you anything to say about that?
I have read Dawkins and such books (I´m a science freak), just stories, connecting bit and pieces, no real hard science with absolute truth, not even if looking by the definitions of the science itself.
Yes, believe me, I know much about the evolution theory, its just that, a theory. Intelligent designtheories seems to on a rise. With DNA there is now which was first dilemma, which one was first, chicken or egg, it seems its really hard to explain how dna would appear with chance, by scientific calculation they come up so big number that it should be "impossible", but here we are, or the fact that the balance between contraction/expandin forces in the first pikosecond turn out to be mathematically "impossible" too.
Now, can we move on or not? I can show many "errors" in the evolution theory in proper thread but not here, not now.

Do you think "hard" science shows absolute truth? No, it doesn't. There will always be the possibility of being wrong or incomplete. Intelligent design propaganda may be on the rise, but there are still no peer reviewed papers in support of it. It's not even a theory. What they do do is try to subvert scientific literacy, often using big numbers and probabilities that have no connection to reality. It's thought that life arose more than once, and that it's not only probable, it's inevitable, given a set of favorable conditions, like those which existed on Earth. It's not hard to explain how chemistry can create replicators, and how competition for resources would lead to better replicators. DNA is not thought to be the first replicator, perhaps it was RNA, or some other chemistry.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Evidently not, since you managed to also write this:


Evolution is fact. The "theory" (and you really should look up what the word means in a scientific context) is about how it works.

Then you have no problem to prove me that.

There is "evolution" but only in races. No humanoid (=just different "monkies" if you will) human connection proved,
only theories based on similarities between bones and such

Sscientific method,
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What you didnt you understand in the question?

Believe me, we are talking numbers that makes lottery looks like a coinflip, scientist themselves acknowledge that.
Its by statistical mathemics impossible. But, I know there is always the possibility, I hope you give the God the same chance at least ;]

Ofcourse, I feel emphaty , for you believe me, for brief little moments, I know how is in these forums, with alkinds of loonies like me, I dont take too seriously in personal sense in forums, but with subject matter I´m dead serious ;]

We were talking "what would God say" and it turned to is there God.

Why challenge one aspect of the premise if one cant prove the counter-premise of that aspect to be true either, on which he bases the challenge?

Same old, same old.

Who says the universe didn't expand and contract multiple* times? Could make a lottery look like a coin flip.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then you have no problem to prove me that

Your use of the word "proof" also betrays your lack of credibility with regard to the claim of being a "science freak".
As does the fact you apparently haven't bothered to check for yourself (or, indeed, that you haven't come across the evidence beforehand).
Try here or here for a start.

There is "evolution" but only in races. No humanoid (=just different "monkies" if you will) human connection proved,
only theories based on similarities between bones and such

What unmitigated nonsense.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Do you think "hard" science shows absolute truth? No, it doesn't. There will always be the possibility of being wrong or incomplete. Intelligent design propaganda may be on the rise, but there are still no peer reviewed papers in support of it. It's not even a theory. What they do do is try to subvert scientific literacy, often using big numbers and probabilities that have no connection to reality. It's thought that life arose more than once, and that it's not only probable, it's inevitable, given a set of favorable conditions, like those which existed on Earth. It's not hard to explain how chemistry can create replicators, and how competition for resources would lead to better replicators. DNA is not thought to be the first replicator, perhaps it was RNA, or some other chemistry.

I use to think like that too, but latest scientific foundings lead me other way, like this:

"The comparison of functional and structural characteristics of the DNA complex and the computer hard drive leads to a new descriptive paradigm that identifies the DNA as a dynamic storage system of biological information. This system is embodied in an autonomous operating system that inductively follows organizational structures, data hierarchy and executable operations that are well understood in the computer science industry. Characterizing the "DNA hard drive" in this fashion can lead to insights arising from discrepancies in the descriptive framework, particularly with respect to positing the role of epigenetic processes in an information-processing context. Further expansions arising from this comparison include the view of cells as parallel computing machines and a new approach towards characterizing cellular control systems"

One has to wonder how millions years old the most low lifeforms have such a sophisticated system in them? and still stopped evolving.
Something that build itself from pure information, even keeping eye on itself while building is truly a marvelous thing.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Who says the universe didn't expand and contract multiple* times? Could make a lottery look like a coin flip.

Well, lets say it did, where it came from?

 

[paddoboy]

Are you referring to me? Or just throwing mud generally?

Actually no, but of course if the cap fits, wear it.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Your use of the word "proof" also betrays your lack of credibility with regard to the claim of being a "science freak".
As does the fact you apparently haven't bothered to check for yourself (or, indeed, that you haven't come across the evidence beforehand).
Try here or here for a start.


What unmitigated nonsense.

I see, mob-fact? Then surely I´m a heretic in your realm of science where author/status quo rules over everything, no different approaches included.
The fact is your kind looks evidence only from your angle, I have looked from all the angles there is, to the heart of it.
But then again, you seem to even know what kinds can declare themselves to be a science freaks, so, really, why bother.