Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?
talk about throwing your life away.
Printable View
Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?
talk about throwing your life away.
Yup - and he should be banned for spamming and linking to sites to promote them - 'tis agaist the rules methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrinKyle
But he's also kinda funny, in a strange sad way as he doesn't really know what he's arguing about.
Science FTW! :jointsmile:
Utter rubbish - you want me to list the transitionals for big lulz? I could link you a website.... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2a
[/align]
The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:
??Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn??t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin??s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information??what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin??s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.? David M. Raup, ??Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,? Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.
??Surely the lack of gradualism??the lack of intermediates??is a major problem.? Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.
??In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.? Stanley, p. 95.
??But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.? David S. Woodruff, ??Evolution: The Paleobiological View,? Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
He'll be a monkey's uncle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 3a
[/align]
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson??s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
??I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ??show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.? I will lay it on the line??there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.? Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
Funny how all of those sources are OVER 20 YEARS OLD lol...
There was almost no work done on transitionals until the mid 1970's - that's why your quotes are oh so carefully chosen ;)
C'mon you can copy-paste better than that! How about we agree that we are 'lucky' enough to have so many transitionals at all! Fossils are really rare and its amazing we have so many.
Shall we start with Archaeopteryx? This is a fossil I have actually seen with my own eyes, Archaeopteryx lithographica to be precise, a beautiful example that I was lucky enough to see on display in Belgium. I guess that's just made-up too.
Shall we perhaps look at:
# Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
# Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
# Transition from fishes to first amphibians
# Transitions among amphibians
# Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
# Transitions among reptiles
# Transition from reptiles to first mammals
# Transition from reptiles to first birds
Lots and lots of choices! Where to start though, hmmm.
Plus it is worth bearing in mind that we are all transitional forms - that's sort of the whole point :thumbsup: but I guess that buggers-up the idea of 'Kinds' doesn't it? - so that won't fly I guess (or glide from trees).
Categories are man-made and essentially artificial. Nature doesn't have to follow them - and sure enough it doesn't, these are not well-defined boundaries.
Next you'll probably tell us that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - go on, you know you want to ;)
??Observed Instances of Speciation?, after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the ??speciation? examples given fall into one of two categories:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
??new? species that are ??new? to man, but whose ??newness? remains equivocal in light of observed genetic ??variation? vs. genetic ??change? and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
??new? species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new ??species? remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally ??new? trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation??they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian ??macro-evolution,? which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of ??species? and (therefore) ??speciation? remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as ??speciation events???yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
Mark Isaak gives us this definition of a transitional fossil: ??A transitional fossil is one that looks like it??s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...?
In spite of such a clearly defined definition, there is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as ??transitional? and which supposed ??transitional forms? fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a ??transitional form? between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically ??older? than the first occurrence of lineage A or ??younger? than B??and all of these are common occurrences.
Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.
A very serious indictment of evolutionary ??spokespersons? (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a ??united front? they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the ??spokespersons? describe as firmly established and beyond dispute.
As if that were not enough, while evolutionary literature may be replete with ??just so? stories about how so many organisms evolved into their supposed descendants, there remains a conspicuous lack of credible accounting for empirically viable changes beyond that of bones and teeth.
Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully ??transitioned? from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the ??original? or the ??descendant? system during the alleged transition.
What do the Experts Say?
In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.? [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), ??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.? Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.? [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to ??several? superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences????more than enough? (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these ??superb examples? were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation??not unheard of among evolutionists??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, ??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.?
What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this ??spokesperson??
Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, ??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.? Yet these same alleged ??transitional sequences? remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the ??experts?) than any other. Isaak declares them ??notable examples,? apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.
One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish??s recently updated book:
- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for ??proof? of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary ??spokespersons? to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can??t possibly be wrong.
The ??Transitional Fossil? FAQ
The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled ??Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ? (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently ??explained? absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral, based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.
To the willing disciple of evolutionary doctrine, Hunt??s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above. She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively made statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years by various phylogenic theorists.
What is missing from Hunt??s document is any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, few??if any??are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among authorities with differing viewpoints.
The reader is encouraged to remember that, given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task. Given enough time and material, and a willingness to ??overlook? any ??unsuitable? facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed, using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they don??t.
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
For a realistic treatment of Archaeopteryx go to:
- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -
Are you remotely serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Archaeopteryx (spp) died out, it was an evolutionary dead-end and it wasn't the ancestor to modern birds - sheesh. It was however a great example of a Transitional form having both features.
Linking to yet another creationist website proves nothing. That's like quoting the Bible as evidence ffs.
As your previous post was a REALLY long copy-paste I won't bother refuting each point one by one as it would mean I would have to spend more time using my brain than you did creating some blue text.
Instead I will post a nice link to a page which explains why your previous post was full of lies and disinformation instead - which is more pleasing to our dear readers.
Often Creationists use mis-quotes and outright lies to try and suggest that the theory of evolution is in doubt within the scientific community. This is simply not true and most creationist are well out of their depth (no flood pun intended).
Anyway here is the link which proves your copy-paste was a sham:
Evolution hasn't been observed
Ah screw it, let's make it 2 links:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
If you don't understand the theory in the first place you can't expect a reasonable debate.
You will find the article you suggested: "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution" by Mark Isaak, is thoroughly refuted in this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 5a
[/align]
??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.? George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.
??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.? Ibid., p. 23.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 4a
[/align]
??But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren??t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don??t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn??t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.? Hitching, p. 19.
??There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ??transitional?? types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.? Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
a puddle of water fits so well in a hole, it swears the hole must have been created for exactly this purpose.
I think the single most amusing ignorance that creations share in common can be found when they attempt to discuss transitional fossils. Are you a creationist and reading? Perhaps I can shed some light on this misunderstanding.. erhm.. well... you see...
EVERY... FOSSIL... WE FIND..... IS... ESSENTIALLY... TRANSITIONAL....
Yes, you read correctly. You see, they all transition from one species to another. Every new species shortens the gap between one species transitioning to another. I hope that cleared things up! Keep in mind it's possible to still believe in your Santa Claus for Adults. However, a deep critical probing will probably lead you to at the very least, not claim the wisest of our books was written in the 1st century by desert tribes.
and naturally of course creationists don't consider why there are gaps in the fossil record. They just see the gap and claim that such a gap shows invalidity in the entire study of evolution.
There are gaps because one, we haven't dug up every spot of land looking for fossils but are instead looking for them only where others have already been found, two not every animal that dies becomes a fossil, in fact the vast majority of these animals would be eaten and eventually decompose without leaving a trace. But creationists never take into account either of these factors when spouting the bullshit.
also some scientists theorize that evolution does not in fact occur in finely graduated steps, but unevenly across a a span of time. That a species will evolve more quickly under adverse conditions, increased resourse competition, resoourse scarcity, or increased or decreased predation. This means you might have a period thats very long with only minimal change occuring, and a short period with monumental change happening.
yes, its called cellular automataQuote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
no, cellular automata starts from a simple rule n^2+1, creates a fractal pattern that is simple at first, but creates diffraction and eventually becomes very complex generations of code.. Wolfram believes the universe actually works like this. It would be described as overunity by modern scientists, put in one simple rule and the output is an advanced intelligent universe.. I not sure if superintelligence is required in a fractal evolutionary cellular automata model, what do you think??Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Peace,
denial
religion was and still is the best symbol to apply to as yet unknown things that are not just beyond us but in some ways 'greater' than us.. unless science prefers "I DONT KNOW". :) In any case I find myself in agreement to both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubalubus
Peace,
denial
I don't know, is better than superstition because it's honest and doesn't substitute facts and informed theory for mythology.
Wisdom begins at I don't know.. wisdom ends there too? I don't know!Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Please though, it's important not to mistake superstition or belief for symbology. Symbology is something that is real that exists in human culture and has done for 10's of thousands of years, like music, for some reason we require it.
I've noted that often, when human beings don't understand a concept or idea it'll be drawn as a symbol as its known in religion, also known as a model in science one is tested the other is not..
The two seem mutually exclusive, but they aren't necessarily, when you look at it informatically :) What I think I'm trying to say is when dealing with something you don't know about , or when calling something "everything" or "infinite" the model or symbol word God is used.
Anyone who thinks they know what God is or isn't is a damn right liar :) Thats WHY symbolism was created, and probably why science was ;-) heheh
admittedly, all this is based on the premise everyone sees reality different. Which at least on cannabis.com seems to be the case,
Peace,
Denial
religion insists it has all the answers when in fact it knows less than science.If we simply substituted god for all the things we don't or didn't know, we'd still believe that we were the center of the universe. Religion is a belief and science is a process, so while religion is stagnant and unchanging, science is viral and in constant flux, growing and altering itself with the understanding of it's practitioners.
Who needs symbols that are at best a pale and inaccurate and largely uninformed reflection of reality, when you can have empirical evidence.
God as it were is ever shrinking, existing in the ever smaller margins where science has yet to explore, and question it's relevance.
I agree.. but I'm specifically talking about God here, not what "religion" thinks as a whole, I like to concentrate on the abstractions and informatics, systemology.. when it comes to "God" its the same as expressing 'infinite' it's not a "Real" number to our 'unreal' minds. Maybe that makes it special, maybe it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
I was suggesting that no person be it you, me or anyone else, lives in the same reality, and that in fact everyone is really inside their own little world, to a greater or lesser extent. As such I feel unreal numbers or unreal ideas hold a special meaning to people so obsessed about their own unrealities.....
All I know is that constants hold an important place in my mind and God <-> infinity seem to be equivocally aggreable definitions to me :) As you said, it's PEOPLE, PEOPLE who think they have answers, but systems and definitions and symbols, GUIDES! everyone see's a different reality, MAYBE thats why symbols, models, even god model exist :-) heheheh
Peace,
Denial
Lots of good info, here............I have yet to be convinced that the evolution of man is fact. I personlay think to call us relatives of monkeys is bad for monkeys and us.
why how nice of you to say.. I prefer to at the very least remain civilised :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
you sir are a douchébag if we lived in the same reality we'd agree about this!Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
I suppose you are going to tell me you live in reality and i live in douchébag world, haha
God conceptually is a do nothing go nowhere concept? Thats pretty wishywashy also. You haven't said why, or how! At least I tried :-) cmmon.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Infinity cannot be fully grasped by our minds, never will be, neither could something as great as god be comprehended IF it existed, it's truly beyond us.
For instance really refering to the 3rd law of thermal dynamics, entropy.. i.e. every substance has a finite positive entropy. e.g. you're mind cannot analyse more than n x models, books or ideas at any one time, at parallel or serial. Always there is bottleneck, as is the world of informatics and cellular automata... look it up! Here's my proof I have to ask though, where's yours :)
That is to say the basic informatics or cellular automata model applied to the universe says there is a finite amount of information storable in a given volume.. if god is supposed to be everything, then do you and me as individuals, not have a big problem comprehending any of this fully? As a reminder I by no means claim to have all the answers, just an out of the box take on what reality and science can do for the philosophical world..
peace,
Denial
God is a do nothing go nowhere concept, because it does nothing and goes nowhere. It makes no demand that a person challenge another ideas of what is and isn't, it just sits there insisting upon it's validity, while offering no reason to accept it, beyond dimwitted simplicity.
Competition amongst ideas is however, integral to science. In this way science is continuously being perfected while knowingly remaining imperfect.
And we all live in the same reality, we are merely percieving this same reality from different points of view. This reality encompassing the universe is for all intents finite being of a particular age, within an albeit poorly defined border of space.
Simply put there is no infinite anything, because infinity does not effectively exist, neither can god. Therefore the concept of god is wholly without value, and the concept of infinity is only of value in certain forms of mathematics.
heh, I think God (if this were to exist) is impossible for anyone to understand (as its definition insists this by premise, remember all knowing, etc)..Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
I too think its vanity to try and understand something impossible to understand. Perhaps taking note its impossible to fully comprehend anything infinite (as science/maths usually does hence imaginary number) is wisdom in itself. Some that crop up from time to time are that these "unreal/imaginary" numbers that seem to be very important to prime division and pi. Without getting too offtopic, understanding you cannot comprehend is progress in itself stopping one from wasting his or her time trying to draw a definite conclusion around an infinite fractal premise , without then running the risk of sounding like a moron when making a definitive judgement based on it
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
How do you know we all live in the same reality? The beginning of philosophy must be I think therefore I am, not we think therefore we are? Maybe thats a new one for me :P Perhaps the universe is finite, perhaps it will continue growing, perhaps time goes backwards. We really aren't sure, and to be honest the scientists are still 'competing' over this one as you put it. It's dangerous to draw conclusions before the scientists have finished their work, at least if you are in the pro science con god corner of things. It's more than just our opinion that changes what we see, even where we are standing can change what we perceive to occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
You know, Darwin and many others made it distinctly clear the features available in our genetics are not particularly global or particularly general, they are particularly specialised which specifically means limitation.
We don't even see the universe, we see an interpretation of it, what you called opinion; so you've said yourself everyone mentally is inhabiting a different reality heh... physically they are not? haha well unless we want to have an argument with our bodies over it, i'll skip that? I think my brain is thinking.. that seems clear :D We don't see the full light spectrum, full sound spectrum, we can't even see out into the universe , we have to use other specialised devices to understand. We truly are limited, and that isn't necessarily bad, especially if we are willing to accept this premise, we can move onto applying it.
How do you know there is no infinity? I don't know, how do you? If there was infinity we certainly wouldn't be able to identify it, it's beyond the functional grasp of the math our brains do... it's 'unreal'.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Peace,
denial
you keep saying we all live in different realities, we do not. Experiencing a singular reality with different interpretations does not make your reality separate from mine, only your experience is separate not your reality.
And God remains a useless concept. Name one thing the concept of God, has given humanity that is beneficial to it. It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist. If we look at the universe the universe consisting of everything however, we see that even it is not infinite, instead we see that it stretches out approximately 93 billion light years, and is roughly 13.85 billion years old. We know that it is expanding, but this still does not make it infinite, just a very big finite. Even if we consider quantum theory the infinite quantity would be the number of alternate universes, and perhaps only in theory. But the individual universe's remain finite.
Existence is possible without awareness of existence. This is the problem with I think therefore I am. A rock exists regardless of whether or not it is aware of that existence.
How do you know we don't live in different realities? Whats the difference between interpretation and reality. HELL whats the definition of reality to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Well since its came down to definition here I go :-)
Here's the definition of reality to me, whats actually out there outside our minds and body
Here's what genetics gave us, not really at all whats actually there all inside us, just what we perceive, or, what we think is there, a basic representation of dimension, sound, time etc, in comparison to the availibility of information abundant in the universe, evolution may or may not see us through to a more enlightened future, I'm not judging, but what's clear is neither you or I are all knowing, neither you and I are perfect. If god was, for instance timeless you are not at all equipped to judge about anything to do with God remotely, none of us would be..
I don't believe in any concept being useless, a lesson learnt is a lesson learnt, right? It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist to our limited senses??? It's impossible to understand God, because we are incapable of truly understanding??? The universe may very well be finite but you're not considering our own finite limited senses, lets apply your definition of finite to us in recognition we CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE about such 'fallacies' i.e. we see time at a fixed speed, did you know different organisms experience time at a different rate? No? Well this is obviously an important fact here. A different rate of experience will change the interpretation alltogether, your opinion, AND REALITY! poof! magic, and all at once. What we see _now_ isnt necessarily CORRECT visually, auditory, informatically, let alone what IS can be or WILL BE!!!! Limited dimensional perception in an abstract aspect only..Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Well that may be true ignoring time and light constants. I've actually had the pleasure of working with physicists and I'm pretty sure they can't tell how big the universe was, is or is going to be/get. What I'm sure they recognise as scientists is that we inhabit a single point in time :-) Not very useful is it.. only now never all.. and why not all? Why fear death? for instance, if energy can only be transmuted obviously we are just stuck in our own idea of holding onto our limited patterns and have no understanding or desire that goes truly beyond the self or beyond the apparent 'logic' we so fraily call our own..Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
True, but me and you are not rocks!Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
yea it is, but not for us buddy.. :-) Our existance can only exist to us because of our awareness of it and also our awareness exists because of our existance.
So what this means is a rock is in reality, we aren't... lol because we are aware of reality if we weren't aware of reality we'd be in reality, weird as it sounds :)
The logic to this is simple; as soon as the universe created atoms/molecules that started (this is crude but) 'thinking for themselves' (limiting the diversity of their being in some respects whilst augmenting it in others) bits of information are lost to us, as we are seeing all existance through OUR own awareness. Abstraction in 'I' is critical to understand this!
i.e. the human brain starts to become (from awareness of reality represented as a basic unreality) the dominant factor in atomic properties/awareness and creates a 'higher level' of event/property complexity not seen before.
e.g. self controlled movement
e.g. I think therefore I am not in reality like the rock is
Peace,
Denial
I keep saying it, there is one reality. Reality is the state of everything as it exists, this has nothing to do with how you interpret or percieve this singular reality. If in fact we all lived in our own reality, rather than our own interpretation of it, how could one affect another's reality if in fact they are truly separate. Because going back to my earlier example if in fact our realities were truly separate and not merely separate points of view, your lawn would not smell of urine. But because we live in singular reality my actions do or at least can in fact affect you, and your actions can affect me.
The concept of God has only taught us, the pointlessness of religion, and the corruption that emerge's from unquestioned authoriy. But these lessons did not require God to be learned. Given time even in adsencse of the concept of god, these lessons would have been learned, okay maybe not the religion one, but thats the lesser of the two.
Yup you do but you don't provide one example why this should be believed! As you've already pointed out well what people believe is wildly different based on opinion and perception that includes all of us :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
well there is still a conduit of reality isnt there :) for you to speak in, move in, act in.. nothing is stopping you from doing that heh. I just want you to know you don't see the world for what it is, none of us do! Science proven that long agoo :) Evolution proves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
this is true, physical things like pooping in my front yard is gonna affect me of course I don't think I take exception to that it would indeed affect me.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
What you gotta remember is the source of your physical action is in fact your unreality heh, because everyones in a constant state of unreality (opinions you call it heheheh) you unreality can seriously affect mine through a conduit of a physical reality. Intent and perception are highly linked and that really is a fact lol.
I tend to agree, but time and time again the problem is not the ideas that man produces, it's the people that change them, misuse them, and abusing them that create corruption. Not philosophising or seeking what I'd call true enlightenment heh...Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
i.e. It's not the ideas men produce, its what they do with them in reality heh.
A great example would be Edington and Tesla of course everybody knows dc blows nowadays and most mains are AC now.. ;] Teslas idea was better and was safer but edington got it into production because he used influence over intelligence. Why assume religion is somehow immune to such problems as science has been??! It isn't ;]
I think just like science you have to scoot over the BS and concentrate on the tidbits that can give some true inspiration.
And hey, if accepting our own limitations isnt a move in the right direction wtf is!
peace,
Denial
Objective reality is singular, there is one reality, which exist regardless of whether or not it is observed. Then we have subjective reality, reality as it is perceived by individuals, and this subjective reality does exist in seaparetly for each person. But only objective reality is true, subjective reality is merely an interpretation of what is percieved, it's filtered, abridged, censored whatever you wanna call it, but only the first is reality as it is, the other is artificial.
And I wouldn't shit in your yard, there's no tp there and I ain't the sorta guy that just up and walks around widda roll o shit tissue in his pocket. If you'll read back I distinctly typed piss, not shit, get your excretions in order.
Then I guess subjective reality is particularly unreal since its not a real representation of the real singular reality :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
word up :) i tell you what im knackered lolQuote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Peace,
denial
Yes subjective reality is unreal, because it's mutable in that it's different for each person, objective is true because it exists regardless and independant of our own wants and views.
the way a person percieves reality is fallable because they are themselves fallable, however objective reality avoids this by merely existing and nothing more.
hey 5th, we've just tired the crap out of eachother haven't we. lol :> I agree, I'm just not sure how this objective reality "gets past" our totally unobjective subjective reality, its sorta like as soon as it enters us its not the same anymore cause it simplified re-rendered abstracted, but heh thats close enough for me guvnor !Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
I'm off to sleep now ;p will keep my eye on this thread though :)
Peace,
denial
indeed most stimulating forum discussion I've had in awhile.
teehee yes my friend you have given me a lot to think aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Peace,
denial
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 5a
[/align]
??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.? George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.
??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.? Ibid., p. 23.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps