Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If I understand you right I think I have seen this expressed as, the soul doesn't long for what doesn't exist. Such a longing would not arise were it not possible. The Sufis use the allegory of the droplet of water that returns to the sea or the plaint of the reed the result of its separation from its osier bed, that our longing for God and our love for Him is the result of separation, that we were once united with Him and that our rage and anger and hunger is over that loss. Of course, we don't know what we feel so it is easy to deny all of this if it's so.

The corruption of the lower self or ego cannot allow the knowing the Sufis attain... A unification of sorts here before meeting God there.
I often wondered what 'born again' really might have meant as uttered or ascribed to Jesus. The purity of the ego is slowly diminished with existence and the associated 'inputs'. I think it reasonable that it might have meant to purge the ego somehow and be pure and view the wonder of nature and our place in it truthfully and, therefore, with awe.

I find it equally amazing that the brain can actually transform itself to further corrupt that lower self with all manner of blockades to truth. It must be painful to hate happiness as seen in others... And as this thread seems to indicate, attempt to force all others to become as corrupted or at least not enjoy happiness. The lower self must know by some subconscious or conscious but unknown means that its desired state is purity.

We did evolve but did we evolve to this state of consciousness or was there some sort of intervention or implantation... Ah ... the wonder of it all.
 

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
Dogma based on reason is still dogma.

Dogma is that which cannot be changed. To say a concept is "based on" reason necessitates that it can change if new facts come to light. Therefore a concept based on reason cannot be dogma.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,150
6,002
126
The corruption of the lower self or ego cannot allow the knowing the Sufis attain... A unification of sorts here before meeting God there.
I often wondered what 'born again' really might have meant as uttered or ascribed to Jesus. The purity of the ego is slowly diminished with existence and the associated 'inputs'. I think it reasonable that it might have meant to purge the ego somehow and be pure and view the wonder of nature and our place in it truthfully and, therefore, with awe.

I find it equally amazing that the brain can actually transform itself to further corrupt that lower self with all manner of blockades to truth. It must be painful to hate happiness as seen in others... And as this thread seems to indicate, attempt to force all others to become as corrupted or at least not enjoy happiness. The lower self must know by some subconscious or conscious but unknown means that its desired state is purity.

We did evolve but did we evolve to this state of consciousness or was there some sort of intervention or implantation... Ah ... the wonder of it all.

I believe the intervention was the invention of language and the duality it made possible, the ability to put others down, to create good and evil when there was only singularity of being. Once we were everything we experienced. Now we are just egos to which things happen. Once we were all their is, now we are alone and small, but oh so pretentious.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If people want to be Gay, that is fine. However, I dont think Gays should be allowed to adopt. Make your own gay kids with your gay marriage!
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If people want to be Gay, that is fine. However, I dont think Gays should be allowed to adopt. Make your own gay kids with your gay marriage!

Would there be some reasoning behind your position regarding Gays adopting? Would it be OK for Gays to adopt Gay kids? Or, is it Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt straight kids.

Aside from your reasoning, do you think the love and nurturing kids need can be attained only from non Gay parental units?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,150
6,002
126
Dogma based on reason is still dogma.

Anyone can be dogmatic:

1. a.(of a statement, opinion, etc) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable b.(of a person) prone to making such statements



2. of, relating to, or constituting dogma: dogmatic writings



3. based on assumption rather than empirical observation

Reasoning is thinking based on empirical observation. A person, once they have made some observation they decide is valid may become dogmatic about it, and scientists can get that way too, but science is still a subject that changes with new observation. You won't open a Bible one day and discover it's rewritten itself until your dogma changes. You read the Bible and think what you read is the truth because you never notice that what you read is what you already thought was your opinion. You see what you want and have no peer review. In Zen, for example, you would have a teacher who might hit you on the head with a stick if you got funny. Even religious science needs self correcting. The blind are poor at figuring out where they are going.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I believe the intervention was the invention of language and the duality it made possible, the ability to put others down, to create good and evil when there was only singularity of being. Once we were everything we experienced. Now we are just egos to which things happen. Once we were all their is, now we are alone and small, but oh so pretentious.

hehehehe So.. the solution might be for some folks to just shut up and say nothing... The pretentious must bolster their delusion somehow...

