China what do you want from outside?


How about you Aleatoric ? need anything from the store?





Yes this thread can go on for ever... my point exactly. The search continues until you physically die.

Makes going to the store seem less important... oh well, still going though.
[Message Edited]

Oh and yes Aleatoric, I know of how science theory works. I actually learned just a few months ago.

This is why I say that science is more of a proving force of belief than religion. It has more of a reality component and largely is open for ridicule, testing and debate.



What I am saying though is the word science has been use to speak truths about the current state of mankind.

For example slavery and how people of color are inferior. Or how the Earth is flat and to say otherwise is blaspheme.


Are you sure you don't want anything from outside?

Iplural said: "jafo said it best, those that thump any form of dogma either for or against the existence are in fact a cult."

Forget it... I said a bunch of stuff here but it isn't worth it. People will still talk out of their behinds regardless, and I have said it all before. All I can say is if you can equate mainstream religion or Atheism to "Refuse that blood transfusion or we'll not allow your family to have any contact with you.", then you are doing a great service to cults.

Cults are about control, and the average religious person has their relationship with God with no need for cult leadership. The Atheistic understanding of mainstream Christianity here is on par with R3fr's understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Don't excuse abuse and make it mainstream by making everything varying degrees of cultishness.


**

China: I know, but I really, really like slamming that door. Not because I don't feel sorry for them, but because people like R3fr actually comprehend their beliefs, embrace the ignorance and barbarity, and still dig it because they think they'll be rewarded for it in the afterlife. At least Muslim terrorists get virgins, JWs just get to boss people around.


[Message Edited]

In the context of my prior post, and to drift back on topic, there are two parts to the theory of evolution. We have a catalogued collection of physical and observational evidence that shows an essentially linear correlation between the age and complexity of the items of evidence. How that evidence came to exist in that form and order (actual evolution or 'planted' by God) isn't really relevant to the theory, because we cannot test that condition. We have to treat the evidence as just that, evidence. To explain this evidence, then, science has constructed a theory that seeks to explain the events and forces responsible for the evidence to exist in the manner we find it. The part of evolution that is truly the theory part is the theory of mutation and natural selection (the details of which have been gone over quite a bit here ).

That said, in order to alter or supplant that theory of evolution, a new theory must provide at least as much ability to explain the increasing state of the forms, and must provide a mechanism that drives the process.

We have direct experimental evidence for the action of natural selection, most notably in populations of various bacteria and insects that show a generational improvement in their ability to withstand certain environmental pressures (pesticides and antibiotics). Resultingly, any new theoretical evolutionary mechanism must adequately explain this observed behaviour, as well as providing information and / or predictions that natural selection cannot.

IMHO, I would not be surprised to see such a new theory, as there is a great deal we do not know about the process itself, and our body of evidence may become more complete over time.

joetheblow,

Don't need anything from outside (it's cold here ). Not to mention that I should be sleeping now

Attribution theory is a pretty good call here (and i'm certainly not immune from having it applied to me).

Our brains are wired (whether through blind evolution or divine influence) to try to figure out and explain what we sense. From an evolutionary standpoint, that interpretational characteristic of our brains is a necessary survival mechanism, as we would need to know what to avoid, what to eat, what to run from, etc. Our brains have to make decisions like 'Big furry thing with lots of teeth, should I try to eat it or run away?' Since trying to eat the big furry thing is probably a bad move, evolutionary pressure rewards those who can interpret quickly and with some idea of the details of what we're interpreting (e.g., the big furry thing is more likely to eat you ).

Where it becomes a bit more tenuous is in the realm of abstract ideas and concepts. With the big furry thing, I can point to it (hopefully from a position of saftey), and tell you, 'don't try to eat that!', and as a concrete object, you'll look at it and say, 'yeah, that would probably suck.'

But to interpret complex theoretical concepts (or to attempt to relate to you my perception of the presence I call God), there is far less of a common, communicable frame of reference. At some essential level, we all live inside our own heads. Everything we experience is subjective. Even what we call an objective reality is essentially just an agreement concerning parts of that subjective experience. Such agreement is on pretty firm ground for a tree, or a rock, or the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. It becomes a bit more difficult with faith, or history, or evolution (score one for the topic ), because there are quite a few different, even reasonable interpretations of the sensory data.

Because we're wired that way, we *always* want some sort of explanation for what we experience. And we're more likely to accept an explanation from someone we've become accustomed to as being an 'authority' (our parents, teachers, clergy, etc.), without much regard for if they are actually correct (to the degree that anyone can be). We should always question authority and the explanations provided by them. Generally, you'll have to initially accept that argument from authority, so you can have a ground to place your feet for the first stages of evaluating the accuracy of that authority. But one should never blindly or passively accept the word of *any* authority, for to do so is to surrender a portion of your own self determination.

joe this morning while watching some birds in the back yard I happened to notice that not only is the world flat, but someone has encased my yard in Lexan! BONK! bird was kinda shocked to discover this also





Shhhhhhh, listen, Flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flop, flo fl f ...

Know what that is? It's the sound the Flat Earth makes while rotating

r3fr: You failed the test. You don't have a sense of humor and you can't interact without spamming bible text.

r3fr: You failed the test. You don't have a sense of humor and you can't interact without spamming bible text.

my thoughts exactly!

creation in the classic sense is wrong. Evolution is right. However the two can coexist. You just have to believe that the world is a lot older than it is and God while He didn't directly create everything we see now, He had a guiding hand and shaped life to His will. Like a potter with clay.

Good ole' Catholic teachings from school. I don't know if they are actually what the Church has indoctrinated, but this is the gist I got from many Catholic science teachers.

oh yes. ka bump

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here


OKAY...

No one should be able to post hereafter unless they have read every stinkin post previous. Actually I wish the powers that be would just lock it. Anyway, one should be prepared for the people who just read the first post and reply, never noticing that there are 44 friggin pages of venom thereafter and not a single point that hasn't already been made.

Flamewars should have an expiration date...


*sigh*



[Message Edited]

I agree with Baker. This should be locked.

Who decided it would be a good idea to 'ressurect' this thread?

Nah, it doesnt need to be locked...ppl just need to think before they post.

i aint touchin' this with a 20 foot pole

Who decided it would be a good idea to 'ressurect' this thread?

Travis.... >