• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
    Results 76 to 100 of 147
    Like Tree315Likes

    Thread: Who or what is God to you?

    1. #76
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      There are two definitions of faith.

      One type of faith is belief in the absence of evidence or even contrary to evidence. This is the definition of faith that is most often applied to religions.

      The other type of faith is based on trust and/or prior information. In the case of gravity, we have prior information that it has an effect on objects with mass. If we drop an object, we can expect that it will fall to the floor. We can repeat this hundreds of times and expect the same result. When we jump off of a building, we can expect that we will fall to the ground. We trust, based on evidence.
      And evolutionist trust in the geological columb based on circular reasoning and because they made it up contrary to actual geology found lol. And they trust in transitional fossils just because they said so, not because they can date it properly without an insane error rate (its not uniform), or even demonstrate that it is transitional.

      Also many laws in physics can't even allow the big bang, planets spin in different directions (cant happen if it came from a big bang) and the law of entrophy means the sun is burning out faster than it could have existed billions of years ago. The moon is crazily co-incidental to be there and no scientific reason for it (it didnt bounce off the earth). It's all so plainly unscientific. Even in dinosaur bones there is soft tissue, which is impossible for a million years old. The grand Canyon cannot have evolved over millions of years either without the water going uphil. So all you got left for the explanation of fossils and geology as we find it is a global flood. You have noahs boat found, we found the ark of the covenant. Historical artifacts and thousands of manuscripts to support the litrature of history. None of this matters to evolutionist because they just don't want to believe. Not because they have any sensible reason for their theories.

      There is a lot of man made religions and nonsense. But all those religions clearly seperate themself when it comes to Christianity because as a religion Christianity is basically charity in Jesus Christ. It's doctrine is vastly different to all the other man made religions, and there is no way you could say that there is any resonable evidence against Jesus Christ. Atleast not for scholars.

      The only type of other faith is blind faith. That's a faith you have in something when it's contrary to what we can observe and know. That's exactly what we see with evolutionist. They are presented the facts that contradict their theory, and it does not matter to them. Blind faith. You can't have a chicken without an egg, or a seed without a tree, because DNA is a closed system and the complex ecology of the earth doesn't allow for a linear evolution and that's not what we find in nature. There is no record of civilizations older than even a few hundred thousand years. Dating methods prove erroneous. Not even one invention of science is even based on evolutionary theory. All inventions are from intelligent design. Since all records point to a young earth and universe (we can't even observe a planet or star forming, let alone at a realistic rate) it would be completely ridiculious to assume evolution theory is not merely dogma. All this is without even mentioning the bible cause usually non believers just say "well anything christian is not relevant" and they dismiss every person who says something as a christian if it goes against their theory. Same as any creationist is not allowed to be scientific 'just because'. The most illogical people in the world and also the most rude and irresponsible is without a doubt atheists. Just looks at people like ricky gervais or Jim Jefferies and you will see not only their foul mouth and distasteful humor, but also how wrong they are with their actual facts and information, and rational is obviously not present in these types of people.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-28-2014 at 06:15 AM.

    2. #77
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      I think there are too many science errors in your post for me to pick through in a reasonable amount of time. I will say, however, that if there are errors in scientific findings, scientists will find them, and not those who throw around the term "evolutionist" like it's a word that is used in serious academic discussions (it's not).

      I'm coming up on my last year of majoring in biology and I have no idea what you mean by "DNA is a closed system."
      Sageous and kadie like this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    3. #78
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      I think there are too many science errors in your post for me to pick through in a reasonable amount of time. I will say, however, that if there are errors in scientific findings, scientists will find them, and not those who throw around the term "evolutionist" like it's a word that is used in serious academic discussions (it's not).

      I'm coming up on my last year of majoring in biology and I have no idea what you mean by "DNA is a closed system."
      sociology teachers that science and techology (which I done a course in) cannot be objective in a system that is based on culture that directs it's agenda towards capitalism based on profit. This is why you don't have cars without expensive fuel, or cures for critical diseases. Your assumption that science is neutral is just wrong in that context (Technology is a cultural product not something objective).

      Everyone that does biology mainly has to be an evolutionist or they get criticized. Same as anyone in say communist russia gets criticized if they were not for communism! It doesn't prove anything. Just my common sense alone tells me that what we now know of DNA and the complexity of a cell is far too great to have happened by accident. Sperm needs and egg. Chickens need an egg. Plants need a seed. Everything needs it's DNA blueprint. This couldn't be more obvious. The fact your biology class has blinded you to this basic thing, just goes to show your intense indoctrination. Also your idea that 'evolutionist' isn't a real word is a part of that indoctrination. Not everyone believes in evolution, expecially if they are properly educated with a desire to know what's real.

      What's natural selection, just extinction of species. What's genetic mutation, just damaged DNA. What's virus adaptation in Microorganisms and species within a certain type of animal, Just genetic variations of some limited felxibility under controlled conditions nothing more. You got nothing litrally nothing. Anything evolutionist do insert in textbooks is a known old fraud (like that fetus example) and the rest are just assumptions.

      P.S (pathetic really how lurkers here click 'like' not based on any logic just because it's to do with going against God or whoever posted it at the time.)
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-28-2014 at 06:41 AM.

    4. #79
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      sociology teachers that science and techology (which I done a course in) cannot be objective in a system that is based on culture that directs it's agenda towards capitalism based on profit. This is why you don't have cars without expensive fuel, or cures for critical diseases. Your assumption that science is neutral is just wrong in that context (Technology is a cultural product not something objective).
      What I mean by "scientists will find them" (the errors) is that scientists are the ones doing the actual work; they're the ones running experiments, collecting data, and publishing the results. If you have two experiments that are related, let's say Experiment A yielding Result X and Experiment B yielding Result Y, and if you, as the scientist, find that the two results don't match up given the parameters of the experiment, you may have found an error in Experiment A (or you could have messed up somewhere in Experiment B, but let's assume the former).

      Contrast this with an outsider merely looking at the results. They might be able to comment on it, but what else? What could they provide that shows an error? They could certainly point to previous studies, but then they're just using science to combat science, which brings us back to my point.

      The term "evolutionist" is not used in serious academic science. You know what it is used in? Science vs. religion debates. And I've yet to see those who accept evolution by natural selection describe themselves as "evolutionists." It's a loaded term often used by creationists to make evolution look like another dogmatic "-ism." It's a show of bad faith (excuse the pun).