I asked my Congress Critter Issa if he had modified the distance aspect of his glasses to the bottom so he could see better when he looked down at the witnesses below.... He said he didn't wear glasses.... hmmmm
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Religion: God is a factual being.
Science: Evolution is fact.

Religion: Though God is factual person, we may not always understand his ways
Science: Though evolution is fact, we don't completely understand the process.

Religion: Since God is fact, denying him will guarantee you an enternity in Hell.
Science: Denying evolution isn't only unreasonable, but it's a complete denial of reality.

Religion: God requires strict adherence. Dissidents will be destroyed.
Science: Any scientist that accepts God as creator isn't competent enough for this feild of study. God is NOT real.

Religion: You will be rewarded with eternity in Heaven.
Science: Will we find a premanent cure for old-age, sickness, and death. Only accidents will be the cause of death.

Religion: We come from Adam and Eve. This is a fact
Science: We're from lower animal life-forms. This is a well-established fact.

Religion: God created the Universe. We know as a fact.
Science: The universe is explained by the Big Bang. This too is fact.

Religion: Intelligent design reflects a designer
Science: ID doesn't require design.

The point of this is that evidence is NOT NEEDED for something to be dogma. All you have to be is self-assured, and stubbornly hold on to a set of beliefs/principles/facts.

In my experience, both scientists and religious folk hold strongly to their "truth" and even heavily critisize the other party at times, and niether sides bother to open their minds to the other side anymore. This is stubborn, and dogmatic by definition.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,150
6,002
126
In my experience, both scientists and religious folk hold strongly to their "truth" and even heavily critisize the other party at times, and niether sides bother to open their minds to the other side anymore. This is stubborn, and dogmatic by definition.

Has your experience been peer reviewed?
 

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
Religion: God is a factual being.
Science: Evolution is fact.

Science: Evolution is fact. We demonstrate this via analysis of the fossil record, comparative morphology, and DNA. We find higher DNA similarity between species of more similar physiology, and these similarities are not random distributed through the genome but highly organized ancestral tree. The theorized branches also align geographically with discovered fossils, and the theorized time scales align with the many variations of historical and paleo-dating, such as dendrochronology and radioisotope. We also have a huge array of natural and artificial experiments that demonstrate the ability of differing selective pressures in environments to speciate populations. This research and these experiments have been performed openly, have been documented and peer-reviewed, and are repeatable. All this allows us to very confidently state that Evolution is fact. However, there is certainly hypothetical evidence that could overturn the theory. Proof that the Earth is young (<1M years, for example) would do it, or a fossilized dinosaur with a fossilized caveman in its stomach.

Religion: God is a factual being. God spoke to us and now we're telling you what's what. You'd better stop nosing around if you know what's good for you.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I agree, and I think marriage is a human right. Again, though.. marriage/sex isn't only for those who can or want children. I'd be a huge hypocrite for saying that becasue we don't want children right now.

In fact, God's prophet Jeremiah was commanded not to marry nor start a family, for reasons having to deal with his prophetic career, but that just to show you how God can change things for his people if he felt the need.

I also agree that the using gays' inablilty to procreate is an excuse to discriminate. We don't have a vested interest in making babies as much as we have an vested interest in making sure the ones here are properly taken care of and not dumped on tax payers.
Well said.

Science: Evolution is fact. We demonstrate this via analysis of the fossil record, comparative morphology, and DNA. We find higher DNA similarity between species of more similar physiology, and these similarities are not random distributed through the genome but highly organized ancestral tree. The theorized branches also align geographically with discovered fossils, and the theorized time scales align with the many variations of historical and paleo-dating, such as dendrochronology and radioisotope. We also have a huge array of natural and artificial experiments that demonstrate the ability of differing selective pressures in environments to speciate populations. This research and these experiments have been performed openly, have been documented and peer-reviewed, and are repeatable. All this allows us to very confidently state that Evolution is fact. However, there is certainly hypothetical evidence that could overturn the theory. Proof that the Earth is young (<1M years, for example) would do it, or a fossilized dinosaur with a fossilized caveman in its stomach.

Religion: God is a factual being. God spoke to us and now we're telling you what's what. You'd better stop nosing around if you know what's good for you.
I have no problem with evolution in particular or science in general, but it's worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, science and religion are taken with equal amounts of faith. Some of the most ardent supporters of CAGW, for example, have true horrendous levels of understanding of even the basic carbon cycle; they are taking the weight of "common knowledge" as dogma every bit as much as is an evangelic Christian or Orthodox Jew or fundamentalist Muslim. Some of the most ardent atheists could no more explain macro evolution than immaculate conception. Certainly the clergy are different - religious priests have only prayer and ancient manuscripts to study whereas scientists have ever-evolving means of experimentation and theorizing - but for the laity both are equally matters of faith. That's probably why most people have no problem believing in religion and science simultaneously.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,071
5,597
126
Religion: God is a factual being.
Science: Evolution is fact.

Religion: Though God is factual person, we may not always understand his ways
Science: Though evolution is fact, we don't completely understand the process.

Religion: Since God is fact, denying him will guarantee you an enternity in Hell.
Science: Denying evolution isn't only unreasonable, but it's a complete denial of reality.

Religion: God requires strict adherence. Dissidents will be destroyed.
Science: Any scientist that accepts God as creator isn't competent enough for this feild of study. God is NOT real.

Religion: You will be rewarded with eternity in Heaven.
Science: Will we find a premanent cure for old-age, sickness, and death. Only accidents will be the cause of death.

Religion: We come from Adam and Eve. This is a fact
Science: We're from lower animal life-forms. This is a well-established fact.

Religion: God created the Universe. We know as a fact.
Science: The universe is explained by the Big Bang. This too is fact.

Religion: Intelligent design reflects a designer
Science: ID doesn't require design.

The point of this is that evidence is NOT NEEDED for something to be dogma. All you have to be is self-assured, and stubbornly hold on to a set of beliefs/principles/facts.

In my experience, both scientists and religious folk hold strongly to their "truth" and even heavily critisize the other party at times, and niether sides bother to open their minds to the other side anymore. This is stubborn, and dogmatic by definition.

is 2+2=4 Dogma?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,444
8,946
136
Religion: God is a factual being.
Science: Evolution is fact.

Evolution is a well-established theory with lots of evidence. That's not the same as fact, but it's a lot better than believing something to be fact without any evidence at all.

Religion: Though God is factual person, we may not always understand his ways
Or any of them because most of it doesn't make any sense anyway, except in very small doses while ignoring the rest.

Science: Though evolution is fact, we don't completely understand the process.
See previous statement about evolution. Saying that you don't completely understand something but your aim is to is better than claiming something to be fact when you have no evidence and half the 'facts' don't add up to something coherent.

Religion: Since God is fact, denying him will guarantee you an enternity in Hell.
Good, vengeful, loving God. Perfect being that gets hung up about a group of ants (comparably speaking) not completely believing in him to the point that he wants them tortured for eternity, yet seemingly doesn't get hung up about all the shit that gets done in his name. He sounds pretty egotistical to me.

Science: Denying evolution isn't only unreasonable, but it's a complete denial of reality.
Re-wording needed here - denying something with lots of supporting evidence while peddling your idea (ID - which has no supporting evidence whatsoever) of how things happened for the purpose of forcing everyone to adopt a style of living that you think is suitable, is unreasonable.

Having faith in some supernatural entity is fine, it's when you confuse it with reality and expect others to accept your version of reality is where the problem comes in.

