OoooOOOooo a thread on ganggreen. That'll be the harbinger to get me to think deeply about my religion!
Interesting how this post preceded the below. I agree with pretty much your entire post, but wanted to highlight this part. From the tone of your post, you seem to be under the assumption that the reason for this thread is science versus religion, and, more specifically, evolution versus creation. Did it occur to you that the OP may believe in that higher power, just not it's true nature as depicted by the doctrine that it's followers preach? Disparaging science and the search for evolution is an interesting way to display your ignorance. If you take a broad look at gOD's methodology throughout the bible, it most closely resembles the methodology that scientists will take when trying to cultivate and manipulate bacterial life. A scientist takes a sampling of bacteria and introduces it into a new environment using different variables meant to change the way it behaves. He uses multiple samplings of the same bacteria in separate control groups to get the best possible chance at achieving the desirable behavior. Multiple bacteria samplings behave in an undesired fashion. To maintain the integrity of his efforts, he removes the bacteria behaving undesirably and sticks them into an incinerator. He keeps the bacteria that behave most closely to the desirable effect and attempts to improve them into his target result. Noah's Ark. And maybe the small, underground-dwelling mammals that survived the extinction event that wiped dinosaurs from the planet. And maybe even the last ice age. Your assumption is that all evolution is mainly a naturally-occurring process. I think in most cases it is, but the evolutionary process that evolved mankind as we know it likely got a springboard toward where we are now in order to have happened so quickly, in the grand scheme of things.
That can only work if you are checking the forum on Tapatalk in a bathroom stall while simultaneously taking a shit and masturbating. Like evolution, a mulitude of environment conditions must be met.
The most correct thing you've ever said. See. We can agree.(if your answer to the other question is Roth) And how smoking hot is Amy locane in that movie....
Colored boy? You motherF.... This thread, while I'll not weigh in on the merits of the discussion, has yielded two priceless movie quotes already.
So, if you masturbate while taking a shit, considering that's the out...aren't you half a queer....all you need is the 50 percent in part....
Of course science should be trying to create a single cell organism from matter .Stop with the excuses please. Common sense should prevail not only to prove evolution but possibly other intelligent life may eventually appear and science can observe it.But they don’t even bother. Then you still have nothing to show for evolution but in bacterial species? How about in humans ,dog, cats, cows, birds plant life a picture that shows the future species. Where is the next step for any of them? Darwin said himself you should see evolution. I'm off topic also have to drop this
I don't think disparaging science is bad when they are wrong and I do feel its not even science when they don't even bother to prove a theory they have. Thats pretty bad. I did not think my post was bad just direct but I apologize for taken thread off topic.
That WOULD be pretty bad if that were true. Which I guess is sort of the point. It seems like you don't really get what information is out there or what constitutes "proof," or what the function of a scientific theory is.
We are all moments away from our death, our stream of conscious gone. I rarely think about it. Denial is God.
You should add IMO to those very broad and restrictive statements in your first sentence. They are wrong - in your opinion. They don't bother to prove a theory in your opinion, etc. You look silly discrediting the great work of human science over the years just to make a point. I believe that people can believe in A god and still support a scientific (evolutionary) theory at the same time, without having to stretch to discredit either theory. I believe in a higher power but I support the work of science because IMO there are 2 ways to answer the question of why we are here. It can be compared to boiling water. "Why is that water boiling?" Answer #1) Heat makes the already moving molecules in water move a greater rate causing it to bubble (scientific) and #2) Because someone wanted a cup of tea. (higher power) As for organized religion, IMO, they are all very close to the same, the difference is that the answers to these human questions are rooted in each other's culture/tradition. I have my own tradition but I don't necessarily believe it's right or wrong, I just try to find personal satisfaction in the way my forefathers found it. I also don't believe we should take the stories and "truths" of our religious traditions too literally - in my opinion they don't need to be dissected as facts (because often times they aren't) but the meanings are the bigger picture.
We can say IMO in 98% of the post here. Some portions (evolution) of science have become politicalized more than ever in history and that’s what I am attacking.(Prescription drugs is another downfall.) I believed that evolution existed for the past twenty years until recently I examined the issue again and all you find is political posturing. A bunch of scientist desperate to argue that there is no intelligence thought taken at all because that might infer a God. Its just preposterous that we cannot see evolution with our eyes or that no intelligence was involved. They are also incapable of saying we really don’t have an explanation for life. If evolution was still in the (IMO )stage and not factual I would not bash. They are so far from a factual stage and frankly uncovered more evidence of its failure once we further examined life that they earned rebuke. Just like religious zealots that pretend they know it all. ]
You have built quite the straw man here, and this is a pretty warped view of how science works. The topic may have been politicized, but that really has zero bearing on the science behind it. You have to ignore mountains of evidence to just say, "evolution does not exist." As I said before, evolution itself IS fact. And it HAS been observed. It does not require "belief." It'd be one thing if you were disputing the actual work that has been done... but your posts make it sound more like you are not aware of the work at all. Not many scientists are out there saying, "There is no intelligence behind this at all." It's more like an afterthought... irrelevant. The boiling water example above is a pretty good example of that. Of course, Occam's Razor applies, as well. If something can be explained just as well without supernatural causes, then it's superfluous information. Why did I get a flat tire today? "Because the stress of the pressure on the tire overcame the strength of the tire itself" is a reasonable explanation. Now, perhaps a supreme being decided to have the stress on the tire overcome the strength... but it's extraneous information for the question being asked. ETA: Did you receive a flu shot this year? Or the year before? Or are you at least aware that people need to receive one every year in order for it to be effective? Do you know why that is? I'll give you a hint... it start with an "e" and ends with "volution."