      Everyone that does biology mainly has to be an evolutionist or they get criticized. Same as anyone in say communist russia gets criticized if they were not for communism! It doesn't prove anything.
      It would just be impossible to be a modern-day biologist without accepting evolution. It is such a well-supported and expansive theory that it is the foundation of all of biology. You couldn't really do any kind of work in biology without utilizing evolutionary ideas.

      It's nothing like not being a Communist in Russia. Being a biologist while rejecting evolution goes beyond mere difference in opinion. It's a rejection of the foundation upon which your work is built. The crux of any criticism aimed at biologists who reject evolution would likely be: so why are you here? Why are you bothering to do work in this field? If you reject what is essentially a fact, what could you possibly offer?

      Just my common sense alone tells me that what we now know of DNA and the complexity of a cell is far too great to have happened by accident.
      This is why we don't rely on pure common sense in experiments. Intuition can be useful, but it can also be completely incorrect. Yes, if we looked at the cells that make up our bodies, our common sense would tell us that statistically, it would be overwhelmingly unlikely that such cells would have appeared by an accident of chemistry. But our cells aren't an accident of chemistry. They've been developing over the past 3-4 billion years, gradually building upon themselves, and certainly increasing in complexity.

      Sperm needs and egg. Chickens need an egg. Plants need a seed. Everything needs it's DNA blueprint. This couldn't be more obvious. The fact your biology class has blinded you to this basic thing, just goes to show your intense indoctrination.
      Except I find nothing to disagree with about sperm and eggs being necessary for sexual reproduction, or chickens needing eggs to develop, or plants needing seeds to produce offspring, or life needing a DNA blueprint. I don't know what you're talking about here.

      Also your idea that 'evolutionist' isn't a real word is a part of that indoctrination. Not everyone believes in evolution, expecially if they are properly educated with a desire to know what's real.
      I didn't say it's not a real word. I said it's not a term used by scientists in any kind of academic discussion. Like I said earlier in this post, it's mainly used by non-scientists trying to discredit their oftem misinformed views on science/scientists.

      What's natural selection, just extinction of species.
      Natural selection is the idea that organisms which have certain traits may be better suited than others in a given environment. Organisms that have traits which benefit them may be able to beat out other organisms when it comes to finding mates or acquiring resources (food, mainly). Those organisms will have a greater chance of reproducing and giving that trait to their offspring. That trait may then spread out more in the ecosystem. Thus it has been naturally selected.

      What's genetic mutation, just damaged DNA.
      The only time we'd call mutated DNA "damaged" is if it experience external trauma, such as being hit with radiation. In comparison to your parents, you have loads of genetic mutations. Most aren't harmful, but they're there. It doesn't make your DNA damaged, just different.

      What's virus adaptation in Microorganisms and species within a certain type of animal, Just genetic variations of some limited felxibility under controlled conditions nothing more.
      No idea what you're trying to say here.

      You got nothing litrally nothing. Anything evolutionist do insert in textbooks is a known old fraud (like that fetus example) and the rest are just assumptions.
      Again, literally no idea what you're talking about.
      Sageous, StephL and kadie like this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    5. #80
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      What I mean by "scientists will find them" (the errors) is that scientists are the ones doing the actual work;
      That is the most funny response I have read in a while. I know scientist do work. That is obvious and I am a researcher too. My point is science is not objective in this western culture with a monetary system where the rich rule. Journals are peer reviewed based on agendas owned by people. Understand how many patents are on inventions that threaten the wealthy and their power base? Thousands of inventions shelved. You know the most frustrating thing about talking to someone like you? You have to state obvious things into oblivion until time is just wasted because you just can't accept things as they are.

      The term "evolutionist" is not used in serious academic science. You know what it is used in? Science vs. religion debates.
      I'm sorry you don't like the term evolutionist. It's probaly because such a thing is embarassing to have to admit. Science doesn't debate religion, or it wouldn't be science.......lolz

      It would just be impossible to be a modern-day biologist without accepting evolution.
      You should maybe check out a few books.

      The crux of any criticism aimed at biologists who reject evolution would likely be: so why are you here? Why are you bothering to do work in this field?
      How about to learn about biology in order to understand things better, that is generally what education is for. Evolution does not have any monopoly on anything, it's just a pushy religious idea that superstitious people want to try and put in the scientific community to hold back it's progress.

      This is why we don't rely on pure common sense in experiments.
      I can stop you right there, if you are not using basic logic and common sense. You do not belong in any scientific field. You must use it. Intuition has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if it did intuition would definitely say evolution is wrong anyway.


      I don't know what you're talking about here.
      I'm talking about how does a tree evolve without a seed. Picture not having any trees. There is no seeds to go with it. How does a seed suddenly generate it's DNA without even a tree. How does a chicken birth itself in a egg without a chicken. Your idea is pretty ridiculious.

      it's mainly used by non-scientists
      I am in the scientific field and I'm using the term ok. Many others do too. Like it or not, you have a belief in it.

      Natural selection is
      You don't have to define it. We know what it is. Why does homosexuality still exist with natural selection. Why isn't the earth uniform in life why is everything so diverse natual selection should make everything the same thing. But if you have nothing to begin with how can you even select from anything. I don't think I can make up a more nonsensical theory if I tried. Maybe you have never thought about how insane it is cause you just go by what authorities want you to believe.

      In comparison to your parents, you have loads of genetic mutations. Most aren't harmful, but they're there. It doesn't make your DNA damaged, just different.
      Mutations are errors, and the reason they arn't harmful is those types of errors are not even significant enough to even be measured as anything cause when we pass on our genetics it's the same.


      No idea what you're trying to say here.
      you make less sense than I do


      Again, literally no idea what you're talking about.
      you don't need to keep saying it, just respond to the things you do understand. Or just, ask some questions.

    6. #81
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      That is the most funny response I have read in a while. I know scientist do work. That is obvious and I am a researcher too.
      Really? May I ask at which institution or university? What is the main topic of your research?

      My point is science is not objective in this western culture with a monetary system where the rich rule. Journals are peer reviewed based on agendas owned by people. Understand how many patents are on inventions that threaten the wealthy and their power base? Thousands of inventions shelved.
      We will never achieve perfect objectivity, but utilizing practices such as peer review helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peer review actually aids in making sure that those who are trying to advance an agenda do not have an easy time at it.

      Patents and inventions are a completely different topic, and not one I care to discuss right now.

      You know the most frustrating thing about talking to someone like you? You have to state obvious things into oblivion until time is just wasted because you just can't accept things as they are.
      I'm "stating the obvious" because you don't seem to have any understanding of how science works despite your claims that you're a researcher who does work in "the scientific field." Like I said earlier, I'd like to hear about your work.

      I'm sorry you don't like the term evolutionist. It's probaly because such a thing is embarassing to have to admit. Science doesn't debate religion, or it wouldn't be science.......lolz
      I don't see why it would be embarrassing to admit that I accept what is a solidly supported natural phenomenon. I don't feel any kind of embarrassment, though I do feel like you're trying to weasel your way into my psychology even though it's not at all relevant. And for that, you should feel embarrassed. It's not respectful.

      Excuse me for restating the obvious, but I don't like the term because it is often only used by those who are pushing an anti-biology agenda.

      You should maybe check out a few books.
      It would be better to read a paper in a journal if I'm looking for somebody's work in biology. I know what kinds of books are written by people who deny evolution (even if they have a history in studying it, i.e. undergraduate and/or graduate degrees from accredited institutions). They don't often have anything of use in them.

      How about to learn about biology in order to understand things better, that is generally what education is for. Evolution does not have any monopoly on anything, it's just a pushy religious idea that superstitious people want to try and put in the scientific community to hold back it's progress.
      The thing about working in biology while rejecting evolution is that you can't actually do any work. I mean, you could, but your results wouldn't make any sense and you likely wouldn't get anywhere. All you would have is data and no way to interpret it.

      I can stop you right there, if you are not using basic logic and common sense. You do not belong in any scientific field. You must use it.
      I didn't say you can't use common sense. I said you cannot wholly rely on it. Not all solutions are intuitive.

      Intuition has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if it did intuition would definitely say evolution is wrong anyway.
      Intuition is practically the same thing as common sense.

      I'm talking about how does a tree evolve without a seed. Picture not having any trees. There is no seeds to go with it. How does a seed suddenly generate it's DNA without even a tree. How does a chicken birth itself in a egg without a chicken. Your idea is pretty ridiculious.
      Things like plant evolution are covered in an introductory class. Refer back to your class notes if you still have them. If not, look up plant evolution. If you really are a researcher, it is truly embarrassing that you're asking me these questions.

      I am in the scientific field and I'm using the term ok. Many others do too. Like it or not, you have a belief in it.
      Which field? At which institution? I'm calling your bluff.

      You don't have to define it. We know what it is.
      Your posts suggest otherwise.

      Why does homosexuality still exist with natural selection.
      Because heterosexual couples keep having kids, and because whatever causes homosexuality is probably not strictly related to pure genetics.

      Why isn't the earth uniform in life why is everything so diverse natual selection should make everything the same thing.
      Natural selection shouldn't make everything "the same thing." Life on Earth isn't uniform because certain organisms fill ecological niches better than others. Thus, you get diversity.

      But if you have nothing to begin with how can you even select from anything. I don't think I can make up a more nonsensical theory if I tried. Maybe you have never thought about how insane it is cause you just go by what authorities want you to believe.
      I'm not arguing that life had "nothing to begin with."

      Mutations are errors, and the reason they arn't harmful is those types of errors are not even significant enough to even be measured as anything cause when we pass on our genetics it's the same.
      Errors do not necessarily equate to damage, is my point. The reason some aren't harmful is because amino acids do not require just one combination of nucleotides. For instance, there are 6 codons that code for serine. There is room for error.

      you make less sense than I do
      Only because you don't know what you're talking about.

      you don't need to keep saying it, just respond to the things you do understand. Or just, ask some questions.
      If I say I don't know what you're talking about, then perhaps you should rephrase your question/statement.
      Sageous, gab, dutchraptor and 2 others like this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    7. #82
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      Thank you all for contributing to this thread.
      @ Blueline-Your take on this nonsense is much appreciated, but I fear it is a lost cause.
      Hopefully this thread continues in a respectful and enlightening manner true to the topic. I'll be away for a bit.
      Darkmatters, gab and dutchraptor like this.

    8. #83
      high mileage oneironaut Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Stickie King Populated Wall Referrer Silver 10000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      Sageous's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2011
      LD Count
      40 + Yrs' Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Here & Now
      Posts
      5,031
      Likes
      7154
      ^^ I hope you won't be away too long, Kadie, and that the direction this thread was forced into didn't sway you from starting more; your thoughts are most refreshing and welcome on these forums.

      Speaking of thoughts: I am once again astonished at your patience and tenacity, Blueline!

    9. #84
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Sageous View Post
      I am once again astonished at your patience
      So am I.
      Sageous and StephL like this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    10. #85
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      Really? May I ask at which institution or university? What is the main topic of your research?
      Central Queensland University. I do psychology. But I'm in 3rd year. That means by now I have read many papers and done a lot of research assignments (one is due soon) on varies topics to do with psychology but I have also done sociology courses with it in my first year (which has given me the insight to understand the NON objective aspects of the science community) Next year I'll have to do a major research project. Other than this you don't need to be doing a degree to research things. You can also research things on your own without an institute believe it or not. You have your own mind, and you need an ability to critically think to do any kind of research.

      We will never achieve perfect objectivity, but utilizing practices such as peer review helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peer review actually aids in making sure that those who are trying to advance an agenda do not have an easy time at it.
      I guess you are not familiar with some of the fraudulent work that has been put through peer review in the past? It's unfortunate but it does happen.Academic Fraud and the Peer Review Process :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

      I'm not saying that science is not a good tool. But people have motivations for abusing all sorts of things, including the scientific method for their own agenda's, mostly profit or funding, or to push some political view. You are suppose to be objective, it doesn't assure that everything will be neutral, that would be unrealistic. If things were neutral then the world would make sense, and we wouldn't have such corrupt politicans would we.

      you should feel embarrassed. It's not respectful.
      You are being childish because 'evolutionist' is just a term to describe those that believe in evolution. That term used by many writers of my subscribed textbooks even.

      It would be better to read a paper in a journal if I'm looking for somebody's work in biology.
      I can tell then you are not familiar with the wide array of litrature, see what a degree teachers you partly is how to think about things in your own way, the idea is not to go simply off what someone says, but to think about why they are saying it and to put the pieces of the research together in a way in which you can draw your own conclusions. This is what research is about it's not about coming to pre-concieved notions about what someone else already concluded. There is many out there that question all sorts of things. Including the theory of evolution. You are living in a bubble in which you imagine that everyone accepts evolution. They don't. I certaintly don't. Even some of the greatest biologist have concluded (to clear their conscience from selling out) that evolution has to be nonsensical after they have carefully considered their work.