Science: Any scientist that accepts God as creator isn't competent enough for this feild of study. God is NOT real.
I had covered this point twice already. It sounds like you ignored the second attempt and chose your own way of wording it to suit your beliefs.

Religion: You will be rewarded with eternity in Heaven.
Science: Will we find a premanent cure for old-age, sickness, and death. Only accidents will be the cause of death.
I'm not sure how many scientists believe that. Just out of curiosity, have you thought about where you would like to spend eternity? What place wouldn't bore you to tears if you had to spend eternity there?

Religion: We come from Adam and Eve. This is a fact
Supporting evidence please. This is one of those times where most religious people say "oh, we ignore the Old Testament... until it suits our purposes not to".

Science: We're from lower animal life-forms. This is a well-established fact.
Evolution is a theory like the theory of gravity. It has so much evidence that it seems silly to call it a theory (because a theory might be something that someone came up with on the spur of the moment while sitting on the toilet), but the point of it being called a theory is that there is more to understand and the theory can be altered in light of new evidence.

Religion: God created the Universe. We know as a fact.
404 no evidence found

Science: The universe is explained by the Big Bang. This too is fact.
Theory. Another benefit of a theory is that people are a lot more accepting of additional or challenging information to said theory provided that it has a decent weight of evidence behind it. There can even be competing theories without any violence occurring! I can't remember the last time that there was a war among scientists that left any dead/injured over a theory. I don't think anyone will challenge me if I say that a lot of people have died for the sake of religion as well as systematic torture being performed because of their beliefs.

Religion: Intelligent design reflects a designer
Science: ID doesn't require design.
I love your logic here. "I think The Easter Bunny designed the universe and everything in it".
Scientists: "Well, we have a lot of evidence that points towards a set of theories that conflict with that statement, as well as suggesting that no particular being was responsible."
"Well, if it wasn't the Easter Bunny, who was it?"
Scientists: "Did you hear what we just said?"
"But I believe in Intelligent Design, therefore you must be wrong."
Scientists: "Do you have any evidence of your theory?"
"No. My 'facts' are just as good as your theories, despite the fact that my 'facts' have no evidence. Who needs theories anyway?"
Scientists: "Are you typing your responses out on a computer while surrounded with all the comforts that technology has brought, designed by scientists, using theories that you otherwise have no problem accepting when it suits you, but as soon as those theories conflict on your beliefs, even though they're doing so in an entirely unthreatening way, you have a problem with them."
"Stop oppressing me!"

The point of this is that evidence is NOT NEEDED for something to be dogma. All you have to be is self-assured, and stubbornly hold on to a set of beliefs/principles/facts.
See previous statements in this response about scientific theories.

In my experience, both scientists and religious folk hold strongly to their "truth" and even heavily critisize the other party at times, and niether sides bother to open their minds to the other side anymore. This is stubborn, and dogmatic by definition.
Please, enlighten us, show us evidence of what you believe to be true.

Only an unscientific, wifully ignorant, or very religious person whose views conflict with your evidence would not want to be enlightened. That's where your labelling of scientific theories as "dogma" falls completely on its face. On the flip-side, what would it take for you to change your views?
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Being intelligent and rational sometimes means acknowledging that there are things we don't currently understand.

Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you? You have no independent thought outside of what Scientists tell you to think..

If I lived 5,000 years ago and I saw an eclipse, I'd have two basic options available to me: either say it's something strange I don't comprehend, or attribute it to the divine actions of some god. Which would have been the more rational approach?

Perhaps, perhaps not. There are several ancient cultures that were able to predict both solar and lunar eclipses with good accuracy, which makes me believe they understood how they occurred..

Not sure about the ones from 5,000 years ago though, as that's a long time.

Most of the arguments for "intelligent design" are just modern variations on the same theme.

The arguments for intelligent design have become more sophisticated due to the increase in knowledge on living creatures and the Universe.

Yes, you have told me that. And it's possible you've even convinced yourself that it's true.

