Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:
(April 15, 2016 at 10:58 am)Little Rik Wrote: Pinky.
If somebody say ......i don't really know how evolution works ....then i regard that person in high regard
Why, because it leaves you a gap to fill in with your yoga gods?
Quote:because he-she show a good level of honesty but if someone argue with religious people about NO creation
and YES evolution and then when asked what evolution is all about i find that they can not explain how evolution start how it works and where it lead to then i regard these people as bullshit artists and total idiots.
This again?
The "start" of evolution is called abiogenesis, and it is a separate phenomenon from evolution. Evolution only explains how life changes over time from generation to generation. It does not explain how life started because it isn't supposed to. That would be the job of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, we don't know nothing about abiogenesis, we just don't have a complete diagram of it yet. We do, however, know a few things about some of the materials and processes that must have been involved, and it turns out that magic hasn't shown itself to be a necessary component. Life is based on biochemistry, which is based on organic chemistry, which is based on regular chemistry. All of the processes and elements behind life are naturally occurring, as far as we can tell. There's no evidence that conscious intervention is needed to get any of it going.
So evolution isn't useful against creationism because it shows how life started; it's useful against creationism because it shows us problems with other parts of most people's creation myths (men being made of dirt and god-breath, all of earth's people and animals dying in a flood a few thousand years ago, snakes not having legs at the supposed time of the Garden of Eden story...the list goes on).
To put it simply, evolution is a fact. There is no legitimate debate between evolutionists and creationists about whether evolution is a real thing. Creationists are desperate to disprove evolution because they think that doing so will add legitimacy to their claims, but in reality even if evolution were overturned tomorrow it still wouldn't get us any closer to establishing that the Universe was created by a god.
Besides, why do you care about the creation vs. evolution argument? I thought you believed in yoga magic. What does that have to do with the creation of the Universe?
Pinky.
Why do I care about the creation vs. evolution argument?
Simple.
Because both those who only believe in creation and those who only believe in evolution are dead wrong.
Evolution follow creation so both are real.
Secondly because most atheists rely heavily on evolution to say that the universe and life in it can well do without God but evolution follow creation so God is needed to start the lot.
Abiogenesis is all about theories.
Tons of it as you can see in here.
So many people guess and guess but none of them ever thought that from nothing you get nothing so
consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution therefore there got to be someone who originate this consciousness and create the universe.
April 16, 2016 at 1:19 pm (This post was last modified: April 16, 2016 at 1:20 pm by drfuzzy.
Edit Reason: wall of text
)
(April 16, 2016 at 9:24 am)Little Rik Wrote:
(April 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:
Why, because it leaves you a gap to fill in with your yoga gods?
This again?
The "start" of evolution is called abiogenesis, and it is a separate phenomenon from evolution. Evolution only explains how life changes over time from generation to generation. It does not explain how life started because it isn't supposed to. That would be the job of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, we don't know nothing about abiogenesis, we just don't have a complete diagram of it yet. We do, however, know a few things about some of the materials and processes that must have been involved, and it turns out that magic hasn't shown itself to be a necessary component. Life is based on biochemistry, which is based on organic chemistry, which is based on regular chemistry. All of the processes and elements behind life are naturally occurring, as far as we can tell. There's no evidence that conscious intervention is needed to get any of it going.
So evolution isn't useful against creationism because it shows how life started; it's useful against creationism because it shows us problems with other parts of most people's creation myths (men being made of dirt and god-breath, all of earth's people and animals dying in a flood a few thousand years ago, snakes not having legs at the supposed time of the Garden of Eden story...the list goes on).
To put it simply, evolution is a fact. There is no legitimate debate between evolutionists and creationists about whether evolution is a real thing. Creationists are desperate to disprove evolution because they think that doing so will add legitimacy to their claims, but in reality even if evolution were overturned tomorrow it still wouldn't get us any closer to establishing that the Universe was created by a god.
Besides, why do you care about the creation vs. evolution argument? I thought you believed in yoga magic. What does that have to do with the creation of the Universe?
Pinky.
Why do I care about the creation vs. evolution argument?
Simple.
Because both those who only believe in creation and those who only believe in evolution are dead wrong.
Evolution follow creation so both are real.
Secondly because most atheists rely heavily on evolution to say that the universe and life in it can well do without God but evolution follow creation so God is needed to start the lot.
Abiogenesis is all about theories.
Tons of it as you can see in here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
So many people guess and guess but none of them ever thought that from nothing you get nothing so
consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution therefore there got to be someone who originate this consciousness and create the universe.
So, Sickky Rikky, you have no concept of what "theory" means, huh? No surprise there.
And when you finally post a link to what you think are facts, it's a WIKIPEDIA article. You do know that wikipedia articles are banned from being cited in the majority of high schools and colleges on this planet, right? That's because they are crowd-sourced and frequently contain errors and incomplete information. (At least, that's how we explain it to 14-year-olds.)
If you post credible, peer-reviewed sources, you might actually get some folks here to discuss some of your ideas. You keep referring to some teachers' "research" - well, then, provide that research, or it doesn't exist. ALL we ever get from you is unsupported claims. The same idiotic unprovable babble over and over. And you call US stupid. PROVE some of your crap or shut the fuck up.
Blue quote: (if I can manage to translate this from your mangled attempt at the English language) this first-cause argument from ignorance has been posted ad nauseam hundreds of times on this forum, always without a shred of reliable scientific evidence, and consistently refuted. We prefer a simple "we don't know, not enough data" to "well there has to be a creator, therefore, gawd!".
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
Why do I care about the creation vs. evolution argument?
Simple.
Because both those who only believe in creation and those who only believe in evolution are dead wrong.
Evolution follow creation so both are real.
Secondly because most atheists rely heavily on evolution to say that the universe and life in it can well do without God but evolution follow creation so God is needed to start the lot.
Abiogenesis is all about theories.
Tons of it as you can see in here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
So many people guess and guess but none of them ever thought that from nothing you get nothing so
consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution therefore there got to be someone who originate this consciousness and create the universe.
So, Sickky Rikky, you have no concept of what "theory" means, huh? No surprise there.
And when you finally post a link to what you think are facts, it's a WIKIPEDIA article. You do know that wikipedia articles are banned from being cited in the majority of high schools and colleges on this planet, right? That's because they are crowd-sourced and frequently contain errors and incomplete information. (At least, that's how we explain it to 14-year-olds.)
If you post credible, peer-reviewed sources, you might actually get some folks here to discuss some of your ideas. You keep referring to some teachers' "research" - well, then, provide that research, or it doesn't exist. ALL we ever get from you is unsupported claims. The same idiotic unprovable babble over and over. And you call US stupid. PROVE some of your crap or shut the fuck up.
Blue quote: (if I can manage to translate this from your mangled attempt at the English language) this first-cause argument from ignorance has been posted ad nauseam hundreds of times on this forum, always without a shred of reliable scientific evidence, and consistently refuted. We prefer a simple "we don't know, not enough data" to "well there has to be a creator, therefore, gawd!".
Fuzzy.
Eaten those fuzzy mushrooms again, did you?
But let us start from Wiki.
1) You assume that I take for granted what wiki say.
Did I?
No I didn't Fuzzy.
I only show Pinky how many theories there are around.
That's all.
I never said that what wiki say is pure gold so please get lost with your accusations.
2) If you stop eating those fuzzy mushrooms and read properly what I write you will have noticed that I do not write ......consciousness IS a factor in evolution but I rather write ...............consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution .......
Can you see the difference among the two?
In the first case I would say something that has got to be true while in the second case I presume and I believe that that is true.
I just hope you have nothing to do with the justice system.
In this case you would send to jail innocent people all the time.
(April 16, 2016 at 1:19 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: So, Sickky Rikky, you have no concept of what "theory" means, huh? No surprise there.
And when you finally post a link to what you think are facts, it's a WIKIPEDIA article. You do know that wikipedia articles are banned from being cited in the majority of high schools and colleges on this planet, right? That's because they are crowd-sourced and frequently contain errors and incomplete information. (At least, that's how we explain it to 14-year-olds.)
If you post credible, peer-reviewed sources, you might actually get some folks here to discuss some of your ideas. You keep referring to some teachers' "research" - well, then, provide that research, or it doesn't exist. ALL we ever get from you is unsupported claims. The same idiotic unprovable babble over and over. And you call US stupid. PROVE some of your crap or shut the fuck up.
Blue quote: (if I can manage to translate this from your mangled attempt at the English language) this first-cause argument from ignorance has been posted ad nauseam hundreds of times on this forum, always without a shred of reliable scientific evidence, and consistently refuted. We prefer a simple "we don't know, not enough data" to "well there has to be a creator, therefore, gawd!".
Fuzzy.
Eaten those fuzzy mushrooms again, did you?
But let us start from Wiki.
1) You assume that I take for granted what wiki say.
Did I?
No I didn't Fuzzy.
I only show Pinky how many theories there are around.
That's all.
I never said that what wiki say is pure gold so please get lost with your accusations.
2) If you stop eating those fuzzy mushrooms and read properly what I write you will have noticed that I do not write ......consciousness IS a factor in evolution but I rather write ...............consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution .......
Can you see the difference among the two?
In the first case I would say something that has got to be true while in the second case I presume and I believe that that is true.
I just hope you have nothing to do with the justice system.
In this case you would send to jail innocent people all the time.
Have a good day anyway.
It's hopeless. Still not a single research study. No links, no citations, just a bunch of mental masturbation. You're going back on ignore, Sicky Rikky. My stupid woo meter has pegged again.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(April 17, 2016 at 8:32 am)Little Rik Wrote: Fuzzy.
Eaten those fuzzy mushrooms again, did you?
But let us start from Wiki.
1) You assume that I take for granted what wiki say.
Did I?
No I didn't Fuzzy.
I only show Pinky how many theories there are around.
That's all.
I never said that what wiki say is pure gold so please get lost with your accusations.
2) If you stop eating those fuzzy mushrooms and read properly what I write you will have noticed that I do not write ......consciousness IS a factor in evolution but I rather write ...............consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution .......
Can you see the difference among the two?
In the first case I would say something that has got to be true while in the second case I presume and I believe that that is true.
I just hope you have nothing to do with the justice system.
In this case you would send to jail innocent people all the time.
Have a good day anyway.
It's hopeless. Still not a single research study. No links, no citations, just a bunch of mental masturbation. You're going back on ignore, Sicky Rikky. My stupid woo meter has pegged again.
I'm wondering when he's going to get banned, he's been derailing the topic for a while now.
(April 13, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Aroura Wrote: Was that argument basically that the material world causes problems, therefore the supernatural must be real?? Wow. Just...wow.
Who can say?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
April 17, 2016 at 4:45 pm (This post was last modified: April 17, 2016 at 4:46 pm by RozKek.)
What I've noticed when debating with Rik is that he makes claims out of nowhere and when you confront the claims he says "they haven't been disproven". Also he uses biased sources.
There is a world outside of this physical realm, even above the immaterial realm called the batshitcrazy world where some souls are. And those souls connect to this physical world and are assigned to some human beings and Rik is one of em', that's why he's batshitcrazy. And you cannot disprove that claim, therefore I am right.
(April 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Why, because it leaves you a gap to fill in with your yoga gods?
This again?
The "start" of evolution is called abiogenesis, and it is a separate phenomenon from evolution. Evolution only explains how life changes over time from generation to generation. It does not explain how life started because it isn't supposed to. That would be the job of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, we don't know nothing about abiogenesis, we just don't have a complete diagram of it yet. We do, however, know a few things about some of the materials and processes that must have been involved, and it turns out that magic hasn't shown itself to be a necessary component. Life is based on biochemistry, which is based on organic chemistry, which is based on regular chemistry. All of the processes and elements behind life are naturally occurring, as far as we can tell. There's no evidence that conscious intervention is needed to get any of it going.
So evolution isn't useful against creationism because it shows how life started; it's useful against creationism because it shows us problems with other parts of most people's creation myths (men being made of dirt and god-breath, all of earth's people and animals dying in a flood a few thousand years ago, snakes not having legs at the supposed time of the Garden of Eden story...the list goes on).
To put it simply, evolution is a fact. There is no legitimate debate between evolutionists and creationists about whether evolution is a real thing. Creationists are desperate to disprove evolution because they think that doing so will add legitimacy to their claims, but in reality even if evolution were overturned tomorrow it still wouldn't get us any closer to establishing that the Universe was created by a god.
Besides, why do you care about the creation vs. evolution argument? I thought you believed in yoga magic. What does that have to do with the creation of the Universe?
Pinky.
Why do I care about the creation vs. evolution argument?
Simple.
Because both those who only believe in creation and those who only believe in evolution are dead wrong.
Evolution follow creation so both are real.
Secondly because most atheists rely heavily on evolution to say that the universe and life in it can well do without God but evolution follow creation so God is needed to start the lot.
Abiogenesis is all about theories.
Tons of it as you can see in here.
So many people guess and guess but none of them ever thought that from nothing you get nothing so
consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution therefore there got to be someone who originate this consciousness and create the universe.
Abiogenesis has not yet graduated to the level of "theory," and that statement alone demonstrates that you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is.
As for the assertion that consciousness is required to start/maintain evolution, there's really no evidence of that. What you're essentially saying is "I don't see how evolution could happen unless a conscious force starts and controls it," and that is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
(April 17, 2016 at 8:32 am)Little Rik Wrote: Fuzzy.
Eaten those fuzzy mushrooms again, did you?
But let us start from Wiki.
1) You assume that I take for granted what wiki say.
Did I?
No I didn't Fuzzy.
I only show Pinky how many theories there are around.
That's all.
I never said that what wiki say is pure gold so please get lost with your accusations.
2) If you stop eating those fuzzy mushrooms and read properly what I write you will have noticed that I do not write ......consciousness IS a factor in evolution but I rather write ...............consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution .......
Can you see the difference among the two?
In the first case I would say something that has got to be true while in the second case I presume and I believe that that is true.
I just hope you have nothing to do with the justice system.
In this case you would send to jail innocent people all the time.
Have a good day anyway.
It's hopeless. Still not a single research study. No links, no citations, just a bunch of mental masturbation. You're going back on ignore, Sicky Rikky. My stupid woo meter has pegged again.
Goodby Fuzzy.
I will remember you as the master (ess) of stupidity.
Did you know that for every statement with no evidence that i MAY make
atheists make at least 20 statements with no evidence.
They say ......the consciousness is a product of the brain ........death is the real end (consciousness included) .............Darwin evolution is the real evolution ........mind and consciousness are the same thing .......spirituality and religions are the same thing .......there is no reincarnation ......we are here
thanks to previous generations ....we inherited this consciousness thanks to the evolution of the species.
Fuzzy, i could continue on and on with all these guessing turned into truth by atheists and you have the audacity to say that i am the one that come out with unproven statements.
Shame on you Fuzzy.
(April 18, 2016 at 3:08 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:
(April 16, 2016 at 9:24 am)Little Rik Wrote: Pinky.
Why do I care about the creation vs. evolution argument?
Simple.
Because both those who only believe in creation and those who only believe in evolution are dead wrong.
Evolution follow creation so both are real.
Secondly because most atheists rely heavily on evolution to say that the universe and life in it can well do without God but evolution follow creation so God is needed to start the lot.
Abiogenesis is all about theories.
Tons of it as you can see in here.
So many people guess and guess but none of them ever thought that from nothing you get nothing so
consciousness has got to be a factor in evolution therefore there got to be someone who originate this consciousness and create the universe.
Abiogenesis has not yet graduated to the level of "theory," and that statement alone demonstrates that you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is.
Pinky.
The clown show is over so now stop pretending that you know the real meaning of theory.
Theory come from the Greek θεωρία, meaning ...... looking at, viewing, beholding .........blah blah blah....
Practice on the other hand means put the theory into practice.
If the practice works according to the theory then the theory is correct.
Unfortunately the real meaning has been vandalized so now it could means just everything other than the original meaning.
All those guys that came up with theories did not put theories into practice to see whether they were true or not so these theories stay unsolved and therefore we can say that they are all guessing.
Quote:As for the assertion that consciousness is required to start/maintain evolution, there's really no evidence of that. What you're essentially saying is "I don't see how evolution could happen unless a conscious force starts and controls it," and that is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Not at all Pinky.
Even a clown has got consciousness (hard to believe but that is true).
Humans got consciousness, animals too, plants too.
As far as matter is a bit difficult to see consciousness in them but that is something that you will learn at a later stage in your mental development.
Evidence doesn't come easy.
You got to expand your consciousness to see how everything works.
As you feed your body also the universal body need to be fed.
Most atheists have a lot of guessing regarding this issue.
They think that the universe can run itself so there is no need for God to run it.
I never seen so far anything that doesn't need to be fed.
That would lead to starvation.
But the universe doesn't starve.
After billion of years is still very healthy.
This again?
PROVE some of your crap or shut the fuck up. 
