I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Prime Factor
-
I’ll only hate a man (or woman) who wrongs me
I’ll only hate an human if he work agaisnt my science, or against my species…
I am tolerant for all those who believe, but only when they don’t start claiming god is the answer, he will send infidel to hell and that there’s physical/rational evidence of his existence. There’s a lot of religious people that can enter this definition, by saying god is an affair of personnal feeling.
so given this, approximately what percent of the world do you hate F? America - roughly 92%, Canada around 82%, Europe in the ~50% range? Something like that?
I’m sorry you are so intolerant of me and my opinion. I am, believe it or not, tolerant of you. I think you need to find love - like the love that Jesus gives. That may take care of some of your anger and hate. Either that, or marijuana. Most of those guys seem pretty happy. -
“like the love that Jesus gives. That may take care of some of your anger and hate. Either that, or marijuana. Most of those guys seem pretty happy.”
:lol: Hahahaha good one! But I question whether Jesus used “stimulants,” he was such a hippie! (Sandals, the hair, the beard, love and peace toward everybody, the white clothes, ect)
-
so given this, approximately what percent of the world do you hate F? America - roughly 92%, Canada around 82%, Europe in the ~50% range? Something like that?
I’m sorry you are so intolerant of me and my opinion. I am, believe it or not, tolerant of you. I think you need to find love - like the love that Jesus gives. That may take care of some of your anger and hate. Either that, or marijuana. Most of those guys seem pretty happy.Either that or marijuana ? the two are the same anyway. And i know i am not the epitome of tolerance but when i say i am intolerent vis-à-vis religion, and i repeat it; it is only for those who are claming religion is scientific, can be logic, et cetera… i don’t care about the majority of the religious people because for most of them this is just a personnal thing, they are not working against science. But the masses is somewhat easy to intimidate, if all scientist were evolutionist, then slowly people would understand, but because of some fanatic that use simplist theory easy to understand, people believe in a very large part creationism is a true thing. Those demagogue are working against science.
We all here have a sense of ethic base on what we want to see in the world around us, if you say love is the ultimate goal of humanity then your ethic will turn around that; same thing for me. I believe religion is entraving evolution…
-
We all here have a sense of ethic base on what we want to see in the world around us, if you say love is the ultimate goal of humanity then your ethic will turn around that; same thing for me. I believe religion is entraving evolution…
well, call me a projectionist, but you seem to think evolution and science IS religion.
Evolution is a nifty theory, and there is much physical evidence that may be used to support it, but it is yet unproven. Science - one pillar in my life, also very handy, and generates more curiousity even as i learn it. Still, it is just a tool that we use to explain the physical world around us. It is not the END of the journey, just a way to make the road a little more interesting. Maybe save some lives in the process. But it does nothing for people in providing answers - to life, to that which is unmeasurable, to soothe the questions that we have as we fall asleep at night. It does not remove the fear of death (or public speaking). When you walk in a dark room, you turn on the light. That does not allow you to see beyond the nearest wall. Science is like that. It illuminates places that it may illuminate, but there is a wall that science will not allow us to see beyond. As a scientist, i can accept that. -
@cystic:
We all here have a sense of ethic base on what we want to see in the world around us, if you say love is the ultimate goal of humanity then your ethic will turn around that; same thing for me. I believe religion is entraving evolution…
well, call me a projectionist, but you seem to think evolution and science IS religion.
Evolution is a nifty theory, and there is much physical evidence that may be used to support it, but it is yet unproven. Science - one pillar in my life, also very handy, and generates more curiousity even as i learn it. Still, it is just a tool that we use to explain the physical world around us. It is not the END of the journey, just a way to make the road a little more interesting. Maybe save some lives in the process. But it does nothing for people in providing answers - to life, to that which is unmeasurable, to soothe the questions that we have as we fall asleep at night. It does not remove the fear of death (or public speaking). When you walk in a dark room, you turn on the light. That does not allow you to see beyond the nearest wall. Science is like that. It illuminates places that it may illuminate, but there is a wall that science will not allow us to see beyond. As a scientist, i can accept that.I don’t pray for science, i don’t think it is the source of all answer. It is not a religion for me, it is just a part of life as much as the people around me. Is science a good thing ? I don’t even know… i just want to know, i am curious. The problem is the more i learn, the less i know… I accept the limit of knowledge; and it is very limited. But science itself has no limit, WE have limit, our brain is too weak, we simply cannot be objective, behind our jugement there is always a biological, individual, sociological creature.
About evolution we don’t know HOW it occur; but it really seem to occur. All the argument against Evolutionism are pretty weak… Mostly Young Earth Creationist’s argument… The difficulty with evolutionism is that we are not living very old; and most people only believe what they can see (like it was really clear the earth was not flat, but people believe so even more than 1 000 after it was proven the earth was a sphere (quasi-sphere))
Anyway, Christianism do not answer anything, it do not make us understand why we are here, it do not give us a goal… If christianism cannot be proove with rationality, why not believe in another mythology ? That is just an expression of fantasm… sure i would like to believe in heaven, in eternal love, i would love to; but i would not be honest to myself & to my science.
-
“All the argument against Evolutionism are pretty weak…”
Here’s a question, what do you define evolution to be?
-
Well, again there is not a millions definition… Species change, they evolve, they are not static, they biologicly change over time to perfect themself.
-
Anyway, Christianism do not answer anything, it do not make us understand why we are here, it do not give us a goal… If christianism cannot be proove with rationality, why not believe in another mythology ? That is just an expression of fantasm… sure i would like to believe in heaven, in eternal love, i would love to; but i would not be honest to myself & to my science.
you know i have to take issue with this one. Christianity answers the questions that we honestly seek that science will never answer. Now it may never answer any of your questions, but for millions of Christians, it answers their most important questions. Questions that the Greeks, Romans, Indians, Japanese, Norse, etc. will never answer, never can answer. Certainly the bible is one source of these, but unless you’ve never know Jesus, then you will never know the only answers that REALLY matter. Science points to the here and over there - the measurable, which is nice for some of us. Religion points to the Who, how and why, as well as “what then?”. Science - that entity that you need to be honest to, will not feel jilted if you acknowledge a possibility that there is something else besides her. She is a great gal that way.
-
“Well, again there is not a millions definition… Species change, they evolve, they are not static, they biologicly change over time to perfect themself.”
See, the problem with evolution is that it’s its own worse enemy, not religion. Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor? Your own definition was pretty weak being a Evolutionist. Even most religious persons believe animals change over time, so that isn’t the problem. What about species changing from one to another? Also, we’re not sure that animals perfect themselves over time. Maybe over their particular environment.
-
you know i have to take issue with this one. Christianity answers the questions that we honestly seek that science will never answer. Now it may never answer any of your questions, but for millions of Christians, it answers their most important questions. Questions that the Greeks, Romans, Indians, Japanese, Norse, etc. will never answer, never can answer.
Woooooo…. That is very arrogant, very dogmatic. Like your religion was the good one, the other religion cannot answer thing your religion can…
That is not historicly valid. Polytheist was very strong, it answer all the things christianism was answering, it was only less superficial, there was a lot of gods, and people were praying for the gods they think was appopriate for them.
it was just not as beautiful as christianism, not as rigid, and they do not menace people. Also polytheist do not make such promise as eternal love, eternal happiness and thing like that. You clearly lack objectivity… Like i ask, if this is just a question of faith, without any logic, then why X religion is better than Y ?
Certainly the bible is one source of these, but unless you’ve never know Jesus, then you will never know the only answers that REALLY matter. Science points to the here and over there - the measurable, which is nice for some of us. Religion points to the Who, how and why, as well as “what then?”.
Religion point to nothing science or philosophy cannot, it only make it very simple so anyone can understand.
Why do we exist ? Religion do not answer to that better than Philosophy. The only difference is that philosophy at least is base on something…
Science - that entity that you need to be honest to, will not feel jilted if you acknowledge a possibility that there is something else besides her. She is a great gal that way.
Science is a tool of the human mind. You admit god was not logical, so closing my eyes will eventually make me “honest” ? I will not admit something that is illogical like the believe in god. Christianism is pure arrogance, pure lack of vision, like the world needed to be created by something alive, something intelligent, that is a pure projection of ourself, god act like us, he IS us.
Not a little fanatic to believe in somethign without an argument ?
-
See, the problem with evolution is that it’s its own worse enemy, not religion. Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.
You are right on some point; Evolution is it’s worse enemy IN FACE OF THE PUBLIC. But in reality the different opinion on the mechanism of evolutionism is part of a normal process in science; theory appear, disappear, they chance, they evolve, that is all normal in science. Also evolution is a pretty young theory… give it time.
The problem is that creationism does not have so much divergence. Sure there is young earth creationism (the worse of all), the old earth creationism… but they do not chance, they have a theory base on their little bible and they do not chance (if they do; very slightly). They only try to “attack” evolutionism. They also try to convince the common, that will be too happy to believe in a theory they can easily understand (people have an hard time understanding everything is not necessarly breed by something intelligent)
Evolutionism is a very complex thing, far beyond my skill and even far beyond the understanding of the current scientist… it will take time to understand it.
-
Creationism is a weak theory (at least from what I read of it), but intelligent design is pretty convincing if you compare it with evolutionary theory.
-
@TG:
Creationism is a weak theory (at least from what I read of it), but intelligent design is pretty convincing if you compare it with evolutionary theory.
…. because our mind is limited and we cannot understand that a design DO NOT need an intelligent designer, that is a good exemple of projection. Also evolutionay theory are often reduce by Theist so they can be easily attacked.
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/god_design_argument_avijit.htm
I don’t really use the same kind of argumentation as the guy above but i don’t see any fallacious argument in it either.
-
Hmmm… I have to say that that article you posted was quite a good read. :o It’ll help my supporting argument against that whole “watchmakers” story that my history teacher often tries to “brainwash” my class with. 8) I have studied about the Wave Function Theory about two years ago and it does hold some weight to those who believe in that our “waves” spread out across parallel universes (our what we call the 10th Wave Dimension), though of course cannot be proven and the chances of this happening (ie being a part of another universe) are quite small. Our technology has not progress far enough to reach these parallel universes (say through connecting wormholes), so this theory will remain of course a theory for some time. And as you would say it, it has yet to be verified mathematically (although a lot can happen in 2 years, so I might be wrong) that indeed this small wave existence (as compared to the uniqueness of this universe) can be found in other universes. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the “beginning of our universe doesn’t have a cause.”
-
Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause, but a lot of reason to believe there was no intelligence behind it…
-
The “goal” of evolution is survival. Hopefully the mutations that occur in species are beneficial to the ever changing environmental conditions. If not they go extinct. The current evolutionary theory is still flawed. Certain mutations occur at quicker rates than others. Adaptive radiations are sporadic. Science often commits the crime of refusing to alter current theories. What they believe now is set in stone. As long as new discoveries do not contradict long held theories, they’re OK with them. Egyptology is a good suspect. Don’t rock the boat and your good to go.
I don’t believe Creationists voicing their opinion’s and/or beliefs is a reason to “hate” them. As long as, of course, their using words and not weapons. If you feel that threatened by someone’s “dogma”, I’d say your not too secure on your own beliefs. Freedom of Speech also means you have to listen to the guy you don’t want to…
-
@Field:
The “goal” of evolution is survival.
That is what i think, but it does not seem to be a goal enough noble…
Science often commits the crime of refusing to alter current theories. What they believe now is set in stone.
Again, that is perfectly true….
I don’t believe Creationists voicing their opinion’s and/or beliefs is a reason to “hate” them.
That is even not a scientitic theory, read about their “theory”, they are just trying to proove evolutionism is wrong. Their theory just come out from religious belief, there is nothing to support them; exept people in general. And somewhat that is frustrating, if evolutionist were not trying to convince the masses, nobody would care about them. But no, they want creationism to be in school, there is a museum of creationism and bla bla bla…
Again, i don’t say evolutionist explain everything… they simply don’t. But at least their theory evolve :). Evolution is very comple.
As long as, of course, their using words and not weapons. If you feel that threatened by someone’s “dogma”, I’d say your not too secure on your own beliefs. Freedom of Speech also means you have to listen to the guy you don’t want to…
I did’t say i will go out and start a revolution against them; still what they are doing is still something… not very ethic. I don’t see a lot of difference between those modern creationist, and the ancient geocentrist.
You will not find a lot of creationist in Japan, just because they are not christian.
-
“they are just trying to proove evolutionism is wrong”
Science is based on finding “facts.” That is why it is essential to have creationist scientists (among other scientists) that have the guts to challenge Evolutionary Theory. In science, no stone must be left unturned. If Evolutionary Theory can stand up under the weight of such attacks (dogmatic or not), even by the most ardent Creationists, then there’s a probability that it’s more than just a theory. Evolution isn’t the only theory or law tested and retested by scientists. For a long time, it was widely thought that the Law of Conservation of Mass was bulletproof. However, with the advent of Nuclear chemistry and Einstein’s E = MC Hammer [j/k], this was not always proven true. That is why we need such scientists to test Evolutionary theories and determine whether they are true or not, and I respect that (though maybe not their Creationist Theory).
“Evolution is very comple.”
When I was taught evolution, it was held that it occured over a long period of time (millions of years). Yet as Rommel (sorry Field Marshal, is too long for me) said, “certain mutations occur at quicker rates than others. Adaptive radiations are sporadic.” It is true that change does occur in a previously short amount of time, where no change (or showings of change) had occured before. What would be the answer to this?
“The “goal” of evolution is survival.”
If this is true among species, how come in the human population, the population hovers around 50% male and 50% female (at median age – at older ages there is a much higher % of females due to lifespan). Shouldn’t there be more females than males?
“Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause,”
Lets assume that the universe had a cause, though we are unsure whether it is intelligent or not. Now assuming we use the “Big Bang” (the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe), which states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
-
@TG:
"“The “goal” of evolution is survival.”
If this is true among species, how come in the human population, the population hovers around 50% male and 50% female (at median age – at older ages there is a much higher % of females due to lifespan). Shouldn’t there be more females than males?
At birth, the ratio is higher for females, about 1.06 on 1. And it seems that for the survival of the race, this 50/50 ratio proved quite successful. Assume the following: stone age, more females. Each female gives birth about once a year, she probably will not be able to support the community for half a year late pregancy and first time with the child). So, the the average male has to feed more mouthes (mothers who can’t work, more kids up to the age of say 6-10ish, after which they can “work”).
Maybe this 50/50 proved to be the ratio for having a the tribe grow and prosper, maybe more females => more kids => less workers, but more work needed => more famines, less surviving tribemembers ( probably kids). Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?“Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause,”
Lets assume that the universe had a cause, though we are unsure whether it is intelligent or not. Now assuming we use the “Big Bang” (the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe), which states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
You do not understand the basic concepts of the big bang.
“the cloud of subatomic particles” filled the whole universe! It was highly ordered. The “explosion” was the expansion of space and time, not of particles into that. The universe at the start of the big bang was tiny, so to say. Expanding the space led to disorder.
It is your misconception of the big bang, which makes you need an “orderer”. And having “useful” structures is not necessarily a sign of “order”. The most order happens at Temperature absolute zero. That is highly ordered, but not at all useful, it’s even lethal for any living being.
And wether ppl are useful is a totally different thing :) -
“Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?”
Plenty of animal species produce lots of offspring to insure that at least some survive. Also, half a year is a long time for a female not to be working. Even pregant females today still have to work. Also the tribe and nurseries have to be taken accounted for (one surrogate mother taking care of several kids, which many tribes and animal species practiced). More work is needed though the advantages offset this (less work in the future). Even then the deathrates among births were quite high (as compared today). There are no assurances that once a women becomes pregnant, it will lead to a successful birth.
Here’s another question on order and disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. However, evolutionists say that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
Suggested Topics