But it's not. It's a relatively modern religious-political agenda designed to insinuate creationism into the teaching of science using deception.

Oh I have no doubt that intelligent design has been used for religious and political purposes, and may even have had it's inception in such...

That's not to say that it's automatically worthless however as it does ask some valid concerns..

There's nothing wrong with it for a religion. Feel free to discuss it in your church. It has nothing to do with science.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper. I am not a member of any Church or Religion..

You have a very myopic and ignorant view point if you think God and religion are inseparable.

I think I'm more informed and better able or more willing to reason on scientific matters.

We shall see.

1. Yes, so? This is like saying that slavery was okay because many great men owned slaves.

Terrible analogy. Anyway, you insinuated that Creationism was unscientific and naïve. I then gave several examples of great scientists and thinkers who were Creationists.

Also, you are ignorant if you think Science and God have always been at odds. For MOST of Scientific history, Scientists labored with the belief that the Universe was inherently intelligible and sensical, because it was created by a Super Intelligent Creator..

2. How many current scientists and thinkers are creationists? A vanishingly small percentage.

You have absolutely no idea how many current scientists and thinkers are creationists, so don't even pretend you do.. :rolleyes:

3. Some of the older thinkers were the product of their times, brainwashed in a society where heresy often exposed one to physical danger. They also didn't have the benefit of our current understanding of evolution and cosmology.

Right, so Copernicus, who was the first western thinker to formulate the heliocentric principle which went against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Society, was obviously "brainwashed." D:

This is a new low for you. You forget, or want to forget that these men were great because of their revolutionary thinking, which at many times put them at odds with other thinkers and Society at large in their day..

4. Invoking Einstein shows you understand little of his religious views. He never believed in the sort of "Creator" that you do. In fact, he considered the notion of this sort of "personal god" to be "childlike".

Please inform me, what sort of Creator I believe in, since you know me so fucking well.. I already told you once that you're not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper.

In fact, I already said I was a Deist (just like Einstein) in post # 408, so I know damn well that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God..

It's left "unanswered" because the answer is implied and everyone knows what the answer is, and ID as a movement is inherently dishonest.

I never denied that most ID believers believe that the designer is the Creator. However, it's one thing to believe and another to identify..

Again, if it's "unanswered", why do you capitalize every noun that you use to make reference to this great "unanswered" being?

I've already answered this question. Believing is not the same as actively identifying.

If you can claim the universe was created by a being with no causal explanation and that was always there, why cannot I just say the universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?

And you claim to be a reasonable man and have great knowledge of Science :\

For your information, according to your precious Scientists the Universe had a BEGINNING. They call this event the Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Energy etc all had their origins with this amazing event.

Now, I'm sure you know all of this, so why are you asking me why you can't say "the Universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?"

Duh! It has a causal explanation, because the Universe is material!

Your "creator" adds nothing.

God is immaterial and thus not subject to requiring a cause..

Incorrect. Read what I said again: "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B. It is entirely possible that coded information could have developed on its own."

And once again, you have zero evidence that coded information could have developed on it's own.

You claim that the creation of the universe is the work of some (supposedly) unknown "Creator". That is an act of faith.

It's an act of reason, based on facts I know about the Universe and Life.

My position is that the creation of the universe and abiogenesis are currently unsolved problems. That is not an act of faith. It is an admission that we don't know the answer yet.

And what if one day, Scientists decide that Intelligence undoubtedly played a central role in the creation of the Universe and of Life.

Whatever will you do with yourself then?

See above. If your "Creator" requires no causal explanation, the universe itself doesn't either. If the universe requires a causal explanation, so does your "Creator".

This logic is wrong. The Universe DOES have a causal explanation (the Big Bang) because it is material. God does not require a causal explanation because It is immaterial and not subject to causation.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp for God's sake..


Because Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, much like matter and energy. And if it's immaterial, then that lends credence to the belief that the origin or source of the Universe was IMMATERIAL in nature......ie God.

Sorry, don't understand the question.

It's quite simple. I'm asking whether or not you can tell if something is designed or not.

Is this manmade or natural?

giant-causeway.jpg

Nice try but I've seen that structure before so I know it's natural.

What would you have answered 1,000 years ago?

While there are some natural structures that look man made, for the most part, natural structures look natural, wholly distinct from man made ones.

Now you will say that life is far more complex than columnar basalt, and you'd be correct. But life evolves -- rock doesn't.

There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness..
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness..

... that we can yet identify and account for.

This gap in our body of scientific evidence doesn't necessitate the conclusions you're drawing, however.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,444
8,946
136
Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you? You have no independent thought outside of what Scientists tell you to think..

Alright alright, I admit it! We have been studying CharlesKozierok for many years and telling him what to think!

<raises alternating eyebrows>
I'm going to go across the street and get you some orange sherbert!

CharlesKozierok said:
I've got you your orange sherbert Mr Mikeymikec!

:rolleyes:

Lay off the hyperbole Carfax83...
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Evolution is a well-established theory with lots of evidence. That's not the same as fact, but it's a lot better than believing something to be fact without any evidence at all.

I've heard it's fact, then theory, then fact again. Maybe they'll stay away from fantastic claims and stop putting the cart before the horse. As I stated with the appendix issue a while back, and how evolution rendered the organ "usless".

Now they've did a full 180 on that.

Re-wording needed here - denying something with lots of supporting evidence while peddling your idea (ID - which has no supporting evidence whatsoever) of how things happened for the purpose of forcing everyone to adopt a style of living that you think is suitable, is unreasonable.

Intelligent Design reflects a Designer... or I guess the computer you're typing on coincidentally "appeared" through a mindless process, or the well-desiged house you're living in.

I'm not sure how many scientists believe that. Just out of curiosity, have you thought about where you would like to spend eternity? What place wouldn't bore you to tears if you had to spend eternity there?

LOL- I never said I believe that humans will spend an eternity in Heaven, or Hell. I was stating the similarity between religious and scientific dogma.

Supporting evidence please. This is one of those times where most religious people say "oh, we ignore the Old Testament... until it suits our purposes not to".

We're humans, it's only logical to believe that we come from other humans. All the evidence I need is right here in us!

What's wrong with you?


Another benefit of a theory is that people are a lot more accepting of additional or challenging information to said theory provided that it has a decent weight of evidence behind it.

No, science abandoned objectivity a long time ago. As long as something doesn't challenge their theory, they're all good. This "decent wieght of evidence" is totally subjective.

There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It's easy for fabricate data in science, but hard to determine who's doing it. I wouldn't be suprised if Catholic Church-esque coverups are happening with these people.



Please, enlighten us, show us evidence of what you believe to be true.

... On the flip-side, what would it take for you to change your views?

Every house was constructed by someone. Simple. Plain. Truthful.

We're not too close to our Sun, not too far. Among other things, this planet was specifically designed to harbor human/plant/animal life.

What would it take to change you views?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Scientists don't 'tell you what to think'. Theoretical Physicists, for instance, among other theoretical types, provide the guess and what that might imply (predictions)... The research physicist attempts to falsify, usually. The peer review process ferrets out the wheat from the chaff...

We can calculate the effect of gravity but the mechanism of gravity is not so easy... You are amidst the effects of gravity so have no need to be advised or edified on gravity and its implications. But, say... AN electron passing through two slits at the same time while taking every path possible to do so coupled with this being inferentially determined has to be presented by researchers to be consumed by those interested... How can this have independent thought generated by the non research physicist? You rely on the process of publication because you have not the ability to self determine or examine even though you live amidst the activity. You can't discern it.

One other comment relative to posts above...
Until the temp of the universe got below about 3000k nothing but plasma existed and plasma is opaque... you can't see via our current technology beyond that plasma wall... It is a curtain that currently hides the 'big bang'...
Just about anything could have occurred behind that curtain and 'big bang' is one theory... Could be some entity with a big fire spewing out Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium while making something to eat....
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
For your information, according to your precious Scientists the Universe had a BEGINNING. They call this event the Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Energy etc all had their origins with this amazing event.

That's not really what the Big Bang theory says at all, but most people interpret it that way.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
We're not too close to our Sun, not too far. Among other things, this planet was specifically designed to harbor human/plant/animal life.

It happens to support animal, insect and plant life; and humans are animals. "Designed to harbor..."? Need supporting evidence, other than the Discovery Institute et al.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,444
8,946
136
I've heard it's fact, then theory, then fact again. Maybe they'll stay away from fantastic claims and stop putting the cart before the horse. As I stated with the appendix issue a while back, and how evolution rendered the organ "usless".

Now they've did a full 180 on that.

I'm not sure who "they" are here, or a full 180 on what, or the 'cart before the horse' on which issue. I covered the topic of the use of the word 'theory' further down my previous post.

Intelligent Design reflects a Designer... or I guess the computer you're typing on coincidentally "appeared" through a mindless process, or the well-desiged house you're living in.
You are so wonderfully obtuse. Are you now suggesting that Intelligent Design does not refer to God designing things?

We're humans, it's only logical to believe that we come from other humans. All the evidence I need is right here in us!

What's wrong with you?
I'm wondering whether your argument style is taking another obtuse turn by referring to "we" as the people in this discussion rather than "where did humanity come from?", for which the creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve, and for which there is no evidence.

No, science abandoned objectivity a long time ago. As long as something doesn't challenge their theory, they're all good.
Citation needed.

This "decent wieght of evidence" is totally subjective.
I have a feeling that you're off on a rant, so I'm probably not going to get a lot of sense out of you. I could possibly have an interesting discussion with you on the nature of how humans accept and process certain types of information, but I think you would take it and warp it for the purpose of your idea that scientists are as bad as strongly religious people, despite the latter group's "facts that are held to be true" not changing for at least a matter of centuries, whereas scientific theories have evolved in light of new evidence over the centuries.

There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It's easy for fabricate data in science, but hard to determine who's doing it.
It's a bit difficult to have "scientific police" when one cannot determine if a "crime" has taken place. As soon as one assumes that a crime has taken place, one has made an assumption which is not backed by evidence, and an "investigation" is likely to be tainted by such an assumption. Such "police" would have to be specialists in the field in question for such an investigation to take place. Instead, scientific communities have peer review, which takes place for every theory that a scientist wants to be considered by the community for its validity.

There have been liars in scientific fields, I remember reading about an 'archaeologist' who kept coming up with 'missing link' bone samples. Many people were taken in by it, but the samples were eventually demonstrated to be fake.

I can't really have a discussion with you on science vs. religion unless you agree to stop warping the definition of intelligent design to suit your purposes. You can't draw a comparison between someone designing the computer (actually, a large group of people, each specialists in their own field and drawing on the 'scientific theory' that you seem to despise when it suits you), and God magic'ing the universe and humanity into existence. There is plenty of evidence for the former, and none for the latter's causal element.

I wouldn't be suprised if Catholic Church-esque coverups are happening with these people.
Ooh, I sense a conspiracy theory ready to unfold!

We're not too close to our Sun, not too far. Among other things, this planet was specifically designed to harbor human/plant/animal life.
You're making an assumption that it was specifically designed. Like so many things in life, I think it was the chance result of a multitude of other chance events, just like the chance of ice forming on my doorstep causing me to slip and hurt myself, rather than the act of a loving/vengeful God.

What would it take to change you views?
I believe I answered that question already:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34522607&postcount=467

me said:
Please, enlighten us, show us evidence of what you believe to be true.
However, you didn't when I asked you what it would take for you to change your views. Instead you seemed to spend your next post going on about how, seemingly, evidence is over-rated.
 
Last edited: