26 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's true and bizarrely sounds very moderate of you - this doesn't sound like the Robbie of old.
why not?, if its relevant then all is good and well, if not, we can just blank it and no harm done. Its a difficult thing to state with any certainty, for indeed there are instances in life when one comes upon a personality who tends to dominate conversation, worst still, it happens in so called polite and civilised society, what if the person happe ...[text shortened]... erstand the circumstances of others is surely a way to be more tolerant of their idiosyncrasies.
Maybe it's my distance and the time zones and all that - me being here in the antipodes - but I easily lose track of conversations from day to day and from week to week. I also don't trawl through threads to read every single post, so haven't seen T&L giving his background and circumstances. Perhaps I am being a little intolerant.
For that I apologise to you, and - I'm sure you're out there T & L - to him as well.
I still wish he'd work on his language use ...
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's true and bizarrely sounds very moderate of you - this doesn't sound like the Robbie of old.
why not?, if its relevant then all is good and well, if not, we can just blank it and no harm done. Its a difficult thing to state with any certainty, for indeed there are instances in life when one comes upon a personality who tends to dominate conversation, worst still, it happens in so called polite and civilised society, what if the person happe ...[text shortened]... erstand the circumstances of others is surely a way to be more tolerant of their idiosyncrasies.
Maybe it's my distance and the time zones and all that - me being here in the antipodes - but I easily lose track of conversations from day to day and from week to week. I also don't trawl through threads to read every single post, so haven't seen T&L giving his background and circumstances. Perhaps I am being a little intolerant.
For that I apologise to you, and - I'm sure you're out there T & L - to him as well.
I still wish he'd work on his language use ...
26 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry about the multiple posts - how ironic ...
why not?, if its relevant then all is good and well, if not, we can just blank it and no harm done. Its a difficult thing to state with any certainty, for indeed there are instances in life when one comes upon a personality who tends to dominate conversation, worst still, it happens in so called polite and civilised society, what if the person happe ...[text shortened]... erstand the circumstances of others is surely a way to be more tolerant of their idiosyncrasies.
My computer's on its last legs.
26 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobThanks for book reference. Might see if I can get it. It is a fascinating subject.
If you really want to know the current theories and evidence with regard to the origins of life, i suggest you read a book by Nick Lane called Life Ascending:The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution , it's just won the Royal Society Prize for Science Books.....
......Fossilised prokaryotes have been found dating back 3.5 billion years, the Cambrian ...[text shortened]... go, so for 3 billion years there was nothing but simple celled bacteria living on this planet.
The major evidence for the evolutionary process has for sometime been incontrovertibly established, despite the chaotic denials of deluded fundamentalism.
[Apart from being a stupid travesty of any scientific attitude, it is also an inane, unnecessary religious redherring that helps nobody, causing confusion and distraction, fogging much more enlightening stuff. It can waylay spiritual undertanding for so many, for years. I try to limit any engaging and positively reinforcing any sense of validity to the view. I still affirm the person but will deny vehemently the garbage they have got caught up in, only to try and elicit some helpful changes for them. To me, patient compassion towards the deluded is still important and appears the most effective component in helping them see some reason.]
The link to the book and article I posted yesterday relates quantum discoveries and its "furry" basis to the manifested universe and life, as well as seeing the dynamics also similarly reflected in Buddhist religio-philosophy. I see quantum aspects also involved strongly in the whole evolutionary process, especially the wonderful formation and working of molecules and cell life.
I was going to show link to Yale video "The Inner Life of a Cell" on YT but it's been removed because of copyright. What a shame.
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by TaomanWhat's so sad is if you, very intelligent individuals ingrained deep into your belief and conditioned influences, would just take a gander at Science and Health, and read a few chptrs., you would SEE how simply wonderful this book is and how much you can gain from it, and just how much it has tremendously helped thousands, if not millions.
Thanks for book reference. Might see if I can get it. It is a fascinating subject.
The major evidence for the evolutionary process has for sometime been incontrovertibly established, despite the chaotic denials of deluded fundamentalism.
[Apart from being a stupid travesty of any scientific attitude, it is also an inane, unnecessary religious redherr ...[text shortened]... "The Inner Life of a Cell" on YT but it's been removed because of copyright. What a shame.
That's what is so very sad.
http://www.spirituality.com/dt/toc_sh.jhtml
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobHumm... Seems like an explosion and it even says it here in the Wiki article.
Firstly, it wasn't an explosion that's a misonmer. Everything you could wish to know is here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
As far as we understand, all life on this planet has a common ancestor.
Prokaryotes are extremely durable and can live in all manner of harsh conditions, as long as there is water, they can survive.
And " as far as we understand" What does that mean exactly? I thought it was all a fact not theory? Is there some info missing?
And what came before the "Prokaryotes"? Was this the first life or was there something before it?
27 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceTaco, I have explored "Science and Health" in the past. There is some good stuff in it, and I have plenty of room in my mind for healing outside the rigid medical paradigm. But I found a fundamentalist attitude in it too, which is reflected in your own tendency to see everything so black and white and from only one viewpoint. I am pleased you have got a lot from the book. But its not the only one.
What's so sad is if you, very intelligent individuals ingrained deep into your belief and conditioned influences, would just take a gander at Science and Health, and read a few chptrs., you would SEE how simply wonderful this book is and how much you can gain from it, and just how much it has tremendously helped thousands, if not millions.
That's what is so very sad.
http://www.spirituality.com/dt/toc_sh.jhtml
In affirming good elsewhere it does not mean that you are thereby putting down insights found in a different place. By keeping stuck on one door, a person can't explore all the good elsewhere. One cannot restrict the power of the Transcendent Reality, ("God" in your terms) to such narrow paths. That Transcendent Reality can come to us at anytime and through any book or event.
I am really glad that has happened for you and others through "Science and Health". But please ditch the only "this and no other" attitude. Its holding you back.
A book that affected me greatly was "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. It opened with a bang, many other doors, that appear wonderfully unending. What a magic life is!
Explore Taco, explore!
[Edit typographical]
27 Oct 10
What God has in store for EVERYONE to experience, being all is a part of THE WHOLE, like the ray is to the sun, is completely unfathomable in AWESOMENESS!
However,
for this to come to it's proper fruition, is a rather difficult process, and much involved to bring..
Tribulation > { "EXTREMEdifficultygettingbacktoSIMPLICITY" }
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by TaomanTaoman, I recently listened to a talk given by Stephen Batchelor - self proclaimed Buddhist atheist - which may be of interest to you, and others.
Taco, I have explored "Science and Health" in the past. There is some good stuff in it, and I have plenty of room in my mind for healing outside the rigid medical paradigm. But I found a fundamentalist attitude in it too, which is reflected in your own tendency to see everything so black and white and from only one viewpoint. I am pleased you have got a lot f ...[text shortened]... ly unending. What a magic life is!
Explore Taco, explore!
[Edit typographical]
It was on ABC Radio National's Encounter program - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3042119.htm
27 Oct 10
3 edits
Originally posted by amannionThanks very much for that, amannion. I almost felt like shouting "THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!". I trust you understand that reference, if AFL Premierships get through to you. But as it proceeded I realised Stephen Batchelor is expressing my own conundrums of how to "belong" to Buddhism with all its "attachments", and it was exceedingly helpful to me, even giving me pause for reflection about a position within that tradition to stand more comfortably. He makes a good point about the helpfulness of having a place to stand or operate from but without loading oneself up with the historical/cultural baggage. I do identify a lot with the the Tibetan-sourced Radical Dzogchen of Longchempa. Aligns fairly easily with what Stephen Batchelor is saying.
Taoman, I recently listened to a talk given by Stephen Batchelor - self proclaimed Buddhist atheist - which may be of interest to you, and others.
It was on ABC Radio National's Encounter program - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3042119.htm
"Gnosis is not any particular thing
Just as the objective field is absent in reality,
so the "knower" - in actuality pure mind,
in essence an absence, is like the sky:
know it in its ineffable reality!"
[p.53 "Old Man Basking in the Sun" transl. by Kieth Dowman]
I will relisten to that a few times. He expresses it all so well. Must check out "Encounter" program more often.
Thanks again.
[Edits typographical]
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by galveston75We've been over this, over and over again. The scientific word "Theory" deson't mean a guessing. A theory is an explanation of something. We can even call something "The Creation Theory", opposed to "The Evolution Theory", two theories explaining the biological diversity, one better describing than the other (let's not go into which one is which).
Humm... Seems like an explosion and it even says it here in the Wiki article.
And " as far as we understand" What does that mean exactly? I thought it was all a fact not theory? Is there some info missing?
So don't use the scientific word 'Theory' as an opposite of 'Fact'. Not if you want to described yourself as serious debater.
27 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't believe I ever said it was the "opposite" of fact. I know exactly what the word theory means and it by no streach of the imagination means fact.
We've been over this, over and over again. The scientific word "Theory" deson't mean a guessing. A theory is an explanation of something. We can even call something "The Creation Theory", opposed to "The Evolution Theory", two theories explaining the biological diversity, one better describing than the other (let's not go into which one is which).
So d s an opposite of 'Fact'. Not if you want to described yourself as serious debater.
From Wikipedia:
While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation" of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify"😉 it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.
From dictionary.com:
the·o·ry/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.
From Marriam Webster:
the·o·ry noun
plural the·o·ries
Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
I fail to see where any explination of the word "theory" is described as fact.
Evolution is a theory ( unproved fact ) always has been and always will be.
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by galveston75You wrote "I thought it was all a fact not theory?" and I assume that you thought a fact cannot be a theory, and a theory cannot hold facts. If I was wrong in this I have to apologize.
I don't believe I ever said it was the "opposite" of fact. I know exactly what the word theory means and it by no streach of the imagination means fact.
From Wikipedia:
While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory is generally un ...[text shortened]... act.
Evolution is a theory ( unproved fact ) always has been and always will be.
In you answer you wrote "Evolution is a theory ( unproved fact ) always has been and always will be." and by 'unproven' you are wrong. It's very solid.
Creationists tends to demand strong scientific proofs about evolution, but deliver very loose scientific proofs about creation. Why is it so? Why not demand the same level of proof of the two theories?
The only proof of that someone created it all is the bible. And the bible isn't a roof at all. The same bible says that the Earth looks like a hoola hoop, and that's not much of science, is it?
If you want to criticize evolution, then you have to learn something about it. If you don't, then your critics falls like dust on the floor.
27 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Humm... Seems like an explosion and it even says it here in the Wiki article.
Humm... Seems like an explosion and it even says it here in the Wiki article.
And " as far as we understand" What does that mean exactly? I thought it was all a fact not theory? Is there some info missing?
And what came before the "Prokaryotes"? Was this the first life or was there something before it?
Well you obviously didn't read far enough, further down the page is this -
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ('diversification'😉 may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.
And "as far as we understand" What does that mean exactly?
It means, as far as we understand!! Come on Galvo i thought you'd studied evolution all your life? You'd should be explaining to me what these scientific concepts mean.
Was this the first life or was there something before it?
Go and read the book, and then another book and then another on book that. Learn from people who know and can explain these concepts better than me.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Ascending-Great-Inventions-Evolution/dp/0393338665/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288171882&sr=1-1
$10.10 new or $7.51 used. Knowledge is cheap these days, there is no excuse.