A brief glimpse of God and Creation

[pauldominic]

You'll probably find that Primary Schools are different. I didn't go to a religious school but we had prayers and shit in assembly and were read the Bible.

From my old Primary School's prospectus:


I doubt that it's all that more enlightened elsewhere in the country. It's too ingrained and easy to fall back on using religion for creating a moral framework.

The National Curriculum Core Subjects are:
• English
• Mathematics
• Science
• ICT
• Religious Education

It's a bad joke that Religious Education is one of the 5. If the 5th one was Philosophy we'd be far better off.

-- Tue May 31, 2011 2:18 pm --



Indeed, isn't is a very strange co-incidence that we need oxygen to survive and there appears to be plenty of it around!

How can we make sense of this? Isn't it about time we understood this?





Oh Hang on...

-- Tue May 31, 2011 2:23 pm --



You talk a lot of shit.

-- Tue May 31, 2011 2:31 pm --



<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment_%28thought_disorder%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment ... isorder%29</a>

Normal service resumed.

By loosening of association do you mean the way that this thread has wandered miles off topic and a lot should have posted under the tonea2003 thread?

Threads evolve but your replies are very rarely even relevant to the post you're replying to. It makes having a dialogue with you almost impossible.

Of course it is because you have a different paradigm about the universe, creation, history, science, evolution, maths, physics, chemistry, biology etc etc.

 

[ElanJo]

People very their very nature! Football fans look down on other football fans, people of politics look down on those of different opinion, tis human nature I am afraid, just because you are religious it does not exempt you from the normal fallibilities of the human race, now the trick is to transcend the normal ego reactions, what a wonderful world it would be.

As an aside some of the religious debate on here is just one side mirror imaging the other, people call the religious for preaching, yet preach their own creed, people say religion is intolerant yet appear to be intolerant of anyone who holds a different opinion.

We can mock and name call, but beliefs are very strong and personal to each individual, and on this particular topic I bid my farewell, it all gets rather circular in the end

The problems with evolution are.....?

Dr.SWP and Dr.ElanJo as self proclaimed BM experts on evolution, can you answer 3 questions for me? I will begin with the beginning of life.

1.) How from inorganic material do we get basic life forms?
2.) Once the life forms were formed how did they reproduce?

3.) Does the envoroment play a role in evolution? If so how? Basically why is the polar bear white? Does it have to do with all the white it sees?

Finally a bonus question :) , how did a Chameleon evolve the ability to change its colour?

No i know they are answerable. And yes i know you've posted the hypothesis about 1 and 2, but at the end of the day it is not the only answer ( other answers may as well exists and still be correct).

I am more interested in what ElanJo and SWP have to say about the subject. They are the only two posting with authority about the subject of evolution so i assume they know a lot more than the rest of us.

I probably do know a lot more on the subject of evolution than many on here. I'm not sure why I should be mocked for it.
The bold part is simply not the case. Even if it were true that I (and SWP) was "posting with authority" you overlook Ducado - which is funny, since it was his post that led to your insincere questions(one of which wasn't even about Evolution) in the first place.
As for your questions, you know how to use the internet and I know you understand science enough not to find yourself on some ID/Creationist website.

-- Tue May 31, 2011 11:50 pm --

Normal service resumed.

By loosening of association do you mean the way that this thread has wandered miles off topic and a lot should have posted under the tonea2003 thread?

Threads evolve but your replies are very rarely even relevant to the post you're replying to. It makes having a dialogue with you almost impossible.

Of course it is because you have a different paradigm about the universe, creation, history, science, evolution, maths, physics, chemistry, biology etc etc.

Yes, I do. I take evidence seriously. You do not.

However, I do not see how this is connected to you inability to reply with relevance.

 

[BulgarianPride]

I probably do know a lot more on the subject of evolution than many on here. I'm not sure why I should be mocked for it.
The bold part is simply not the case. Even if it were true that I (and SWP) was "posting with authority" you overlook Ducado - which is funny, since it was his post that led to your insincere questions(one of which wasn't even about Evolution) in the first place.
As for your questions, you know how to use the internet and I know you understand science enough not to find yourself on some ID/Creationist website.

-- Tue May 31, 2011 11:50 pm --

Sorry mate. I asked those questions to provoke answers from there i could mention some of the "holes" of evolution. My questions were sincere. I did not mean to offend you or SWP. Certainty wasn't mocking you.