      The thing about working in biology while rejecting evolution is that you can't actually do any work. I mean, you could, but your results wouldn't make any sense and you likely wouldn't get anywhere. All you would have is data and no way to interpret it.
      This is ridiculious, You don't need to interpret the data from the perspective of evolution. In psychology there is many different angles that you must interpret it from, Cognitive, behavioural, socially, emotionally, psycho-analytically, developmental, spiritually. Biology isn't even evolution focused it suppose to focus on what happens to the body, the brain, the nervous system ect. Evolution is just a dogma that you theorize about. Has nothing to do with the study of the facts.

      I didn't say you can't use common sense. I said you cannot wholly rely on it. Not all solutions are intuitive.
      When I do my assignments or write any reports. I have to have some idea of the litrature, and I have to know what is out there, and what the theories are, and what is proven and not proven, before I can correctly write about it to get a decent grade.

      Things like plant evolution are covered in an introductory class. Refer back to your class notes if you still have them. If not, look up plant evolution.
      Psychology doesn't do 'plant evolution' mainly because it's not relevant. They might do it in biology to try and explain how plants exist. But it doesn't prove they evolved and it's actually impossible to scientifically verify the theory. I could easily write something to falsify the theory of not only plant evolution, but any sort of evolution that claims to explain how everything got here, cause there is many things that make the theory impossible. Sorry that you have believed a lie for so long. You have probaly invested a lot in it and it's hard to let go of.

      Because heterosexual couples keep having kids, and because whatever causes homosexuality is probably not strictly related to pure genetics.
      If sexual orientation isn't purely genetic and if social agency plays a role in what we become. Then natural selection couldn't account for what we decide. Your theory of evolution is invalid. lolz.

      Natural selection shouldn't make everything "the same thing." Life on Earth isn't uniform because certain organisms fill ecological niches better than others. Thus, you get diversity.
      There could be no ecological niches, if everything wasn't created in a way that is dependant on everything else. You can't have linear evolution in a diverse ecological system in which everything relies of each other to operate. Clearly you didn't understand what I asked in the other post about it.


      I'm not arguing that life had "nothing to begin with."
      That's funny because evolution can't be a theory unless you started with nothing else you believe in something that was created.

      Errors do not necessarily equate to damage, is my point. The reason some aren't harmful is because amino acids do not require just one combination of nucleotides. For instance, there are 6 codons that code for serine. There is room for error.
      I know what you are trying to say, and it's based on the idea that DNA can somehow mutate itself into improved productively. An idea so ridiculious that even after billions of years time it would be highly highly unlikely given DNA's complexity and what we do know today about genes.

      Only because you don't know what you're talking about.
      I think you are the one that is clueless, and not me.


      If I say I don't know what you're talking about, then perhaps you should rephrase your question/statement.
      I guess I could rephrase my question to why you give yourself the title of "Terminally Out of Phase" it sums up your understanding, logic, and thinking pretty well.

    11. #86
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Central Queensland University. I do psychology. But I'm in 3rd year. That means by now I have read many papers and done a lot of research assignments (one is due soon) on varies topics to do with psychology but I have also done sociology courses with it in my first year (which has given me the insight to understand the NON objective aspects of the science community) Next year I'll have to do a major research project. Other than this you don't need to be doing a degree to research things. You can also research things on your own without an institute believe it or not. You have your own mind, and you need an ability to critically think to do any kind of research.
      I think that if you say you're a researcher in a field of science, you should clarify whether your research is limited to assignments in undergraduate-level classes or not.

      I guess you are not familiar with some of the fraudulent work that has been put through peer review in the past? It's unfortunate but it does happen.Academic Fraud and the Peer Review Process :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

      I'm not saying that science is not a good tool. But people have motivations for abusing all sorts of things, including the scientific method for their own agenda's, mostly profit or funding, or to push some political view. You are suppose to be objective, it doesn't assure that everything will be neutral, that would be unrealistic. If things were neutral then the world would make sense, and we wouldn't have such corrupt politicans would we.
      I know it happens; my argument was never that peer review is perfect. I'm saying that given its faults, peer review is still a useful and necessary process. I should note that in the Joe Salerno article you linked, it mentions that JVC discovered Peter Chen's fraud on their own, which I find encouraging.

      Steve Novella has some solutions to making peer review even better: NeuroLogica Blog » Is Science Broken?

      You are being childish because 'evolutionist' is just a term to describe those that believe in evolution. That term used by many writers of my subscribed textbooks even.
      It's a term that has been hijacked by fundamentalist religious groups. I rarely see biologists use it in its normal meaning for that explicit reason.

      I can tell then you are not familiar with the wide array of litrature, see what a degree teachers you partly is how to think about things in your own way, the idea is not to go simply off what someone says, but to think about why they are saying it and to put the pieces of the research together in a way in which you can draw your own conclusions. This is what research is about it's not about coming to pre-concieved notions about what someone else already concluded. There is many out there that question all sorts of things. Including the theory of evolution.
      Most of what you wrote here is entirely irrelevant to this conversation (such as telling me what the purpose of a degree is even though I graduate in May), so I'm going to focus on the following:

      No, I know people write all sorts of things questioning every topic under the sun. That isn't what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that if I'm going to refer to somebody's work in biology, I would look for articles they've published in journals, because that's where the data will be. So if they have anything that might suggest evolution is, say, entirely incorrect, I would look at the data to see it matches with the interpretation in the author's conclusion. I wouldn't bother reading the work of what could just be some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, sending a manuscript off to a publisher who just so happens to be very accepting of certain types of books.

      You are living in a bubble in which you imagine that everyone accepts evolution. They don't. I certaintly don't.
      Except I'm not assuming that at all, and from none of my posts could you extract that assumption.

      Even some of the greatest biologist have concluded (to clear their conscience from selling out) that evolution has to be nonsensical after they have carefully considered their work.
      Who are these greatest biologists?

      This is ridiculious, You don't need to interpret the data from the perspective of evolution. In psychology there is many different angles that you must interpret it from, Cognitive, behavioural, socially, emotionally, psycho-analytically, developmental, spiritually.
      Why do I care about how things are done in psychology if I'm talking about the necessity of evolution in biological research?

      Biology isn't even evolution focused it suppose to focus on what happens to the body, the brain, the nervous system ect. Evolution is just a dogma that you theorize about. Has nothing to do with the study of the facts.
      Not only is this not true just at face-value, but I could look through my university's course catalog and show you the emphasis that is placed on evolution with regard to nearly everything in biology.

