The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Arcane <snip> Unbearable? Not at all. If scientists would come up with human evolution not related to BS theories like these http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eneticist.html Which is already debunked http://observationdeck.io9.com/no-hu...ids-1474029809 Then i would be happy. I just don't feel resonating waves inside my body when i hear that human origins are lame.<snipped a bunch of speculation>

I said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, Arcane, because you seem to be a dyed-in-the-wool mystic, and with people like that there is just no reasoning. However, if you would kindly stick to your "resonating waves" and speculations and not try to venture into Science, that would be greatly appreciated and I could stay silent, because frankly, not only are you ignorant of it's basic tenets, you apparently have some grudge or agenda that puts you squarely in opposition. Please don't take me wrongly. I'm not trying to denigrate you in anyway as a person. You have every right to your opinions. However for you to act as if one obscure scientist is the basis for the Theory of Evolution or any kind of logical conclusion from it, then not only do you not understand peer review, but you have essentially constructed a "straw dog" effortless to destroy and then apply it to All Dogs. This is illogical and just plain wrong and it makes me wonder as to your true motives.

As for The Big Questions, The Universe is under no contract to make sense to Intuition, yours or anyone's. Intuition has evolved entirely right here on this planet and on this plane of existence. It is based on one of the things that humans do best - pattern recognition. However not only are the only patterns we have been directly exposed to in a very limited frame of reference, but the fact that we look at clouds and can disagree whether "that one looks like a rabbit" or see bogeymen in our childhood closets or "just know" there's a monster under the bed, shows how untrustworthy intuition is.

FWIW, for anyone who bothers to really check real Science, Evolution is on extremely solid ground and just gets more solid with every new technology and test. If it was even partially "off" in any fundamental way, the discovery and subsequent study of DNA would have utterly destroyed it instead of making it stronger by a massive leap in the most fundamental of ways.

I truly wish you happiness and peace, but you have no more business in Science than I do in a surgical arena or on a pro football field.

Originally Posted by enorbet I said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, Arcane, because you seem to be a dyed-in-the-wool mystic, and with people like that there is just no reasoning. {funny but you did same speculations here} I truly wish you happiness and peace, but you have no more business in Science than I do in a surgical arena or on a pro football field.

So what? Not for you to decide anyway what people will think or do. Your post was unneeded to personalize on me but whatever your opinion is also just your opinion. :P

Thanks but no thanks. True science is neutral and open to anyone. You seem to forget that. I don't have problem with truth if it is properly presented but so far we live in lie-age!

I think the agnostic question came out thousands of years ago man is still trying to prove something instead of just living.

What came first the chicken or the egg and when we have that answer then we will begin to understand the answer 42.

Originally Posted by Drakeo {...}man is still trying to prove something instead of just living. What came first the chicken or the egg and when we have that answer then we will begin to understand the answer 42.

Once again someone missed main point. Let me use quote then from people with authority

"Science is the search for truth, that is the effort to understand the world: it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality." Linus Pauling

That includes rejection of scientific BS aswell.

The more we use our curiousity and do research the sooner we will find out. We have spark inside us for a reason - use it!

Originally Posted by Arcane -) Humans evolved similar to Darwin idea but But BUT they evolved as seperate species from unique source not related to apes, monkeys, pigs, other insulting origin ideas.

But this is exactly what I am talking about. What exactly about being related to other animals, regardless if it are apes, monkeys, pigs or whatever else, is insulting to you?
How can an animal or being related to someone even be an insult?

Originally Posted by Arcane Once again someone missed main point. Let me use quote then from people with authority That includes rejection of scientific BS aswell. The more we use our curiousity and do research the sooner we will find out. We have spark inside us for a reason - use it!

But you don't reject BS on grounds of "I don't like it" or "I find it insulting", you go ahead and prove the BS wrong. As was done with many BS already, but not one disprove of Evolution happened so far.

Originally Posted by Arcane So what? Not for you to decide anyway what people will think or do. Your post was unneeded to personalize on me but whatever your opinion is also just your opinion. :P

FTR I was not trying to decide for you or anyone else, I was merely holding up a mirror to you to show you how you appear to anyone with even a modicum of a real Science background. The major point is not ignorance since that is fixable. The major point is that you seem to have an agenda, a need to knock down concepts you don't like or that don't resonate with your intuition, and you cherry pick "straw dogs" ie a "fringey" scientist, to attempt to denigrate or dismiss an entire field. Even Albert Einstein made mistakes but none that can take away from how well the main body of GR and SR have held up for almost 100 years now, in the face of technology utterly unfathomable in his day.

BTW, the degree to which Intuition has any sort of reasonable odds of being accurate come from learning, exploring, repetition and years of experience. I actually respect surgeons and respect at least the skill level and the deep training and commitment to get there in pro football players but this does not qualify me to compete in their respective arenas. Not only do you not have the training and commitment, you apparently have some axe to grind with scientists in general. If my weak intuition about you is wrong, as it may well be considering it is yet another example of how misguided Intuition can be when experience is limited, feel free to correct me.

Originally Posted by Arcane Thanks but no thanks. True science is neutral and open to anyone. You seem to forget that. I don't have problem with truth if it is properly presented but so far we live in lie-age!

Actually that's not quite accurate. The whole concept of peer review and such checks and balances are designed specifically to avoid wasting time with crackpots and those who confine themselves to Popular Science media, which is much like the News these days, edited for entertainment and even shock value. Just as undergraduates must painstakingly build sources lists until they have gained sufficient recognition and respect
to "take the lead" and postulate anything truly original, this "club" has rather strict qualifications.

We do not live in a "lie age". Perhaps this seems accurate to you since you seem to confine yourself to pseudo-science, mysticism, and fringe "theorists", or at the very least questionable so-called Pop Science. If you wish to see real Science read actual Scientific Papers from reputable Universities or even go to serious Science forums. You will miss out on a lot if you don't know higher mathematics but, at least on most serious forums, you will get the gist and you will, I wager, lose your distrust of the greatest body of knowledge in human existence.

people love "mystics" plus "ghosts" and imaginative stories also blissfulness,,, "gods" taught only hurt "humanity" like anything wrong! There is no source (except of course cde,) "big bangs" happen every second (Back grounded to spreed Radiation. ) Control if we're both lucky and un... we don't need false books, translated how ever people want, to know how to be; if your scared it's okay K1 doesn't exist for all yet!

__§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ _§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ §§____§§__Logic will get you___§§ §§_§§__§§__from A to B.________§§ §__§_§__§§__Imagination will_____§§ _§§§§§§_§§__take you everywhere.__§§ __§§§§__§§______________________§§ _________§§__--Albert Einstein________§§ ________:§§_________________________§§ ________§§_________________________:§ ________§§____§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ ________§§__§§§_§§§____________________§ _________§§__§§§§§§____________________§ __________§§___§§§___________________§§§ ___________§__§§§___________________§§§ ____________§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

The egg came first, like cells.

Prove it? Is easy to say but commonsense is finite!

Jdkaye ("Reputation" (disabled) (don't know if u can still read comments (it's embarrassing any 'who,) not that-x2 helps )) maybe it's why I edit my posts ✌

Perception is different for everyone! ↖↑↗

Originally Posted by TobiSGD But you don't reject BS on grounds of "I don't like it" or "I find it insulting", you go ahead and prove the BS wrong. As was done with many BS already, but not one disprove of Evolution happened so far.

Valid point but not one has proven it so far either - just speculations and theories but zero undisputed facts. I am just saying that science also is open to corrections just like holy books are open to benefit of doubt.

... Theories but zero undisputed facts ...

to those who were brainwashed so "good\bad" or learning or can only swim...

Just keep swimming swimming swimming What do we do we swim, swim, swim

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

and genius is just an evolving word! Why is there "good and bad, bad and good;" besides perception perhaps lack of discerning plus evolution is slow, "here and now?!."
"""
_________________________________________________
| ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' |
|___1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8__9__10__11__12_| jgs"""

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Perception is different for everyone! ↖↑↗

What is machine? clip from movie

Replace 'machine' with 'religion' or 'science' and then see what happens.

In chronological order to the clip: I did not watch the whole movie. But assume this meant at a different school where they must adorn uniforms==Good\Bad?! Challenge anything==GOOD+! (Kill==BAD+!) An unlucky bird lands in a lucky viruses nest (not the girls), neither evolved enough to now how to make sustenance (hence the pluses(++.)) Only a small percent brake free of machined ideas? Currently true that! I see a man raise his hand with the answer? But the teacher ignores. Jealousy, love, hate, spite; "No need to be so happy."? Then a human definition! Some machines are designed to take time not save it. Violence with paper! Both definitions and more (perhaps infinite) fit. A machine at or below 0° kelvin (may or may not exist but) can be still even on a molecular level. As of yet unprovable I know (so kill me, oh wait many are "religious" so please don't... JK but statistically speaking? ) "You think you're smarter than" a "book?" ∞ "But there are other books...... - Get out!" Arcane are you trying to prove my point? Simply "gods" are we.

Replace 'machine' with 'religion' or 'science' and then see what happens.

Redundancy? No! Theory does not mean the same unprovable as religions.

Originally Posted by Arcane Valid point but not one has proven it so far either

Invalid point (yours, that is). You don't "prove theories" but they can be falsified. All you have to do is find a (fossilised) rabbit in the pre-Cambrian and the theory of evolution would have a lot of explaining to do. An excellent summary of the evidence supporting evolution can be found in Coyne's book, Why Evolution is True.

- just speculations and theories but zero undisputed facts. I am just saying that science also is open to corrections just like holy books are open to benefit of doubt.

Sorry but no; not just like the holy books... Lamarckism was ultimately rejected, strictly Newtonian physics has been superseded, etc. I'd be interested in learning which holy books have been rejected or superseded and for what reasons.
jdk

Originally Posted by jamison20000e {...}Arcane are you trying to prove my point? {...}

(Almost posted normal reply but lost text due to BSOD, old PC is old PC)
No i am trying to show enorbet and few more that they treat science like believers treat religion - zero questions asked just blind dogmatic acceptance! I wonder what would they think of this science book...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript