Scientific Forums


Pages: (7) « First ... 5 6 [7]   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Darwin's Debt To Christianity
Bryn Richards
Posted: Aug 11 2007, 05:19 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1348
Joined: 26-January 07

Positive Feedback: 59.26%
Feedback Score: -25


QUOTE (Derek1148 @ Aug 9 2007, 04:46 AM)
Has your lack of faith brought you greater happiness?

You should not be using faith as a drug, to get 'high' off. You should look at what in your life is making you unhappy, and make positive changes towards it, to ensure greater happiness.

Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.

It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.


--------------------
What part of "Question Everything", don't you understand?
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Aug 11 2007, 06:24 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (PuckSR @ Aug 11 2007, 05:05 PM)
Ummm Mirrorman...what your post is pretty useless....sorry

I said that my faith was not reliant on me being happy. If my belief made me sad, I would still hold my belief. I simply mentioned that as a side-effect of my belief...I am happy.


But you cannot really be searching for truth when you automatically dismiss a possible truth(i.e. the non-involvement of God).

Well, there is nothing in life here that is not based on a belief of some kind.
Side effects are no more than electrons colliding with positrons and creating gamma rays.

Your last sentence makes no sense at all. For a start I can't believe that you automatically dismissed this possible truth, and that there must have been a process of time involved. Were you not searching for truth whilst in the process of dismissing a possible truth? Or do you not actually care if the position you now hold is true?
Everything operates on causes and effects, everything reacting from everything else.
Top
Derek1148
Posted: Aug 11 2007, 06:58 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 27-December 06

Positive Feedback: 79.73%
Feedback Score: 148


QUOTE (Bryn Richards @ Aug 11 2007, 05:19 PM)
You should not be using faith as a drug, to get 'high' off. You should look at what in your life is making you unhappy, and make positive changes towards it, to ensure greater happiness.

Relying on faith to solve your problems, or ignore them, is not a good thing. It is better to face your problems head-on, because the task ahead of you, is never as great as the power behind you.

It is by such a practice, that a strong mind and better quality of life, may be developed.

Of course, you are making an assumption that God does not exist. Whether you and I believe in God is irrelevant. There are many who have faith. And they believe in the existence of God.

Happiness is a relative thing. Being productive and having a positive influence on other’s lives is probably more important than some transient happiness or temporary faith.

“Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.” (George Orwell)

This post has been edited by Derek1148 on Aug 11 2007, 07:16 PM


--------------------
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Top
El_Machinae
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 02:02 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2961
Joined: 17-January 06

Positive Feedback: 87.76%
Feedback Score: 54


I think realising that "things can get better or are pretty good" is a pretty heavy component of happiness. As well, not being depressed really helps. Some depression is obviously biological


--------------------
Stanford University's YouTube playlists, cleverly arranged by seminar topic. Free!
http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity/playlists
Self-improvement is intentional and iterative
Send PM ·
Top
gnimmelf
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 02:54 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 11-August 07

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


One thing to concider is the humans do not adhere to the theory of evolusion. All other animals do. but not humans.

we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.

Secondly, as Jesus is mentioned here in regards to christianity. Jesus was not a christian. Nor did he *ever* call his god Lord or Javhe, most oftenly just 'father'.

And to attribute the creation of man to 'God'... In genesis, the word 'elohim' which is feminie plural, is translated in english into a word that is maskulin singular, 'God'. How is that for a fact?

Since we are all sicentists here, there should be no wrong in applying the same scientify research methodes to the basis of our faiths, the good books.

do that, but we will get no clear answer. what will be cleary apparent is that our faith in dogmatic Religions are based on bad translations, scripture manupulation, and secret societies (ooooh, conspiracy theory!). See why Richard Dawkins throws a fit?

But we humans are an enigma, and Jahve, the psychpatically inclined Lord from the old testament, is long gone dead, but must still be part of the pussle, the batsard. He is the 'God of the gaps' that never fit. Probably quite close to Kil Il Sung of North Korea.

Jesus' God, the father, on the other hand, is something completly different. His is the god of the gaps, because 'he' isn't a personality, but maby more of the forces of nature we don't yet understand.

And more so on, the Lord YHWH slayed all his opponents, their kids, wifes and kids pets and teddybears too. But i find it hard to imagine jesus in a fistfight with buddha over a cup of tea.

The creation vs evolution discussion only makes sense becuase we (me included) don't know enough about what we are talking about.

The creation myth in genesis is much older than genesis, it's can be recognised in many older scriptures, where for instance 'water' is deemed to be a metahpor for chaos, and then we have a weak connection to entrophy. (there are alot of weird connections like this in these old scriptiures)

There is a way to figure this out, but we need more people too look at it comming from different angles and backgrounds, but the first thing that has to be droppped is the doxa that there exixts such a thing as a perfect holy scripture straight from god (because the 'god' that commanded this would be labelled psychopat if he ever were to get analysed), and that my god is stronger than your god (some poeple of this forum should be glad they are not face-to-face in a discussion panel).

we need faith, but not faith in some persona-like god. keep your saints and buddhas, we need better rolemodels than what MTV provides, but just faith that if we all work together we will be a lot better off than bithcing at each other like kids, mimicing this Lord of the old testament, the 'root of all evil' (which Richard Dawkins should have pointed out, if he wasn't too a hardcore evolusionist?).

Top
PuckSR
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 03:33 PM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


QUOTE
One thing to concider is the humans do not adhere to the theory of evolusion. All other animals do. but not humans.

we are an enigma. by evolusion, we should be buildt like carbonbased terminators. but instead we are built like domesticated sheep; no fangs, claws or cainines; 1/5 of the muscular strength of apes...our forefathers. we are slow, weak, unathletic animals, almost like the base of the food chain in respect to the survival of the fittest.

Wow...you couldn't be more wrong....
You are an idiot in every sense of the word.....
You misspelled evolution, you misrepresented the theory...and then you failed to realize our superiority is in our intelligence and fine motor skills....

Shut up and leave...damn troll


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 03:37 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (PuckSR @ Aug 12 2007, 03:33 PM)
Wow...you couldn't be more wrong....
You are an idiot in every sense of the word.....
You misspelled evolution, you misrepresented the theory...and then you failed to realize our superiority is in our intelligence and fine motor skills....

Shut up and leave...damn troll

He's got a right to his say.
Top
gnimmelf
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 11-August 07

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?

mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?

Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 04:19 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (gnimmelf @ Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?

mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?

Don't worry about Puck, he welcomed me in exactly the same way, as he has a right to do of course.

As to your question, indeed, and so many similar questions too. I find that the more I find out about some aspects of evolution, the more questions there are. Luckily we have a form of consciousness that will get to the top of it one day! Don't take too much notice of the people that bleat out "if you really studied it you'd know". They don't know themselves so why should anyone else. A big hunch is cool, but it always looks better on that guy from Notre Dame.
Top
PuckSR
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 04:20 PM


---------
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 15-May 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 37


QUOTE
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?

Ok, before you waste everyone's time...go read up on "evolution"(btw that it the correct spelling)....
"Survival of the fittest" does not imply that the strongest survive.....that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard...
"fittest" does not apply to strongest, smartest, etc....but rather "what works better than the other guys". Darwin himself didn't use the term "survival of the fittest"....

You have a lot to learn, and I don't plan on teaching every ***** who has a web connection. Read educational websites before you start acting like an imbecile on here....

How did we survive?
How do chimps survive?
We traded big brains for powerful muscles....our brain uses a lot of energy..

Seriously...go read...and don't waste everyone's time


--------------------
Did you know that female hyenas have a pseudo-penis?
A hyenas clitoris is larger than a male hyena's penis.
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 04:37 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (PuckSR @ Aug 12 2007, 04:20 PM)
Ok, before you waste everyone's time...go read up on "evolution"(btw that it the correct spelling)....
"Survival of the fittest" does not imply that the strongest survive.....that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard...
"fittest" does not apply to strongest, smartest, etc....but rather "what works better than the other guys". Darwin himself didn't use the term "survival of the fittest"....

You have a lot to learn, and I don't plan on teaching every ***** who has a web connection. Read educational websites before you start acting like an imbecile on here....

How did we survive?
How do chimps survive?
We traded big brains for powerful muscles....our brain uses a lot of energy..

Seriously...go read...and don't waste everyone's time

One too many today Puck? Hangover perhaps? Strong stuff ego bleatings.
Sarjeant Majors would run from you in the morning.;-)

Yes, read up on evolution, tis a great subject. Whilst Puck no doubt will brush up on his humane skills....growllllll
Top
Mirrorman
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 05:16 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 21-April 07

Positive Feedback: 41.18%
Feedback Score: -31


QUOTE (gnimmelf @ Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?

mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?

You might want to have a read of this for now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
Top
El_Machinae
Posted: Aug 12 2007, 05:53 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2961
Joined: 17-January 06

Positive Feedback: 87.76%
Feedback Score: 54


QUOTE (gnimmelf @ Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?

mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?

We survived the same way other primates survived. As we gained intelligence (each bit of increase in intelligence is useful) we were able to change our survival tools. We lost strength, sure, but gained all types of things that are useful in return.

But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.


--------------------
Stanford University's YouTube playlists, cleverly arranged by seminar topic. Free!
http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity/playlists
Self-improvement is intentional and iterative
Send PM ·
Top
no1nose
Posted: Jan 30 2011, 10:34 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 27-May 05

Positive Feedback: 5.88%
Feedback Score: -54


QUOTE (El_Machinae @ Aug 12 2007, 05:53 PM)
We survived the same way other primates survived. As we gained intelligence (each bit of increase in intelligence is useful) we were able to change our survival tools. We lost strength, sure, but gained all types of things that are useful in return.

But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.

You are just making assumptions here.


--------------------
Long live luminiferous aether, phlogiston, astrology, alchemy, and evolution!
Send PM ·
Top
no1nose
Posted: Feb 16 2012, 03:40 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 27-May 05

Positive Feedback: 5.88%
Feedback Score: -54


New video end segment shows parallels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFLlSnu4_sw...ma6yN4LahIStVUq


--------------------
Long live luminiferous aether, phlogiston, astrology, alchemy, and evolution!
Send PM ·
Top

Topic Options Pages: (7) « First ... 5 6 [7] 

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use