      If biology isn't evolution-focused, then my genetics professors, my zoology professors, and my ecology professor (who also teaches a 400-level course called Biological Evolution) are going to be unemployed pretty soon.

      When I do my assignments or write any reports. I have to have some idea of the litrature, and I have to know what is out there, and what the theories are, and what is proven and not proven, before I can correctly write about it to get a decent grade.
      What does this have to do with running an experiment?

      Psychology doesn't do 'plant evolution' mainly because it's not relevant.
      Then don't waste our time by pontificating on things you know nothing about.

      They might do it in biology to try and explain how plants exist But it doesn't prove they evolved and it's actually impossible to scientifically verify the theory.
      Why do you think so?

      I could easily write something to falsify the theory of not only plant evolution, but any sort of evolution that claims to explain how everything got here, cause there is many things that make the theory impossible.
      So do it. You would be first in line to receive a Nobel Prize. You've let us know that you don't understand biology, so I'll call your bluff again. I await your paper.

      Sorry that you have believed a lie for so long. You have probaly invested a lot in it and it's hard to let go of.
      Enough of the armchair psychology. Any more and I'm ending this conversation.

      If sexual orientation isn't purely genetic and if social agency plays a role in what we become. Then natural selection couldn't account for what we decide. Your theory of evolution is invalid. lolz.
      What does "natural selection couldn't account for what we decide" mean?

      There could be no ecological niches, if everything wasn't created in a way that is dependant on everything else. You can't have linear evolution in a diverse ecological system in which everything relies of each other to operate. Clearly you didn't understand what I asked in the other post about it.
      All life dependent on each other in some way, so...Sorry, what's your point again? Rephrase it differently and perhaps I'll grasp the meaning. And provide a definition for "linear evolution" while you're at it. I think you're trying to use biology terms, but doing so incorrectly, so you're ending up not providing any coherent thoughts.

      That's funny because evolution can't be a theory unless you started with nothing else you believe in something that was created.
      What?

      I'm sorry, can one of the other people reading this thread tell me what he's saying? I don't know if he's missing crucial punctuation or something but I just can't figure out what his point is.

      I know what you are trying to say, and it's based on the idea that DNA can somehow mutate itself into improved productively. An idea so ridiculious that even after billions of years time it would be highly highly unlikely given DNA's complexity and what we do know today about genes.
      DNA does "mutate itself", sometimes producing traits that are beneficial to its organism. And it can do that through copying errors in DNA replication. This is not a controversial, nevermind ridiculous idea. It's very well grounded.

      I guess I could rephrase my question to why you give yourself the title of "Terminally Out of Phase" it sums up your understanding, logic, and thinking pretty well.
      Harsh words coming from a person who seemingly hasn't taken any of the requisite introductory classes related to the topic upon which he seems to love telling us is wholly fraudulent.
      Sageous and StephL like this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    12. #87
      Please, call me Louai <span class='glow_008000'>LouaiB</span>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      LD Count
      82
      Gender
      Location
      Mount Lebanon
      Posts
      1,690
      Likes
      1216
      DJ Entries
      13
      Deanstar, you can't say that the theory of evolution isn't, well, a theory... and I'd say you're making up the facts you put in your posts.

      This argument is foolish, who are you kidding?! Evolution is proven. "Theory" statues is from the highest statues for any thing scientific. You talk and talk about it being all a big conspiracy... Do you know how bold this claim is?! It's like saying electricity is actually magic! I mean I've heard religious people, and even public schools, tell people that evolution was PROVEN WRONG, but this has to be some kind of new level, claiming that there's some mysterious conspiracy behind THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! They've brainwashed all the scientists in the world! I wouldn't be surprised if you got the illuminaty into this too!

      So please, get your brains out your butt, we like to talk seriously around here!

      Sorry people, I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that this has gone too far!
      Darkmatters and StephL like this.
      I fill my heart with fire, with passion, passion for what makes me nostalgic. A unique perspective fuels my fire, makes me discover new passions, more nostalgia. I love it.

      "People tell dreamers to reality check and realize this is the real world and not one of fantasies, but little do they know that for us Lucid Dreamers, it all starts when the RC fails"
      Add me as a friend!!!

    13. #88
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Vivid Dream Journal
      Hukif's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      LD Count
      6584
      Gender
      Location
      México
      Posts
      4,153
      Likes
      1217
      DJ Entries
      126
      Just checking in for some quick reminder.

      Deanstar said that it is not needed to define something, but I will have to disagree based on experience. A believer once told me that "the big bang is a stupid theory" and the reason was because he actually believed the big bang to be "the impact between meteors that creates a universe", and no that was not a metaphor from his side.

      I mean... you guys could be arguing apples and oranges and not know it!

      Perhaps the "evolutionist" term came from "evolutive biology" being misused? I know the former isn't in use but the latter is.

      And blueline, he is mixing evolution with either abiogenesis or universe creation or both.

      Besides that, louaib you think thats too far? Pffft.
      I think only oldies will understand this joke but "noogah... is that you?"

    14. #89
      Please, call me Louai <span class='glow_008000'>LouaiB</span>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      LD Count
      82
      Gender
      Location
      Mount Lebanon
      Posts
      1,690
      Likes
      1216
      DJ Entries
      13
      Quote Originally Posted by Hukif View Post
      Besides that, louaib you think thats too far? Pffft.
      I think only oldies will understand this joke but "noogah... is that you?"
      Haha, seems the waters of DV are always turbine!

      It's funny how a conversation might be all wrong just because of a double use of a word lol

      Oh, Deanstar, you might find Thunderf00t's videos arguing creatism good, because he explains almost all scientific mambo jambo you might encounter that disprove creatism. It's actually very surprising how much people just defend creatism using very wrong science rules and methods!
      I fill my heart with fire, with passion, passion for what makes me nostalgic. A unique perspective fuels my fire, makes me discover new passions, more nostalgia. I love it.

      "People tell dreamers to reality check and realize this is the real world and not one of fantasies, but little do they know that for us Lucid Dreamers, it all starts when the RC fails"
      Add me as a friend!!!

    15. #90
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by BLUELINE976 View Post
      I think that if you say you're a researcher in a field of science, you should clarify whether your research is limited to assignments in undergraduate-level classes or not.
      I don't even need to be an undergraduate to do research. It's called educating yourself, and goes beyond your formal education. When you start doing any program, that puts you in the community of research, and you have access to the journals, and you write about them on varies topics. It's not even relevant you just seek ways to discredit and attack cause you basically chuck a fit and say it's not credible if you don't believe in evolution lol. Anything is a joke if it's not evolution to you. Next year or so it will be graduate anyway. It's not much more work to do. Just cause you are in a university or a professor doesn't define your intelligence or righteousness. Of all the professors would have healed the world by now but they mainly contribute to it's problems instead lol. They can't apply their evolution theory to anything constructive to people's life. They mostly are about paychecks and banging students in their class are they not?

      It's a term that has been hijacked by fundamentalist religious groups.
      You are an extremist, religious groups don't use evolutionist as a term. It's just basic scientific terminology. Get use to it.

      I would look for articles they've published in journals
      I don't limit my thinking to just journals. That's not where I get my authority. I get it from my own critical thinking based on what God tells me (same as moses or any other prophet). Just because something is a journal paper doesn't always mean it's correct as there is plenty of known frauds as I already pointed out and many paper are simply a opinion that is wrong. The only way you get truth is be discerning enough to be able to know truth. There's no organization that can tell you what is credible and what is not. Journals are not a safeguard of anything. The bible is a safeguard that's something reliable, which is above journals. The bible isn't a scientific paper, but it's telling you straight away the truth of the matter in prophecy, metaphor, parable, poetry, and history and the litrature.


      Who are these greatest biologists?
      I wasted enough time trying to educate you, if you don't want to be educated, you never going to be. Not even if I spoon feed you biologist work. Imagine if I demanded the way you do, you would be constantly brining me articles on 'evolution'. According to your doublestandards nothing is credible unless it's evolution. That's your religion and it's superstitious. You ignore what is out there that is against your view lol.

      Not only is this not true just at face-value, but I could look through my university's course catalog and show you the emphasis that is placed on evolution with regard to nearly everything in biology.
      I could look through communist China or Russia and look at how critical communism has been to the state, what does it prove? Not much. Communism is still not right even if educational materials that falsify the well being of communism are ignored. They won't teach from another point of view other than communism at that time because that's the culture! Biology isn't suppose to be about evolution, evolution is just a dogma that they push. Just like China or russia have pushed communism before. Evolutionist push evolution in the education system the same way. It's a cancer really, it threatens the legitimacy of science and that's why people lose faith in it mainly.

      If biology isn't evolution-focused, then my genetics professors, my zoology professors, and my ecology professor (who also teaches a 400-level course called Biological Evolution) are going to be unemployed pretty soon.
      If hitler was about killing jews and racism, he would not have got in power......lolz. Your logic is weaker than piss and vinegar. For every authority you cite on evolution. I have 10 more on creationism. You only think you have the monopoly because of opression of the truth haha. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act"-George Orwell

      What does this have to do with running an experiment?
      Science is not my authority of truth, it's just an extra tool that I use to prove evolution and other things wrong.

      Then don't waste our time by pontificating on things you know nothing about.
      You are not educated and if you think you are, you are either highly decieved, or you in fact pointing yourself out as a liar. It's one or the other.

      You would be first in line to receive a Nobel Prize. You've let us know that you don't understand biology, so I'll call your bluff again. I await your paper.
      Obama got the nobel peace prize. Did he deserve it? haha. Does anyone really deserve anything they get rewarded with in this world? No. In fact the best people in history are martyred not given any nobel prizes. I am calling the entire world an illusion and a deception. You are clinging to the world being righteous. It's not. That's my solid claim based on human trafficking, expliotation, famine, war, and opression of a fiat system of currency through financial terrorism, and overall general terrorism in the world. If the world is correct, I would not be getting a nobel prize before people long before me would have stating the obvious and people would have aknowledged it long ago instead of lies.

      Enough of the armchair psychology. Any more and I'm ending this conversation.
      Enough of your arrogance and accusations.....please do end this dumb conversation I am forced in with you. You have to call the entire institute and program 'armchair degree'. Everyone that has ever done any work or study for truth 'armchair truth teller'. You are an armchair dellusionist maybe. lulz. None of your silly attacks work on people like me nor do they fool anyone intelligent.

      What does "natural selection couldn't account for what we decide" mean?
      *facepalm. Natural selection is not free will, it's a theory that says the superior will survive and adapt in an environment due to their genetic mutations (can't realistically work). There is millions of weak people on the planet that can't even grow their own food or live in a self sustainable way without the government. Even though the strong in any sample could be killed off such as a bird eating the prey of a genetically superior egg. Natural selection doesn't work cause there is weaker and stronger species and many different diverse types of life with different strengths and weaknesses. Natural selection claims only the most strong would be left. (please dont keep replying to me about it)

      All life dependent on each other in some way, so...Sorry, what's your point again? Rephrase it differently and perhaps I'll grasp the meaning. And provide a definition for "linear evolution" while you're at it. I think you're trying to use biology terms, but doing so incorrectly, so you're ending up not providing any coherent thoughts.
      *ahhh pulls hair* What do you think linear evolution means in the context in which I said it? It means that you can't have the chicken without the egg (not linear reproduction) the plant without the seed (not linear). The sperm without the egg (not linear) Genetic information is not linear progressing for reproduction but is an enclosed system that is interdependant. I don't care so much what 'biology terms' you cling to. This is using common sense.

      DNA does "mutate itself", sometimes producing traits that are beneficial to its organism. And it can do that through copying errors in DNA replication.
      It's only a particular environment which determins if something may have a slight advantage. People in Africa with Sickle-cell disease can better deal with malaria. That doesn't mean their blood cells "evolved" it means their genetics have tried to adapt to a condition in some limited fashion. If they went into a environment like we live in. Their disease would not prove benifical at all but be a major disadvantage, because it's a disease, not a real improvement. No alteration of DNA can go to the extent that a type of animal goes into another type of animal. That is a theory which is indeed ridiculious. Genetic adaptation to environment has definite limits. DNA is flexible but it doesn't 'evolve' it just keeps it's blueprint that it already has. Errors are not ultimately passed on because the job of DNA is to deal with any errors, that's why it's flexible in it's variation. Not because it's 'evolving'.

      Harsh words coming from a person who seemingly hasn't taken any of the requisite introductory classes related to the topic upon which he seems to love telling us is wholly fraudulent.
      I don't need an introductory class in plant evolution to know that a seed can't evolve without a tree.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-30-2014 at 09:36 AM.