I assume you think the first question is not evolution, if so then that is sort of a hole in evolution. It doesn't explain the creation of the first lifeforms. I guess i am thinking of a unified theory of the origin of life that would explain evolution of organic lifeforms and how they formed.

Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned. The process is there, but a theory is supposed to explain the process.

A theory that is supposed to explain 4 billion years of history can't be perfect.

 

[ElanJo]

I probably do know a lot more on the subject of evolution than many on here. I'm not sure why I should be mocked for it.
The bold part is simply not the case. Even if it were true that I (and SWP) was "posting with authority" you overlook Ducado - which is funny, since it was his post that led to your insincere questions(one of which wasn't even about Evolution) in the first place.
As for your questions, you know how to use the internet and I know you understand science enough not to find yourself on some ID/Creationist website.

-- Tue May 31, 2011 11:50 pm --

Sorry mate. I asked those questions to provoke answers from there i could mention some of the "holes" of evolution. My questions were sincere. I did not mean to offend you or SWP. Certainty wasn't mocking you.

I assume you think the first question is not evolution, if so then that is sort of a hole in evolution. It doesn't explain the creation of the first lifeforms. I guess i am thinking of a unified theory of the origin of life that would explain evolution of organic lifeforms and how they formed.

Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned. The process is there, but a theory is supposed to explain the process.

A theory that is supposed to explain 4 billion years of history can't be perfect.

There will always be gaps in knowledge. Gaps shouldn't be confused with evidence against the knowledge already accumulated however. Evolution is probably the most backed up theory in all of science, unfortunately it is also the most controversial - because of certain religions.

"Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned."

What alternatives are there?

 

[Damocles]

Dr.SWP and Dr.ElanJo as self proclaimed BM experts on evolution, can you answer 3 questions for me? I will begin with the beginning of life.

1.) How from inorganic material do we get basic life forms?
2.) Once the life forms were formed how did they reproduce?

3.) Does the envoroment play a role in evolution? If so how? Basically why is the polar bear white? Does it have to do with all the white it sees?

Finally a bonus question :) , how did a Chameleon evolve the ability to change its colour?

I'm not sure if you think these are unanswerable questions or not, but they aren't. Hell, I've posted the answer to two of them on this forum myself

No i know they are answerable. And yes i know you've posted the hypothesis about 1 and 2, but at the end of the day it is not the only answer ( other answers may as well exists and still be correct).

I am more interested in what ElanJo and SWP have to say about the subject. They are the only two posting with authority about the subject of evolution so i assume they know a lot more than the rest of us.

I post with authority on the subject of evolution all the time.

I want you to mention these "holes in evolution", because I'm not sure what you are talking about. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution, but the process did start up then. Your search for a "unified theory" is daft. You are asking for a theory on how life evolves without life. I don't think you've thought this through properly. The earliest formations were chemical reactions that are a natural byproduct of mixing together certain elements and providing the correct charge.

This has gotten to me aswell:

Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned. The process is there, but a theory is supposed to explain the process.

The theory fully explains the process. Evolution has more direct evidence for it than nearly every scientific theory I can think of (apart from the plain obvious ones such as the Earth rotating round the Sun and stuff like that). There is no need to consider alternative theories simply because nothing comes close to the absolute mountain of evidence that we have for it.

BP; you and Ducado, with the greatest respect, have been watching too many Discovery Channel documentaries. Do we need to consider an alternative hypothesis about the correlation between standing in water and getting wet? Do we need to reexamine our position on breathing air? This is essentially what you are asking. This is how much evidence we have to support the theory.

We may yet see tweaks and small alterations aas new discoveries are found, but we have pretty much cracked this one.

A theory that is supposed to explain 4 billion years of history can't be perfect.

Science does not care about what you think should and shouldn't be perfect. It doesn't care about what you think is logical, or your ability to understand. It cares about direct evidence, and we have mountains of it.

 

[SWP's back]

So I log on this morning, all puffed up and ready to answer BP but find that two posters have already done that ever so well.

Also BP, both mine and ElanJo's curiosity were sparked by Ducado's assertation that "there is some vidence that points towards evolution but mountains of evidence against." Now we were confused as Ducado had either told an un-truth, been mis-informed or I had somehow missed out on this ground breaking news.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I have'nt had much to say on this thread as some of the quotes are over my head, but yet again Bluemoon does'nt disappoint.

Pauldominic has answered every single question that was aimed at him, some a little belated and as far as i can see there is only Paul and Uwerosler that have been if you like "Bombarded", it is fair enough to put eachothers points across and rigorously scrutinize one belief to the next, but Paul has'nt deserved some of the namecalling and aggression that this thread has thrown up, thick skin or not,it is'nt nice guys, that is all.

Buzzmeister,I have a lot of time for you,as well you know,but this really is a combination of utter nonsense and rank hypocrisy.
I,personally,have given up on even trying to converse with pauldominic on this thread and any others pertaining to religion for two main reasons - one is that he has nothing whatsoever to say that can substantiate his irrational beliefs in any way that makes logical sense,and secondly because I think he has issues that would be best addressed away from this forum.
He has not 'answered every single question that was aimed at him' - where,exactly,does he quantify that a dodgy clip of some warbling rag show us proof of god?
He posted this nonsense - nobody forced him to,so therefore others are perfectly within the their rights to tackle him on it and ask him to validate it which,as per usual,he hasn't.
He was taken to task regarding the catholic church and their truly appalling record of dealing with child abuse,and just came out with some pious,glib bullshit that amounted to 'well,it's all in hand now,so stop picking on me and my church,and move swiftly on'.
The fact that he comes across as some kind of misunderstood Saint Sebastian figure is purely down to his catholic martyr complex,whereas he is actually just a brainwashed follower of an outdated and discredited belief system that was an archaic and irrelevant anachronism two hundred years ago,let alone the twenty first century,and is more to be pitied than pilloried and ridiculed,as sometimes I get the strong impression that he is suffering a crisis of conscience,and that he is actually trying to convince himself,rather than others,that god exists.
As to 'namecalling and aggression' well,where do we start?
Or have you conveniently forgotten the tirade of abuse you gave SWP's back only a couple of days ago - abuse that went way beyond anything levelled at pauldominic on here?
People in glass houses,and all that?
As I said earlier,I don't bother debating with him anymore,for the reasons I have given - others may continue to try and make some sense of his ramblings,and I wish them luck,although I do feel the faint sound in the distance of a dead equine being flogged.
But to ask someone to explain what on earth they are talking about when they start a thread as bizarre as this one is a perfectly reasonable request.
However,I am not holding my breath that any such rational explanation is forthcoming any time soon,and I suspect that others have reached the same inevitable conclusion.

 

[buzzer1]

I have'nt had much to say on this thread as some of the quotes are over my head, but yet again Bluemoon does'nt disappoint.

Pauldominic has answered every single question that was aimed at him, some a little belated and as far as i can see there is only Paul and Uwerosler that have been if you like "Bombarded", it is fair enough to put eachothers points across and rigorously scrutinize one belief to the next, but Paul has'nt deserved some of the namecalling and aggression that this thread has thrown up, thick skin or not,it is'nt nice guys, that is all.

Buzzmeister,I have a lot of time for you,as well you know,but this really is a combination of utter nonsense and rank hypocrisy.
I,personally,have given up on even trying to converse with pauldominic on this thread and any others pertaining to religion for two main reasons - one is that he has nothing whatsoever to say that can substantiate his irrational beliefs in any way that makes logical sense,and secondly because I think he has issues that would be best addressed away from this forum.
He has not 'answered every single question that was aimed at him' - where,exactly,does he quantify that a dodgy clip of some warbling rag show us proof of god?
He posted this nonsense - nobody forced him to,so therefore others are perfectly within the their rights to tackle him on it and ask him to validate it which,as per usual,he hasn't.
He was taken to task regarding the catholic church and their truly appalling record of dealing with child abuse,and just came out with some pious,glib bullshit that amounted to 'well,it's all in hand now,so stop picking on me and my church,and move swiftly on'.
The fact that he comes across as some kind of misunderstood Saint Sebastian figure is purely down to his catholic martyr complex,whereas he is actually just a brainwashed follower of an outdated and discredited belief system that was an archaic and irrelevant anachronism two hundred years ago,let alone the twenty first century,and is more to be pitied than pilloried and ridiculed,as sometimes I get the strong impression that he is suffering a crisis of conscience,and that he is actually trying to convince himself,rather than others,that god exists.
As to 'namecalling and aggression' well,where do we start?
Or have you conveniently forgotten the tirade of abuse you gave SWP's back only a couple of days ago - abuse that went way beyond anything levelled at pauldominic on here?
People in glass houses,and all that?
As I said earlier,I don't bother debating with him anymore,for the reasons I have given - others may continue to try and make some sense of his ramblings,and I wish them luck,although I do feel the faint sound in the distance of a dead equine being flogged.
But to ask someone to explain what on earth they are talking about when they start a thread as bizarre as this one is a perfectly reasonable request.
However,I am not holding my breath that any such rational explanation is forthcoming any time soon,and I suspect that others have reached the same inevitable conclusion.

Areet Fettler "me old Trout 'n' toolbox, kudos mate.
There was some jibes chucked at him like, even schizophrenia at one point, i just don't like bother mate as by your stance in life i know you don't either.

Now the Qoute by Shadz at the bottom of the last page was a bit heavy from Pauldom.., saying about the lass still spiritually married etc etc was completely wrong and out of order, akin to what Glenn Goddle said about disabled people.

 

[pauldominic]

I have'nt had much to say on this thread as some of the quotes are over my head, but yet again Bluemoon does'nt disappoint.

Pauldominic has answered every single question that was aimed at him, some a little belated and as far as i can see there is only Paul and Uwerosler that have been if you like "Bombarded", it is fair enough to put eachothers points across and rigorously scrutinize one belief to the next, but Paul has'nt deserved some of the namecalling and aggression that this thread has thrown up, thick skin or not,it is'nt nice guys, that is all.

Buzzmeister,I have a lot of time for you,as well you know,but this really is a combination of utter nonsense and rank hypocrisy.
I,personally,have given up on even trying to converse with pauldominic on this thread and any others pertaining to religion for two main reasons - one is that he has nothing whatsoever to say that can substantiate his irrational beliefs in any way that makes logical sense,and secondly because I think he has issues that would be best addressed away from this forum.
He has not 'answered every single question that was aimed at him' - where,exactly,does he quantify that a dodgy clip of some warbling rag show us proof of god?
He posted this nonsense - nobody forced him to,so therefore others are perfectly within the their rights to tackle him on it and ask him to validate it which,as per usual,he hasn't.
He was taken to task regarding the catholic church and their truly appalling record of dealing with child abuse,and just came out with some pious,glib bullshit that amounted to 'well,it's all in hand now,so stop picking on me and my church,and move swiftly on'.
The fact that he comes across as some kind of misunderstood Saint Sebastian figure is purely down to his catholic martyr complex,whereas he is actually just a brainwashed follower of an outdated and discredited belief system that was an archaic and irrelevant anachronism two hundred years ago,let alone the twenty first century,and is more to be pitied than pilloried and ridiculed,as sometimes I get the strong impression that he is suffering a crisis of conscience,and that he is actually trying to convince himself,rather than others,that god exists.
As to 'namecalling and aggression' well,where do we start?
Or have you conveniently forgotten the tirade of abuse you gave SWP's back only a couple of days ago - abuse that went way beyond anything levelled at pauldominic on here?
People in glass houses,and all that?
As I said earlier,I don't bother debating with him anymore,for the reasons I have given - others may continue to try and make some sense of his ramblings,and I wish them luck,although I do feel the faint sound in the distance of a dead equine being flogged.
But to ask someone to explain what on earth they are talking about when they start a thread as bizarre as this one is a perfectly reasonable request.
However,I am not holding my breath that any such rational explanation is forthcoming any time soon,and I suspect that others have reached the same inevitable conclusion.

Its very sad that its come to this.

I've never claimed to be anyone special at all.

I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit in 1978 who then did his 'O' levels in 1979, 'A' levels in 1981 and a 3 year honours degree in Physics graduating in 1984.

My brain gradually downsized all of that because my career in defence didn't need any of it whatsoever.

I had the good fortune to do an MBA from 2000 to 2003 where I studied Philosophy and Systems Thinking amongst other subjects, which helped me put my religious beliefs in a mature academic framework.

It all went sour for me when I was asked to defend the Catholic Church for something that is almost indefensible.

EDIT: However that does not mean to say that everything good that the church does should lead me to reject it because of a tiny, tiny minority of bad people.

 

[ElanJo]

I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit

How do you know?