OT Sunday School time? or Science?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Chris Craig said:
Not about religion or faith...about odds
Click to expand...
Amen. Which goes back to original point, odds are there's a creator because macro evolution and immaculate primordial soupl coming to life is complete psyence tom foolery. Neither has been proven, or recreated in a lab, and require more faith.
 
Define irony. Bunch of idiots believe boiling primordial soup became life. Will be crushed into boiling primordial soup by THE Life.
 
MarAzul said:
"
By Private Boat

1404336300-51-150x150.jpg


Sailors must apply for permits to visit months in advance of travelling to Midway and the Monument around it. The very strict guidelines that must be followed in order to transit through these protected waters include that vessels must've their hull cleaned prior to entrance and owners must pay $1500 for the required monitoring devices that track vessel movements while in monument waters. These rules are in place to try to inhibit the introduction of invasive species and make sure that the fragile coral reefs aren't jeopardized by errant sailors. "


Applications for permit are accepted in person only in Honolulu. About a 1000 mile out of the way and then they decide if you have sufficient reason.
Thanks Obama! (I would like to get like @riverman here but I won't)
Click to expand...

Read about it at -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area

This was not Obama alone nor just the U.S., it was in concert with many other countries and finalized in Hobart, Australia in 2016 as defined by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. It comprises about 2% of the world's ocean.
 
MarAzul said:
Why post this in this thread?
Click to expand...

I post it in this thread because it's a response to your post in this thread. I thought you knew this elementary information.
 
MarAzul said:
Can you imagine the friggin noise this place emits? I mean even I throw a noise stream out into space that could be heard if there were and ear.
Together, we must be a very bad neighbor, maybe like some you know on a given Friday night. So why can we not detect one even quite neighbor, with all the ears we possess?

Logic suggest we are it, for this cycle. But there could be a twin, in the next.
Click to expand...

I once did a back of the envelope calculation on the probability that life could evolve someplace and came up with the conclusion that it was pretty unlikely to happen here let alone anywhere else.. Don't forget the probability of a large body striking the early Earth that gave us our moon, our spin and just the right amount of iron in our new core to ward off dangerous solar radiation. Then, there's our size and our distance from the Sun. Add to that the asteroid that struck us erasing the lock job that large meat eating dinasaurs had on life enabling the rise of mammals and a myriad other improbabilities and you get an unlikelyhood that life evolved at all.
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
The only logic conclusion when looking at the complexity of life, tha DNA coding system, the laws of thermodynamics, or any scientific law really. Is that there had to be a designer.

How can there be codes withoutba programmer? How can there be laws without a law giver?

The next logical step is to want to figure out who the designer is, but it seems today people cant even get passed the obvious step 1.
Click to expand...

The definition of Science to me is Mankind's attempt to answer the questions of existence that GOD already knows.

HE has the answers key.
 
When I put in my best guesses in the Drake Formula, I come up with a .0000001% (some ridiculously small number) chance of life.

When you look at life on Earth, it's quite clear that if life takes hold, it really takes hold. Diversity, even in extreme environments. ~10M species on earth, (2.2M in the dead oceans!).

Common sense dictates that if life has taken hold elsewhere and is common, it'd be evident because life forms grow like crazy. You'd think you'd find it just about everywhere, but we find nada in all our explorations beyond earth.

I'm quite open to the Objective Truth of life elsewhere, if it is found. But the Objective truth currently is nada.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Too much Dunning-Kruger up in this muthafuckah. I'm out. Have fun folks.
Click to expand...
Nice. "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence"



Or in laymans terms:

Men in white jackets have devised a diagnosis to cover their dismissiveness, and elevate themselves while insulting you. Now they can forcefully medicate you into a pleb because you disagree with them. So thats how oprah will win.
 
Serious question for god deniers: how many hours a week do you spend debunking the easter bunny?

Why then do you debate against a god whom you do not believe exists?

Are you perhaps trying to convert believers to your religion of darwinism? Or are you wrestling with your god given conscience?
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
Serious question for god deniers: how many hours a week do you spend debunking the easter bunny?

Why then do you debate against a god whom you do not believe exists?

Are you perhaps trying to convert believers to your religion of darwinism? Or are you wrestling with your god given conscience?
Click to expand...
Most would argue that the time they spend arguing against God is only in response to us God-promoters. Many also state that they believe organized religion has a detrimental effect on society, and that diminishing it's influence is a public service for the good of humanity.

I doubt you'll get anyone to agree that they argue against God for the reasons you suggested.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Most would argue that the time they spend arguing against God is only in response to us God-promoters. Many also state that they believe organized religion has a detrimental effect on society, and that diminishing it's influence is a public service for the good of humanity.

I doubt you'll get anyone to agree that they argue against God for the reasons you suggested.
Click to expand...

I would add that arguing for science is not necessarily arguing against God. If God is threatened by science, He should really work on his self-esteem. God, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!

barfo
 
barfo said:
I would add that arguing for science is not necessarily arguing against God. If God is threatened by science, He should really work on his self-esteem. God, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!

barfo
Click to expand...
I would agree with that, in that if one believes in God as creator of the universe, then science itself is nothing more than an attempt to better understand His creation. What frustrates most theists regarding science is the contention by some scientists/enthusiasts that science has the role/responsibility/result of disproving God, which is, of course, impossible.
 
Having been married for 42 years (this month) I can confidently assert that marriage absolutely proves that both sides of the “Does God exist?” debate have an extremely strong case for their side of the question.....
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
Serious question for god deniers: how many hours a week do you spend debunking the easter bunny?

Why then do you debate against a god whom you do not believe exists?

Are you perhaps trying to convert believers to your religion of darwinism? Or are you wrestling with your god given conscience?
Click to expand...

PtldPlatypus said:
Most would argue that the time they spend arguing against God is only in response to us God-promoters. Many also state that they believe organized religion has a detrimental effect on society, and that diminishing it's influence is a public service for the good of humanity.

I doubt you'll get anyone to agree that they argue against God for the reasons you suggested.
Click to expand...

Arguing about the value of religion with the charlatans of the same in mind, is understandable but misguided, even though the charlatans should be purged.
I am not so sure that much of the arguments against religion and there by God are in the spirit of public service for the good of humanity.

Socialist leaning governments have for years down played religion and even banned it. This is always seen as necessary to be viewed by the population as the givers of rights and give the priest of government (the representatives) of the people the positions of power sufficient to pander to the people.

The opposite of this view, was beautifully lay down by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, with the line; we are all endowed by our creator with unalienable rights... Then Madison backed this up with a Constitution designed to protect those rights as suggested by Jefferson in the DI.

As I see it, the battle is on going and continuous struggle; between those that will be free individuals, to pursue happiness as their God given right, and those that say hokum, our rights come from government. We need government, the only way we have any rights, and protection from the predictors.

I think they do argue against religion in order to weaken the faith, of free individuals with god given rights. Better yet convert people to their replacement, government with promise of more rights.

People are urged to join with catchy phrases;
It takes a village!
No child left behind!
Health Care is a Right!
Oh there are many.

Not so many reminding the free individuals though.
 
Last edited:
PtldPlatypus said:
Most would argue that the time they spend arguing against God is only in response to us God-promoters. Many also state that they believe organized religion has a detrimental effect on society, and that diminishing it's influence is a public service for the good of humanity.

I doubt you'll get anyone to agree that they argue against God for the reasons you suggested.
Click to expand...
I doubt it too. But if just 1 reader recognizes their need for a savior then any ridicule i may get is worth it.
 
MarAzul said:
Arguing about the value of religion with the charlatans of the same in mind, is understandable but misguided, even though the charlatans should be purged.
I am not so sure that much of the arguments against religion and there by God in the spirit of public service for the good of humanity.

Socialist leaning governments have for years down played religion and even banned it. This is always seen as necessary to be viewed by the population as the givers of rights and give the priest of government (the representatives) of the people the positions of power sufficient to pander to the people.

The opposite of this view, was beautifully lay down by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, with the line; we are all endowed by our creator with unalienable rights... Then Madison backed this up with a Constitution designed to protect those rights as suggested by Jefferson in the DCI.

As I see it, the battle is on going and continuous struggle; between those that will be free individuals, to pursue happiness as their God given right, and those that say hokum, our rights come from government. We need government, the only way we have any rights, and protection from the predictors.

I think they do argue against religion in order to weaken the faith in concept of free individuals with god given rights. Better yet convert people to their replacement, government with promise of more rights.

People are urged to join with catchy phrases, It takes a village! No child left behind! Health Care is a Right! Oh there are many.
Not so many reminding the free individuals though.
Click to expand...
If only i could like a post a thousand times...
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
Nice. "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence"



Or in laymans terms:

Men in white jackets have devised a diagnosis to cover their dismissiveness, and elevate themselves while insulting you. Now they can forcefully medicate you into a pleb because you disagree with them. So thats how oprah will win.
Click to expand...
It's OK. Point to the doll and show me where the bad scientist touched you.
 
MarAzul said:
People are urged to join with catchy phrases;
It takes a village!
No child left behind!
Health Care is a Right!
Oh there are many.
Click to expand...

And religion doesn't urge people to join with catchy phrases?

72 virgins is certainly pretty catchy.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Yes it is.
But your ability to follow a thought is suspect.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I do get lost on the meandering path you sail.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top