    16. #91
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Okay - since this thread seems to have evolved and into a probably temporary excursion on one of my favourite topics - I'll chime in.
      But I have to say, I don't even really know how to start because I see so many actual misconceptions as to what evolutionary theory actually entails in your posts, Deanstar.
      Well - maybe like this.
      Evolutionary biology tells you nothing about how life has started out originally - it deals with what happened to the first single-celled life-forms coming into existence by a process termed abiogenesis and their offspring up to and including today's creatures.
      Abiogenesis is somewhat of a mystery still, even while we have good hypotheses - but evolution is not mysterious, nor is it in doubt among anybody with a proper education, who doesn't have a religious agenda overshadowing or nullifying said education in these respects.
      You've been mentioning "great biologists" who would doubt evolution and upon being asked for their identity, you wouldn't name somebody. This is because you can't - no more than you could name a "great physicist" of our times, who denies Relativity Theory - or rather the existence of gravity. If you believe you can - try to remember how you came to that notion and look them up for us please.

      Abiogenesis is actually not the topic, it's what some Christians and other religious people who are well aware, that evolution is fact, ascribe to god these days. And they sort of can still do that, same as saying god made the big bang happen - because science is still searching for how exactly these came about.

      But evolution starts after the first single-celled organisms capable of reproduction came into existence.
      So you need not wonder about seeds and trees or eggs and birds - what was there first and all alone for millions on millions of years were bacteria, and they reproduce by simply dividing into two new ones. So theoretically you need only have one living cell for evolution to begin. These evolve and come to form multi-cellular organisms and at a much later point, specialization among these cells leads to sexual reproduction.

      Survival of the fittest is a quite unfortunate way of putting it - it is even incorrect, in as far as it is not necessarily the fittest, in the sense of strongest or fastest, who are relevant for evolution. Not even those who live the longest, survive the best on their individual own - it is about, who reproduces the most viable offspring most prolifically. A far better way of putting it is natural selection and descent with modification from common ancestry. Here's an easily understandable graphic on how this natural selection actually works - it's part of an info-graphic dealing with common misconceptions about evolution - so that's why the title "survival.." is crossed out:



      And this is a very fine educational video, which explains the essence of evolution perfectly well:



      If you were to watch it, you would understand much better, where we are actually coming from instead of - rather childishly - asking how there can be a certain seed without the respective tree to have produced it. Of course there can't - but this question is completely besides the point. Do you really believe, that it is this easy? That zig thousands of biologists wouldn't have an answer to that? They're really not as stupid as you might think, they are!
      While the video is cute and explains it so that everybody can understand it - it's content is spot on and not childish at all.
      So if you were really interested - you might come up with some further questions or maybe actual informed arguments on details, which might still be unclear even after having given the video some attention and thought - and I'm sure, we'll be glad to help clarifying those.
      We have a beautiful thread on evolution next door - there's a lot of additional interesting stuff to consider - but as the title says - Darkmatters wanted to keep it scientific and not open to creationist argumentation. It starts out very specifically and with advanced concepts like epigenetics, but there's a lot to be found in it, which might fascinate you:
      http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...-argument.html

      Shame we don't have a plain on topic thread for this sort of thing - but I hope, kadie indulges us a little longer with this excursion - otherwise one could of course also open a new one, which fits the ticket...

    17. #92
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points
      shadowofwind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2011
      Posts
      1,633
      Likes
      1213
      Deanstar: It seems pointless to me to spend so much time arguing about something you're poorly informed about. With rare and partial exceptions, people who understand biology, particularly molecular biology, all believe in evolution because its central to how everything works. Not believing in it would be a cosmologist not believing in gravity: its central to how everything works.

      There do seem to me to be interesting questions about evolution. For example, sexual selection is an important part of natural selection. Many traits are 'fit' because they are deemed attractive by potential mates, even though they're not practical in other regards. And there's an element of chance or choice in what is deemed attractive, sometimes there's more than one alternative that works, it isn't forced in every aspect. Also, how random are random mutations really? Genomes have evolved to be changed more easily in some ways than others, and some changes occur more rapidly under some conditions than others. And is there some element to luck that is not random? Biology as a field does not have an answer to that one, though individual biologists may have informed opinions. There's a lot of room in there for God for people who want to believe in God, and a lot of room for atheism also, even though there is inadequate room for particular historical beliefs about God. Sometimes it seems to me that people argue the same things over and over again that have already been factually settled, because they haven't informed themselves about what is known. Personally I'd rather talk about the other stuff that's not as settled yet.
      Darkmatters, StephL and kadie like this.

    18. #93
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      So why should I give more sources and more information when people's minds are already closed? If you seriously think there is no case against evolution you are blinded (I'd say willingly). There is seriously tones of information and work out there that uttery falsifies evolution. Evolution fits into the category of myth! It's that simple. Myth and dogma.

      The most irritating thing in the world I think is someone who believes in evolution and wants to call not only themself as scientific but to claim that if others don't believe their dogma that they are unscientific somehow or that they just are 'not informed'. This idea that evolution is 'settled' as fact or that it applies to any technology or invention at all, is a remarkable delusion.

      Article below
      The Scientific Case Against Evolution

      Spoiler for The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.:
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 10:47 PM. Reason: Encapsulated long article in spoiler

    19. #94
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      The reason I don't mention everyone else's work on this is because it is pointless to state something that someone else isn't interested in even thinking about. No evolutionist even wants to read books by biologist who do not support evolution.
      Or because none of them are actually scientists with any standing in the scientific community.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      There is seriously tones of information and work out there that uttery falsifies evolution.
      If there actually was, then it would not be one of the pillars of science, and said work would be front page news all around the world in gigantic bright red headlines. But Creationists accept 'scientific proof' that no actual scientist would credit because it fails to pass the rigorous tests required.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Evolution fits into the categort of myth! It's that simple. Myth and dogma.
      Only Creationists believe this.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      The most irritating thing in the world I think is someone who believes in evolution and wants to call not only themself as scientific but to claim that if others don't believe their dogma that they are unscientific somehow.
      Yeah, Ill bet that is irritating.
      Last edited by Darkmatters; 08-31-2014 at 07:58 AM.
      StephL and LouaiB like this.

    20. #95
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points
      snoop's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      LD Count
      300+
      Gender
      Location
      Indiana
      Posts
      1,715
      Likes
      1221
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      faith means that you know about something without needing evidence of it. Most people that are confused about the definition of faith, think that it is impossible to know something without evidence. But that isn't true. Faith d\
      Faith doesn't mean you know it is true and choose to believe in it without evidence, that's the definition of being gullible. Faith means suspending your disbelief in something purposefully despite the very real possiblility that it may not exist or be true for reasons that are personal and specific to the individual holding the beliefs. Read: belief in something that may or may not be falsifiable even if all logic says not to believe it or you are unsure (or even if it does but there is no proof).

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      This is so interesting choice of words 'blindly believe'
      That choice of words denotes the fact that no concrete evidence that any of the events in the Holy Book of your choice actually transpired or that God exists. You might not like it, and maybe you could argue it's a bit harsh (I don't really think so but other ways to put it do exist), but it is not inappropriate in this situation at all.

      If you want to try and argue that it makes more sense to believe in God because not believing in him will result in eternal damnation in a lake of hellfire, then that's one thing, but why not let people make that choice? People do stupid things all the time and so if it doesn't make sense to you, just let it go. There's a very real point though that a few different religions believe in a similar place, (and disregarding that) so if you pick the wrong one you're fucked anyway. There is not a religion that presents a better case for God's existence than any other, so you are just as likely to go to hell if you believe in the wrong God. There's a 99% chance that regardless of your belief in a God or that the belief in your God will land you in a firepit for eternity so you're better off freeing yourself of rules that cause harm emotionally and physically to other human beings while we live on the earth.
      StephL and kadie like this.

    21. #96
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Ah! Lets see, when I find the time!
      Thank you for producing actual content which can be tackled, Deanstar - I really had no idea how to even start except providing some introductory materials for giving you a chance to actually look into it. I guess, you didn't - but how can I know?
      While I agree with shadowofwind - it feels sort of futile to debate things about which there is no actual scientific dissent - this article you brought is at least something which can be shown step by step to be incorrect. I disagree with that there's much remaining room for a god to recede into the gaps in scientific knowledge, though - really not much divine wriggle-room left these days, well a bit - okay.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar
      The reason I don't mention everyone else's work on this is because it is pointless to state something that someone else isn't interested in even thinking about. No evolutionist even wants to read books by biologist who do not support evolution.
      Glad you changed your mind! I am interested in thinking about it - and I do read the stuff I am presented with - call it a masochistic trait and maybe you're not far off with that. If I'll come back and see the job hasn't already been done on that article - I'll be delighted to get to work it through! Would you consider to - or did you maybe already watch the video? Might you do that after having seen, that I did take your article seriously and gave it time and thought? That would be a marvellous development - and sorry for implying this would lie in the future - even better if you already have given it consideration!

    22. #97
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
      I'll be delighted to get to work it through! Would you consider to - or did you maybe already watch the video? Might you do that after having seen, that I did take your article seriously and gave it time and thought? That would be a marvellous development - and sorry for implying this would lie in the future - even better if you already have given it consideration!
      okay stephl, I'll watch the video. But it would really take a miracle (no pun intended) for me to realistically think that evolution was anything other than a pure fantasy! I think out of everything in science, it is the most unscientific notion and unworkable theory that exists, it doesn't actually fit into the realm of science it's a misconception! I would be delighted if you could come to a understanding of this. It is perhaps the most damaging delusion on the planet. Out of all the man made religions, evolution would be the one of the worst. If you do work through that paper, don't aim to simply refute no matter what, consider carefully what it is saying and why, and why it comes to those conclusions, and the evidence that exists on the claims.

      okay StephL, I did watch it. No real suprises for me, and I understand the theory they are trying to teach. But there is a few problems. For instance how do they know the earth is billions of years old? This is just a speculation. There is no dating method or geology or anything in the Universe that makes me think the earth is that old. But there is several things which make me think the Earth is young. With the bird beaks from Darwin it's not very good evidence sweety. In the video they say that a big storm blew the birds on to the island. I doubt it they are really throwing in a lot of speculation and they probaly just migrated there as different types of birds. Nothing really suggests that they evolved their beaks. Amazingly the video takes this theory and just to the massive assumption "ta da" all the diversity in life is now explained. But it isn't. There is no way such a theory can speculate on all the animals. Certainly not us as humans. Can you understand my skeptism? You are a skeptic yourself you should understand my skeptical position on such a thing. This is what I am doubting. That mutations could happen over billions of years to produce all the different life. That natural selection even evolves anything. And my questioning of the fossil record, which does not show transitional things, and does not explain the explosion of diversity. It's almost as if with some of the animals God is mocking evolution. They are so vastly different. The size of a giraffe's neck? The trunk of an elephant. Feathers on a bird, and just all sorts of things which would be basically impossible to explain with this theory. I am just not convinced that you could invent something that demonstrates evolution.....I think laws of nature do not allow evolution, and that you couldn't find anything which we can see, and say 'yes that's evolution'. Genetic variation of the blue eyes I'm not even sure that counts as a mutation. Just....different genetic variation of the eyes. The law of entrophy means everything is breaking down so DNA would actually get worse not better. Don't mind the Earth but say even if the sun was billions of years old to sustain the earth. At it's current rate it would have burnt out long ago if it was that old.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 02:56 PM.

    23. #98
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Vivid Dream Journal
      Hukif's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      LD Count
      6584
      Gender
      Location
      México
      Posts
      4,153
      Likes
      1217
      DJ Entries
      126
      Deanstar, what is your take on "artificial selection"? That is some kind of evolution that is claimed, that has made species of selected crops/animals used in agriculture change over the life-period of humans (Not a life-time, but as in from birth of agriculture to our time).
      Do you think if such a change could be proved it would be useful for proving evolution? And if so.
      Do you think showns/non changes are actually indicative of ANY meaningful change at all?

      Now then, I saw in another thread you want the person to ask you things to first answer them themselves, so I will proceed to do that now, hope you don't mind.

      1.- Humans are part of nature, I find the term to be weird since IMO that would still be natural, maybe guided (which I believe is the term currently used) but not artificial.
      2.- If we had enough data about the first few uses/looks of said crops/animals and could compare it to the current ones, that should be enough depending on the results. Too bad we didn't have cameras at the time, only hearsay and maybe drawings.
      3.- If they are shown, obviously I would go with it being significant towards the point of evolution.

      I'm interested in that, especially since most people are hung up (no really, I mean most) on looking for a new species that is arisen from an animal always. We know of hybrids, but they can't produce offsprings and thus are not considered a real species.

    24. #99
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      Why does ones beliefs on the subject have to be proven scientifically or by the good book?
      Sageous likes this.

    25. #100
      high mileage oneironaut Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Stickie King Populated Wall Referrer Silver 10000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      Sageous's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2011
      LD Count
      40 + Yrs' Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Here & Now
      Posts
      5,031
      Likes
      7154
      ^^ Good question...

    Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •