Started By
Message
re: I have a couple questions about science.....
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:47 am to airfernando
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:47 am to airfernando
quote:
God has made it clear. He is a jealous God. He is a selfish God. He does not wish to share any of his glory or lose any of his glory. He has his reasons.
People are better off accepting that and not trying to understand God. You can't. He is infinitely more complicated than anything a human can comprehend.
This sounds like a person defending their alcoholic and abusive father.
0
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:51 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Then you believe that God is a fricked up individual. It's fricking ridiculous to believe that God put that in front of us as a generation that others didn't face.
I believe God cannot be understood by us. His thoughts and reasonings are beyond are our ability to comprehend. I don't agree with everything He does, and that is okay, because I don't have the information He does to evaluate the whys. When I was a teenager I got upset with my parents over some of the things they did. Now, as a parent, I can look back on some of those things and at least understand why they did or said those things, even if I would have done them differently. On a much larger scale, it is the same with us and God.
quote:
But you are Baptist right?
Well I am a melting pot of sorts. I was Catholic until about 12, then we started going to an independent evangelical church for a couple years. Then an Assembly of God church until about 10 years ago. Then about 2 years at a Baptist church. Finally I stay home mostly, and study on my own.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:18 am to LukeSidewalker
No.
The human race is more or less dividing between attractive and non attractive. The two usually become partners and procreate while ugly people do the same more often. It is starting a trend separating humans by looks. Secondly we know that balding is a dominant gene as is the African gene. Believe it or not, south parks "goo back" episode was not too terribly far off from reality of what future 'humans' could look like. Not to mention guys dongs and girls tits and arse are all becoming larger. These are our examples of selective breeding still guiding evolution of humans.
That doesn't mean there's gonna be a bunch of dicks dragging around bald bodies, just given over time it's a possible direction for us to go. What's attractive to a certain species or organism is completely relative.
The human race is more or less dividing between attractive and non attractive. The two usually become partners and procreate while ugly people do the same more often. It is starting a trend separating humans by looks. Secondly we know that balding is a dominant gene as is the African gene. Believe it or not, south parks "goo back" episode was not too terribly far off from reality of what future 'humans' could look like. Not to mention guys dongs and girls tits and arse are all becoming larger. These are our examples of selective breeding still guiding evolution of humans.
That doesn't mean there's gonna be a bunch of dicks dragging around bald bodies, just given over time it's a possible direction for us to go. What's attractive to a certain species or organism is completely relative.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:34 am to olddawg26
quote:
So we are continuously evolving into predator aliens?
quote:
No. The human race is more or less dividing between attractive and non attractive. The two usually become partners and procreate while ugly people do the same more often. It is starting a trend separating humans by looks. Secondly we know that balding is a dominant gene as is the African gene. Believe it or not, south parks "goo back" episode was not too terribly far off from reality of what future 'humans' could look like. Not to mention guys dongs and girls tits and arse are all becoming larger. These are our examples of selective breeding still guiding evolution of humans. That doesn't mean there's gonna be a bunch of dicks dragging around bald bodies, just given over time it's a possible direction for us to go. What's attractive to a certain species or organism is completely relative.
Just pointing out this is natural selection. Inherent traits of a species becoming more pronounced as a result of selective breeding isn't evolution.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:35 am to olddawg26
quote:
Believe it or not, south parks "goo back" episode was not too terribly far off from reality of what future 'humans' could look like
Lmao
Posted on 9/20/17 at 11:47 am to PurpleandGeauld
No idea why I said selective breeding, I worked all night. Yes that's natural selection sorry.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:10 pm to olddawg26
quote:
No idea why I said selective breeding, I worked all night. Yes that's natural selection sorry.
All good
Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, proof of intelligent design = coffee. Nothing that good happened by random chance.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:38 pm to airfernando
quote:
You might say that from your perspective bc you don't understand God. God has made it clear. He is a jealous God. He is a selfish God. He does not wish to share any of his glory or lose any of his glory. He has his reasons.
People are better off accepting that and not trying to understand God. You can't. He is infinitely more complicated than anything a human can comprehend.
Every single time one of you nonbelievers talk about evolution or the big bang or any of that science crap, God is losing glory. He created everything, and he wants credit and glory for that creation.
It is a direct contradiction of God to say the earth or the universe has been around for millions or billions of years. God has clearly revealed that the Earth and universe are fairly young. To say otherwise is to call God a liar. God does not like being called a liar.
This is a very good synopsis of why religion is such a negative influence on humanity. It is used by some people as justification to stifle the education of other people. Science has the opposite effect. It throws open doors to every subject. Nothing is excluded from research.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:43 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
So evolution is over with?
For us, yes. We have eliminated, via technology, the pressures of natural selection.
quote:
What about islands where people still live like animals?
There are no groups of people anywhere on earth that are beyond the reach of modern technology.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:46 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
So we got a outline, but we need to be patient because in a few years we will have proof!!!
The outline is proof. Every detail to come is further proof.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:48 pm to olddawg26
quote:
This is completely untrue btw.
quote:
The human race is more or less dividing between attractive and non attractive. The two usually become partners and procreate while ugly people do the same more often. It is starting a trend separating humans by looks. Secondly we know that balding is a dominant gene as is the African gene. Believe it or not, south parks "goo back" episode was not too terribly far off from reality of what future 'humans' could look like.
This is a very entertaining hypothesis but it lacks the support of any formal studies. quote:
Not to mention guys dongs and girls tits and arse are all becoming larger. These are our examples of selective breeding still guiding evolution of humans.
An interesting assertion. To have selective breeding, however, the species must favor the "superior" traits over the less advantageous ones. That's not happening in your scenario. Men with little dicks and flat-chested, flat-assed women are still breeding like rabbits. The population of the African continent is exploding but that of Asia is not exactly on the decline.
This post was edited on 9/20/17 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 9/20/17 at 2:59 pm to Kentucker
What a thread. To all the religious lunatics out there, next time you get seriously sick, start praying instead of going to a doctor. Let's see what happens with having faith.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 3:22 pm to tissle
quote:
To all the religious lunatics out there, next time you get seriously sick, start praying instead of going to a doctor. Let's see what happens with having faith.
There actually is ridiculous evidence that people of faith live longer than the non-religious. Personally I just think the average non-religious person is more stressed out than the religious person.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 3:43 pm to Kentucker
quote:
This is a very entertaining hypothesis but it lacks the support of any formal studies.
Its actually makes pretty good sense theoretically
quote:
the species must favor the "superior" traits over the less advantageous ones
I hate to break it to you, but girls prefer larger penis's. I dunno what lying chick told you otherwise.
quote:
The population of the African continent is exploding but that of Asia is not exactly on the decline.
Once again we're speaking in terms of 100's of thousands of years. Dominant and more attractive traits will win out. And have for hundreds of millions of years.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:41 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
There actually is ridiculous evidence that people of faith live longer than the non-religious.
Yes, this is true. However, the reasons have nothing to do with faith. Rather, they have everything to do with the lifestyles of the faithful. Generally speaking, people of faith eschew drugs, tobacco, alcohol and risky social behaviors.
The Mormons are a great example. They don't even use caffeine. Their rules for sexual behavior almost guarantee the absence of STDs in their lives. They and other strictly religious people are healthier and take few risks in life. They are much less likely to experience diseases than the nonreligious, too, because of their staid lifestyles.
Diseases have a cumulative effect on a person's life expectancy. The more diseases we experience, the shorter our lives will be. Being relatively free of diseases and averse to risky behaviors, religious people, at least the devout ones, can be expected to live longer and healthier lives than their nonreligious counterparts.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:58 pm to olddawg26
quote:
Once again we're speaking in terms of 100's of thousands of years. Dominant and more attractive traits will win out. And have for hundreds of millions of years.
The problem that I see with this assessment is that we don't have hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us. The human population consists of a cesspool of genes. Nothing is being weeded out. In fact, bad traits are more likely to be passed on than are good traits.
Poor people are breeding faster than rich people, for example. Much faster and more prolifically. Also, children with birth defects grow up and sire their own children, passing along these defects. Deafness, dwarfism, poor vision, mental retardation and many other defects that would eliminate offspring in a "natural" population survive and pass on their often defective genes.
The effect of this accumulation of defective genes in the population is that a growing proportion of the human population is weak and is dependent upon the stronger members of the species for survival. It can be seen in every society on earth.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 9:34 pm to LukeSidewalker
Luke has trolled us all. Well done, sir.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:06 pm to ErnestTBassmaster
We need more trolls like him to get the fires burning in the OTB again.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 11:11 pm to Kentucker
I often times walk by poor carpenters every day, and I always see them with new children. They're so poor that they literally live in the street under big banners that act as their housing.
I can see into them from the outside (often they're cooking with a wooden fire INSIDE their little homemade stripmall) and I can see that they get free electricity, cable television and even a fridge!
A lot of people don't understand that Darwin's quote for Evolution (Survival of the Fittest) doesn't mean strongest, or best -- it means the one who adapts to their environment better than their ''rivals''.
What do they do? Well, generally, they frick into oblivion and have child after child, and middle-class families seeking to save a quick buck purchase their *way* below market price furniture. Every day I go by, they have more children.
They are thriving in this environment wherein people who are actually productive are making it possible for people with almost no production to not just get by, but to thrive.
So, I guess in the end: Evolution, at least for mankind, is different because we're more sympathetic. People who should never have the right to reproduce -- do more than their share of it.
For the OP: Science, simply, is the observation of our universe and its happenings. There are no ''absolutes'', it is the truth until proven otherwise. Anything extra is just wasting everyone's time.
I can see into them from the outside (often they're cooking with a wooden fire INSIDE their little homemade stripmall) and I can see that they get free electricity, cable television and even a fridge!
A lot of people don't understand that Darwin's quote for Evolution (Survival of the Fittest) doesn't mean strongest, or best -- it means the one who adapts to their environment better than their ''rivals''.
What do they do? Well, generally, they frick into oblivion and have child after child, and middle-class families seeking to save a quick buck purchase their *way* below market price furniture. Every day I go by, they have more children.
They are thriving in this environment wherein people who are actually productive are making it possible for people with almost no production to not just get by, but to thrive.
So, I guess in the end: Evolution, at least for mankind, is different because we're more sympathetic. People who should never have the right to reproduce -- do more than their share of it.
For the OP: Science, simply, is the observation of our universe and its happenings. There are no ''absolutes'', it is the truth until proven otherwise. Anything extra is just wasting everyone's time.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 11:23 pm to airfernando
quote:
It is a direct contradiction of God to say the earth or the universe has been around for millions or billions of years. God has clearly revealed that the Earth and universe are fairly young. To say otherwise is to call God a liar. God does not like being called a liar.
God never said that man did.
I posted this a while back on the political forum and not really interested in reformatting for you: LINK / It was in (re): Republican Lawmaker believes Earth is 6,000 years oldPosted on 6/7/17 at 10:38 pm to Shepherd88
(and follows with some Hebrew translation)
. . . because we all know the book was not Genesis it was Bereshit in the beginning.
As in verse one (chapter one) there's the has-sa-ma-yim (shaw-mah'-yim) which certainly could mean the Heavens, however it could also stand for the air or the sky. And ha-a-res (eh'-rets) which could potentially mean Earth, but could also be translated earth as in land, dirt, minerals And the word tohu (to'-hoo) or without form ...
... as in land was not yet formed into our planet Earth. Because as it was translated, it was void, empty, without form.... certainly not rock solid as a planet. This is something before the planet we are on (the 3rd day) and as such is not ruled by a 24hour cycle of day-n-night. It could have likely been an illustration of all matter. That which was both gaseous (airy stuff) and that stuff which was particulate matter (solid elements), all mixed together and flowing together like water.
The biblical translators simply tried their best to get this right; however being the most learned of their day, and steeped in the best science they allowed this to cloud their work. These Ptolemaic-Trained men knew the earth was center of all and the sun traveled around it, and so they translated the tale to best fit what they knew. A earth centered creation and hence it must also be an earth day. We are simply paying the price today, by allowing the science of that day, to shape the argument of what we believe is in the Torah (the pre-translated manuscript).
Much the same way as the Europeans in their infinite wisdom re-translated all the 'J'names in their bible. The Johns, Jesus, Jews, and Jerusalem got re-introduced to the world when they had always been spelled with a "Y" in Aramaic and Hebrew (since there was no J letter in their alphabet)... these had always been Yehohanan, Yeshua, Yehuda, Yerushalayim. Although not germane to the question at hand, it does show a certain manner in which we are certain, beyond doubt, and yet can be wrong. Because we all know his name was Jesus, and yes maybe he'll answer to it; however Miriam his mom would have called him by the "Y" name.
Page 4 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News