HI SOMEONE12, FEDERALE

[Rough Neighbor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Those are not theories RN, they are reality tapped into.

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evolution is a theory. It will remain as such and it's losing its appeal in the passage of time. Why? Because it raises more and more questions while failing to give even a single scientifically provable answer. While the rest that you have cited are wild conjectures, propositions, or hypotheses just to spurn the great design of the Creator Who has created everything from nothing - something that's too mysterious and miraculous for a skeptic's illogical and irrational mind power (or lack of it) to accept.

[Brit4064]

I disagree RN. Evolution is a bit more than a theory. There is plenty of scientific fact to back up much of what it stands for. Yes there are holes in it but the same can be said for Creationism.

What annoys me is when Creationists try to push for the subject to be taught in schools as a science. It isn't. It's a theory and it's rightful place is taught as religious/theological studies.

Remember the Dover, DE School board decision in 2005?

[Kollerkrot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Those are not theories RN, they are reality tapped into.

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evolution is a theory. It will remain as such and it's losing its appeal in the passage of time. Why? Because it raises more and more questions while failing to give even a single scientifically provable answer. While the rest that you have cited are wild conjectures, propositions, or hypotheses just to spurn the great design of the Creator Who has created everything from nothing - something that's too mysterious and miraculous for a skeptic's illogical and irrational mind power (or lack of it) to accept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! I watched it...I like it, it is a great piece of discovery and it will open up lots of possibilities, even in my personal life. Actually not a discovery at all, because it's always been, just that we didn't understand it that way - we perceived it (spirit) a different way. They still talk about a "careful engineering". Who then engineered it? I still believe in God and God's word as written in the Bible because in there God equals good and when you believe in good, you have nothing to fear.

It's the very same thing. With this, God just allowed us to see him more clearly.

Hm, come to think of it: If (as evidenced in Down the Rabbit Hole) electrons cancel out wave functions by being observed - why do we believe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Wasn't Galileo just an observer?

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
E, you're more correct than you know. As often as it happens. People who claim the works of God and cause pain in the process fail to identify which god they serve. They serve satan, another version of god.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a quote from A.E. summed it up very well, as far as true motivations are concerned.

Now that it has been a known fact for all men who had any serious acquaintance with Natural science for the past 500 years that the antropomorphic image of God (and all known to mankind religions, for this matter) are but our feeble human projections of ourselves it is time that men of senses stop all these silly debates about matters already setlled.

For hard thinkers question is not how to suppress desires for satisfying felt needs and the assuagement of pain, for it would be tantamount to declaring war on Nature and would be doomed to ultimately fail in the end.

The only question is that of the WAY or PATH to be chosen , given the facts of reality that have little to do with f.airy tales we were told in the childhood.

You are in Dark Ages here right now (and with you the rest of the world) and who knows what amount of time it will take for Civilization to make another step forward and live with these realities without resorting to selfdestruction.

But for every dawn there must be a night.

So long.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
The quote merely attempts to justify one brand of religion over another. He claims many religions have a basis in our feeble minds therefor wrong and primitive. Whereas his are in the cosmos and higher learning making it superior. Either way, God created both and neither are superior to the other in engineering accomplishment.

To state pursuits in physics and like sciences are greater is questionable given we don't understand how our own brain functions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you notice he didn't say that the pursuit of physics and sciences is greater than other endeavours, what he wrote was that "A contemporary has said, not unjustly,that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people". And it's true in essence if you fully understand what he means by restating it.

As to first part of your reply, i will leave it without a comment , it's funny though

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:

As to first part of your reply, i will leave it without a comment , it's funny though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, Davdah is the funniest fellah on this board, because he doesn't realize it.
According to Davdah, God created all religions, science, Santa Clause, and can you even imagine four dimensions??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am never spiteful without necessity so there was no hidden jibe at his misunderstanding but only a genuine , good spirited laughter at what he had made of Einstein's quote.

[Kollerkrot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:

I agree! I watched it...I like it, it is a great piece of discovery and it will open up lots of possibilities, even in my personal life. Actually not a discovery at all, because it's always been, just that we didn't understand it that way - we perceived it (spirit) a different way. They still talk about a "careful engineering". Who then engineered it? I still believe in God and God's word as written in the Bible because in there God equals good and when you believe in good, you have nothing to fear.

It's the very same thing. With this, God just allowed us to see him more clearly.

Hm, come to think of it: If (as evidenced in Down the Rabbit Hole) electrons cancel out wave functions by being observed - why do we believe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Wasn't Galileo just an observer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason why the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round, and is not up to debate or an observer's POV, is because they are not quantum particles, which are ruled by different physical laws.

Who engineered it? You make quite a huge quantum leap a.ssuming that someone had to engineer it. The answer is no one could engineer it in order for all of it to exist. I already explained it earlier.
If God exists, then I have everything to fear. Do you know or attempt to even imagine what this God would be like, and what a heaven would look like, and what you would be doing while in heaven in all of its eternity, can you? Tell me what do you expect to happen after this life, Kollerkrot? Describe to me, what you wish you would be doing in heaven? Details, please.
Rarely anyone goes that far, and when they do, they have no answer or it sounds too silly to even type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IP, My God is a spirit, it is my soul, I am divine I am the church. I don't see God like you - a big man with a beard sitting in heaven. I don't believe in heaven and hell - you know the picturesque story that the "vatican" projects unto us. I was christened catholic, because my parents are catholic and there parents before them, etc, etc.. I don't believe in an organized church, doesn't matter which denomination. I reject to have to go through someone to talk to God. In fact it is the Catholics practice to not have an own Bible. I sometimes reject others' views of God (like yours for example where he is the all controlling entity), or the one my community priest might has. God talks to us all individually we all perceive him differently - that's how the Bible is written. I might have my perception about something in the Bible and the person right next to me has another. That's how God wanted it - the control is all yours.

I do believe in positive and negative forces such as Yin Yang, in that I have positive and negative thoughts, logic and illogic, which I am able to control. My God does not control me, my God gives me the option to make my own decisions. God makes me think. I read the Bible and although I don't understand everything that's in it. I don't have to, because God speaks to us individually. So, if it really pertains to my issue and me it will make sense.

I do not expect anything after this life - in fact, I believe I never die because I have children and my cells already live in them. I (my body) will be recycled and perhaps sometime appear again.

.....didn't make me feel silly at all.

PS. At least I may see myself in existence. According to "What the ##### do we know"!? We don't even exist. We never lived we never die?!? That's heavy and creates millions of questions.

[Someone12]

when bible thumpers are asked to defend their 'opinions' on creationism or evolution, (and many others) all they can do is find some quote from the book of dogma....none have an original thought in that cleansed-out space between their ears....the bible is for those who cannot (or will not) think...there are far too many inconsistencies that would (should) leave a reader ready to believe and follow without variance all the blather in that collection of stories.....for example, how many bible thumpers follow to the letter everything written in Leviticus???? None. Most dogmatic believers will then try to defend that position by claiming that the bible is open to interpretation and that it wasn't written to cope with 21st century cultures....huh??? wasn't it supposedly written/suggested by their favorite deity???? Wouldn't that deity have had the foreknowledge to draft his/her memos to match any century???? And if this collection of dogma is open to interpretation (but usually only by those who have the 'inside' track to whatever god was thinking while in front of the word processor), well, I can interpret it anyway I choose, and I choose to label it under the 'nonsense' category (and could choose even more negative categories)....thump thummp thump....

[Kollerkrot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Someone12:
when bible thumpers are asked to defend their 'opinions' on creationism or evolution, (and many others) all they can do is find some quote from the book of dogma....none have an original thought in that cleansed-out space between their ears....the bible is for those who cannot (or will not) think...there are far too many inconsistencies that would (should) leave a reader ready to believe and follow without variance all the blather in that collection of stories.....for example, how many bible thumpers follow to the letter everything written in Leviticus???? None. Most dogmatic believers will then try to defend that position by claiming that the bible is open to interpretation and that it wasn't written to cope with 21st century cultures....huh??? wasn't it supposedly written/suggested by their favorite deity???? Wouldn't that deity have had the foreknowledge to draft his/her memos to match any century???? And if this collection of dogma is open to interpretation (but usually only by those who have the 'inside' track to whatever god was thinking while in front of the word processor), well, I can interpret it anyway I choose, and I choose to label it under the 'nonsense' category (and could choose even more negative categories)....thump thummp thump.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just go and stick with your Pure Abstract Potential then. I'll stick with mine.

[Someone12]

and ole sourkraut promptly demonstrates why bible thumpers cannot engage in a debate....they have no ammunition except the book of dogma....

[NO AMNESTY!!!]

S12: KollerKraut was raised Catholic, so don't expect anything but bull from that guy who cannot even help himself with his myriad of immigration problems, yet he is fast enough to advice others. He's messed up, it's best to ignore him.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
He didn't say it? What does the idea of being the only profoundly religious people mean? It's to say anyone else, subject being those who don't worship the cosmos, are not. Who didn't read it?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, he didn't "...state pursuits in physics and like sciences are greater..."

He wrote specifically: "A contemporary has said, not unjustly,that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

So, not "greater" but "the only profoundly religious people" is what he wrote. And if you fully comprehend what he means by saying it you can't disagree with that statement.

As to how it all came to be or what had transpired there before Plank epoch , well nobody claimed to know it, neither Einstein nor the latest authority in the current research Stephen Hawking , who had particularly dedicated to disentangling this subject matter the past decades of his life.

But just because nobody knows the answer doesn't mean we can invent one and impose it on others as the undisputably valid one.

[Kollerkrot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:

You just go and stick with your Pure Abstract Potential then. I'll stick with mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, that's what I call evil, however much I abhore the word along with other biblical terms.
I don't expect you to change, you are who you are, and I'm fine with it. I wouldn't expect you to change your views, just as I expect you not to try change mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How ironic, ...Now that is a good laugh. You don't believe in evil...but you spot it if you believe to spot evil. I on the other hand didn't even contemplate. It just stuck in my mind that many of the physicist in that clip used the word "potential". That's why I am open to both. It doesn't hurt!

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
E, to agree with it is to be atheist lacking faith and ability to grasp the possibility of something greater than themselves.

And to state something isn't possible without a plausible alternative is an arrogant display of ignorance.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To agree with what ,davdah?

To be exact, Einstein wasn't an atheist in strict term of the word, but believed in deterministic nature of Universe (he was at odds on this with his contemporary Bohr who thought it to be random or undeterminable on quantum level) and reflected on what he compared to limitless intelligence that could have been responsible for apparent celectial order ,without ever interfering in the course of events after things were set on the course. As to Stphen Hawking he clearly declares himself to be an agnostic. Also not a definition of an atheist.

So you may reconsider your opinion of what it implies to agree with what they had to say on the subject.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
Not at all. In all three cases a search is made for the same conclusion. That there is no God and another explanation exists for what there is. Without providing that explanation but asserting that it exists is what I find dumbfounding. Of equal note is the theist who argues against science. In truth, they have no faith since science will ultimately prove their faith, that is, if they believed themselves. Their fear is what makes them ignorant buffoons and the atheist greatest ally. To see science is to witness God's ability. The more the merrier. Watching those videos, got to number 3, it illustrates clearly one fact. We don't know sht. For anyone to use lack of knowledge as a foundation to disprove something is beyond ridiculousness. It's like the question of whether radio reception in space was possible way back when. The answer was already known before the first flight but fear provoked the question. Yes, we are all connected and space really isn't a vacuum at all. Question is, what are we all connected to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, davdah. In physics, unlike some other not so punctiliously exact disciplines, research is not made to arrive to certain predetermined conclusion. You can't say in physics "let's do some research so we can conclude that elephants can fly".

The ultimate goal of physicist is to find out why Nature is what it is. And nothing but empirical observation and application of rigorous scientific method to determine causality really mattters in reaching one or another valid conclusion.
If for any reason you reach wrong conclusion in physics it simply won't work. It won't be applicable or in any way practically useful in the relevant context.

Einstein himself at one point became too rigid by allowing his philosophical, preconditioned by whatever past experiences he had, views about Nature dictate his interpretation of emprically observed phenomena that was too shockingly in contradition to it and asserted that "God doesn't play dice".

To which he got stern reply from Neils Bohr who hammered out the following memorable words: "Stop telling God what to do!"


P.S. In terms of proving or disproving something, i will just quote myself from earlier post:
"The rules of argument (if you want to argue logically) require one to prove existence rather than non-existence.
In other owrds, one is not obligated to prove non-existence, it's those who make positive assertion that also bear the burden of proving it".