1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Oct '10 14:47
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    And that's exactly how i feel about the anti-evolutionists (yourself included)!!!
    you mean you have feelings? feelings of an almost human nature, b b b but your an atheist! 😉
  2. Subscriberduecer
    anybody seen my
    underpants??
    Joined
    01 Sep '06
    Moves
    56453
    11 Oct '10 18:18
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Unfortunately Rob, every right wing American Christian shares the same views.
    on the up side there are many of us left wing American Christians that do not share these views. I believe God created everything in existance, even quite likely evolution, the evidence supports it. I do not , however, believe that life sprang out of nothingness.

    I also believe we have a stewardship obligation to preserve the planet as best we can.

    not all Christians agree on these subjects, but we do agree on many other important things like: God loves all of humanity...all of us.
  3. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148567
    12 Oct '10 13:19
    Originally posted by amannion
    It strikes me that the people that argue vociferously against evolution strike many of the similar notes as the people who argue against human-induced climate change.

    I wonder what the perspective of religious people is on climate change?

    On evolution, I come back to a question I asked some years ago, which never seemed to be answered terribly well - ...[text shortened]... describe atoms or radiation or gravity or many others. What's the problem with this one other?
    Since both theories have to have people accepting things they may not agree with
    or believe in why should it suprise you? Climate change has more than a few
    people disagreeing with how the data is being viewed, there has also been more
    than a few times people have been caught not being completely truthful about the
    data and there is a lot of money to be made and power to be grasped if people
    can use it as a reason to acquire both! So there is some cause to be concern about
    motives too. I'm amazed at the sheep like following both have of true believers.
    Kelly
  4. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    12 Oct '10 21:19
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Since both theories have to have people accepting things they may not agree with
    or believe in why should it suprise you? Climate change has more than a few
    people disagreeing with how the data is being viewed, there has also been more
    than a few times people have been caught not being completely truthful about the
    data and there is a lot of money to be ...[text shortened]... about
    motives too. I'm amazed at the sheep like following both have of true believers.
    Kelly
    I never said it surprised me ...
    And yeah, climate change science is lucrative isn't it. There's just so many of those damned climate change scientist billionaires, aren't there ...
  5. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Oct '10 21:57
    Originally posted by amannion
    It strikes me that the people that argue vociferously against evolution strike many of the similar notes as the people who argue against human-induced climate change.

    I wonder what the perspective of religious people is on climate change?

    On evolution, I come back to a question I asked some years ago, which never seemed to be answered terribly well - ...[text shortened]... describe atoms or radiation or gravity or many others. What's the problem with this one other?
    The evolution therory started as a therory, and is still a therory, but now has been debunked.

    But the dishonest scientists still support it, because it supports their atheistic values.

    It was debunked before the book "Forbidden Archeology" but this book is the final nail in the coffin, and "Forbidden Archeology The Impact" deals with all the dishonest slander, that followed the first book, and the slander has been debunked also.

    Now anyone supporting this therory, is outright dishonest.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    12 Oct '10 22:32
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    The evolution therory started as a therory, and is still a therory, but now has been debunked.

    But the dishonest scientists still support it, because it supports their atheistic values.

    It was debunked before the book "Forbidden Archeology" but this book is the final nail in the coffin, and "Forbidden Archeology The Impact" deals with all the dishon ...[text shortened]... lander has been debunked also.

    Now anyone supporting this therory, is outright dishonest.
    You're right, it started as a theory and remains a theory.
    Because science rests on contingency - that is, if it works use it, if it doesn't, try something else - then all models to explain how something works are known as 'theories'.
    It has been ridiculed and parodied and condemned, but it hasn't been debunked.
    When someone comes up with an alternative scientific model to explain speciation that is better than evolution, then it will truly be debunked.
    But where is this alternative?
    None exists - other than fairy tales of gods and spirits. They aren't scientific.

    Scientists support a theory if it works, not because they're dishonest. You're understanding of evolution and of science is pathetic and idiotic and you might be better served sticking with your fairy tales.
  7. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Oct '10 22:42
    Originally posted by amannion
    You're right, it started as a theory and remains a theory.
    Because science rests on contingency - that is, if it works use it, if it doesn't, try something else - then all models to explain how something works are known as 'theories'.
    It has been ridiculed and parodied and condemned, but it hasn't been debunked.
    When someone comes up with an alternative ...[text shortened]... e is pathetic and idiotic and you might be better served sticking with your fairy tales.
    Ive mentined before that the Vedanata is the alternative that you seek, but you are not seeking, because it would not support your atheistic values.

    So you deny the very thing that would explain everthing, so you are your own worst enemy (at the moment)

    Supporting a false therory is not scientific or honhest, why dont the scientists just say they have no clue.
  8. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    12 Oct '10 22:50
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    Ive mentined before that the Vedanata is the alternative that you seek, but you are not seeking, because it would not support your atheistic values.

    So you deny the very thing that would explain everthing, so you are your own worst enemy (at the moment)

    Supporting a false therory is not scientific or honhest, why dont the scientists just say they have no clue.
    Claiming that some mystical crap - call it Vedanta, or Allah, or Jahweh - is the answer to everything someone is looking for may be very nice for you, but for a scientist it's not useful.
    Scientists aren't looking for revealed truth - it's suspect by it's very nature. You're as certain about Vedanta as the Christian is about the divinity of Jesus and a Mormon is about ... whatever Mormon's are certain about. There are hundreds - perhaps thousands - of such certainties. Which is all very nice for you,but of no use to someone who either, a. believes something else, or b. wants to look for rational explanations.
    You can call that dishonest and slag off at the people who work hard to bring you computers and cars and everything else in this modern world. I choose to ignore your rantings (well I respond to your posts but other than that, believe me, I'm ignoring), and deny nothing.
    Well, I do deny gods and fairies, but, well, I'm an atheist now aren't I ...
  9. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Oct '10 23:06
    Originally posted by amannion
    Claiming that some mystical crap - call it Vedanta, or Allah, or Jahweh - is the answer to everything someone is looking for may be very nice for you, but for a scientist it's not useful.
    Scientists aren't looking for revealed truth - it's suspect by it's very nature. You're as certain about Vedanta as the Christian is about the divinity of Jesus and a Mor ...[text shortened]... nothing.
    Well, I do deny gods and fairies, but, well, I'm an atheist now aren't I ...
    I appreciate computers and cars, I have never said i didnt, but we are talking about origons and the cause of everthing. (different subject)

    I could give you a list if unseen things that the scientists accept as real, but as soon as someone mentions the soul, the scientists reject.

    This is their biased approach, and is unscietific and dishonest.

    Why do they do it, ...they do it because at the centre of their heart, they are envious of God, and will say just about anything to deny God as a reality.

    Vedanta has nothing to do with Jehova or Allah or Jahweh, and these presentations are fabricated and false.

    Vedanta is the perfect faultless source of spiritual knowledge.

    Actually by denying the Supreme Spititual Creative Power, makes science look stupid and lost.
  10. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    12 Oct '10 23:11
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    I appreciate computers and cars, I have never said i didnt, but we are talking about origons and the cause of everthing. (different subject)

    I could give you a list if unseen things that the scientists accept as real, but as soon as someone mentions the soul, the scientists reject.

    This is their biased approach, and is unscietific and dishonest.

    ...[text shortened]...

    Actually by denying the Supreme Spititual Creative Power, makes science look stupid and lost.
    Okay let's tick off two errors:

    1. Evolution is neither about origins, nor about the cause of everything. A high school education in science should give you that much ...

    2. Scientists do accept unseen things as real, but only if they work within the context of a model that seeks to explain something. What model does the soul fit into?

    And the rest, sort of speaks for itself ... Vedanta is 'the perfect faultless source'?
    And you call scientists biased?
  11. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Oct '10 23:40
    Originally posted by amannion
    Okay let's tick off two errors:

    1. Evolution is neither about origins, nor about the cause of everything. A high school education in science should give you that much ...

    2. Scientists do accept unseen things as real, but only if they work within the context of a model that seeks to explain something. What model does the soul fit into?

    And the rest ...[text shortened]... s for itself ... Vedanta is 'the perfect faultless source'?
    And you call scientists biased?
    Well i understood it to be a therory of the origons of the species, and their cause (the unseen hand of natural selection)

    But the therory starts with a planet floating in space (magically) and then magically there was a puddle, and magically there was a lightning bolt, and magically we have millions of speicies and man.

    So this seems to be the fairy tale, and to make the fairy tale work, they invent an unseen phenomenon called the (unseen hand of natural selection)....but they would never accept the unseen hand of God...actually its not unseen, because if you have the eyes to see, you will see Gods creativeness everywhere.

    So it seems that the atheistic scientists are so enveious of God, that they say any rediculious thing.....but i am one, who will not buy it.
  12. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    12 Oct '10 23:51
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    Well i understood it to be a therory of the origons of the species, and their cause (the unseen hand of natural selection)

    But the therory starts with a planet floating in space (magically) and then magically there was a puddle, and magically there was a lightning bolt, and magically we have millions of speicies and man.

    So this seems to be the fair ...[text shortened]... e so enveious of God, that they say any rediculious thing.....but i am one, who will not buy it.
    No, the theory is about speciation - that is, how do you get many different species from one. Darwin called his book 'On the origin of species' - the key being species and not life. It was not and is not a theory about the origins of life.
    So it doesn't start with a planet (the formation of which is a well understood theory and not magical at all), nor does it start with a puddle, or a lightning bolt.
    Darwin assumed that there was life and from this life, other species could arise.
    This is the hallmark of a good scientific theory - don't overextend yourself. He didn't know how life formed and so just started his explanation from a time when life existed.
    We still don't know how life forms and so we can only guess at puddles and lightning bolts.

    There's no invention of an unseen hand. Natural selection is just a natural filtering process.
    Let's say there are two people vying for the hand of a girl in marriage - we'll call them Vish and Aman. Vish is a bit stronger or more handsome or whatever than Amanand he gets the girl. They get married, go on to have many kids, all of whom share to some extent Vish's good genes - since we know genes are inheritable. Thus is created a family of stronger, better looking people. Not a new species of course, but given a few thousand generations and who knows.
    The point is there's nothing unseen here, just a filtering process of selection for useful traits. And what is useful you ask? Whatever gets the girl.

    And envy? Why would I be envious of a fairy tale? I view the whole notion of a supernatural creator lording it over the universe as absolutely repugnant.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148567
    13 Oct '10 03:13
    Originally posted by amannion
    I never said it surprised me ...
    And yeah, climate change science is lucrative isn't it. There's just so many of those damned climate change scientist billionaires, aren't there ...
    Don't know about billonaires, but money is being made...and the power grab
    is occuring left and right, it is all about control.
    Kelly
  14. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50034
    13 Oct '10 03:19
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Don't know about billonaires, but money is being made...and the power grab
    is occuring left and right, it is all about control.
    Kelly
    I can think of a few fossil fuel and mining companies that do alright out of our continuing heavy use of carbon rich compounds.
    Can you name one example of a climate change scientist or researcher getting rich off their work?
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148567
    13 Oct '10 05:03
    Originally posted by amannion
    I can think of a few fossil fuel and mining companies that do alright out of our continuing heavy use of carbon rich compounds.
    Can you name [b]one
    example of a climate change scientist or researcher getting rich off their work?[/b]
    Al Gore, and quite a few people who are getting grants are making money.
    A lot of green companies are setup to make a lot of money too, with the help of
    governments who are setting them up, mainly because without the government's
    help no one would buy that stuff. The desire for electric cars that get 40 miles
    to a charge isn't really in high demand.
    Kelly
Back to Top