Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: My point, exactly. Without direct evidence, ray's statements of what there was or wasn't are false.
No. Without evidence in either direction, you cannot make such a claim as to whether they are true, nor false. You can only claim that they are claims. To assert something as fact, for which there is absolutely no evidence, is illogical. It is not a defensible position of debate. All that will happen is the insulting of each others' character, or the insulting of people who are not even involved in the debate, simply because they do not agree with you.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: So, O/T, morality, as liberty and Human rights, comes from the Creator
You can, present demonstrable proof of these statements then? There is direct evidence, which can be examined by members of society, and which can be verified by independent, and unbiased, third parties? You have some document that existed before the evolution of civilization on this planet, which clearly defines morality in a strict sense, and can be verified through geological and radiological methods by independent parties, that said document is this old?
After all, without direct evidence, your statement that there is some magical creator, must be false, as you have stated that without direct evidence, ray b's claims that there was no garden of Eden, must be false. You can't have it both ways.
well the angel with a flaming sword would be something
but where is he ?
or where was the garden when is a BIGGIE also as the time line in the book just don't work earth is about 4,500,000,000 not less then 6,000 years old
as are many other bits like trees with fruit before the stars are created that only misses by 13+ billion years and tress are made of stuff that was made in a star
JC's time line is a mess also nobody knows when or where he was born or when he died
things we do know also donot add up no bible book has a date or a real known author but most are less old then they claim to be
or why our current version of western christian belief is not the religion of the early church of the jewish followers or even based on any early church arian gnostic or orthodox
or why the church is so divided into thousands of cults if there is one god why so many very different beliefs or what church does the holy spirit attend ?
and what is a good bible approved price for a slave ?
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
No. Without evidence in either direction, you cannot make such a claim as to whether they are true, nor false. You can only claim that they are claims. To assert something as fact, for which there is absolutely no evidence, is illogical. It is not a defensible position of debate. All that will happen is the insulting of each others' character, or the insulting of people who are not even involved in the debate, simply because they do not agree with you.
The conclusions can all be labeled as "theory," except that some (the Big Bang crew, if you will), treat their theory as "settled science," just as they do for Human induced global warming.
You can, present demonstrable proof of these statements then? There is direct evidence, which can be examined by members of society, and which can be verified by independent, and unbiased, third parties? You have some document that existed before the evolution of civilization on this planet, which clearly defines morality in a strict sense, and can be verified through geological and radiological methods by independent parties, that said document is this old?
After all, without direct evidence, your statement that there is some magical creator, must be false, as you have stated that without direct evidence, ray b's claims that there was no garden of Eden, must be false. You can't have it both ways.
I only stated that my version of our origins is as valid as his, which he denies vehemently.
I can verify, through evidence more than sufficient to be admitted in court, that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and, through direct relations of firsthand account, He referenced the creation of Man and Woman for the purpose of the creation of families. He also claimed to predate Abraham (some 2000 years before), and His disciples came to understand His work in the creation of the world. No viable evidence has been presented to the contrary.
If you deny these reports, then you need to deny the veracity of Plato, Aristotle, Chaucer, Beowulf and Shakespeare. But then, they could be theoretical, as well.
JC's time line is a mess also nobody knows when or where he was born or when he died
things we do know also do not add up no bible book has a date or a real known author but most are less old then they claim to be
or why our current version of western christian belief is not the religion of the early church of the jewish followers or even based on any early church arian gnostic or orthodox
or why the church is so divided into thousands of cults if there is one god why so many very different beliefs or what church does the holy spirit attend ?
and what is a good bible approved price for a slave ?
The last question is asinine, but I will answer this way: Biblical slavery is different than that practiced since the founding of this nation. People sold themselves to become a slave by way of debt, and were released free of debt every seven years (so a person indebted to another, who became a slave in the third year of seven, would be released in four years). The price would be determined by how much was owed.
Why so many denominations? Humanity. That's an easy one. The Bible defines how we should act (morality) and relate to each other. Human desires alter or introduce new or additional concepts to these. Some are harmless, some are not. That's why it's important to read what He gave us and to use it as our moral compass. It would keep a person from joining a Westboro Baptist Church, for instance.
Gnostics, in particular, were one of those Human sects that introduced ideas that weren't so innocent, as far as doctrine, which also was established long before liberal scholars think that it was.
Yes, Jesus may have been born in what we would think of as 4BC, but that is not central to Christian thought. The fact that He lived a life that fulfilled the OT and died on the cross in fulfillment of prophecy and as a substitute for us, then, was raised up in power, witnessed by hundreds, is. And, by His own words, all it takes is faith in His finished work to be beneficiary of eternal life in His presence rather than apart from it.
Because of this, I wish to be more like Him for what He has done for me, not be compelled to act a certain way or I will lose His dispensation. That is not doctrinal.
Matthew 22:37 - 40: Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
- Our DNA links all us to a common genetic mother and father (does not prove or disprove religion)
- "Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis."
- Geneticist have claimed we are 25 years away from immortality and that claim was made 10 years ago.
I mention those 3 critical points for this reason.
Even if we prove via DNA that Adam and Eve, The debate over creation and evolution would continue. Even if Carbon dating did show a much younger universe, The debate over creation and evolution would continue. Even if the promise of Eternal Life in an Extraphysical state of being were achieved, The debate over creation and evolution would continue.
And if those 3 points proved the existence of God, The debate over morality would continue. Why: because the great majority want to be right to justify their behavior...
God or Not Those who give from their own resources without first taking it from others (IMHO) are far more qualified to discuss the definition of morality than anyone who takes credit for being charitable with other people's money......
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: The conclusions can all be labeled as "theory," except that some (the Big Bang crew, if you will), treat their theory as "settled science," just as they do for Human induced global warming.
Your misunderstanding of the term "theory" in relation to practice, is the problem. The big bang is pretty much settled science. If you think humans have no effect on the climate, then you just can't comprehend basic math and human physiology. It really is that simple.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 09-18-2015).]
I only stated that my version of our origins is as valid as his, which he denies vehemently.
I can verify, through evidence more than sufficient to be admitted in court, that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and, through direct relations of firsthand account, He referenced the creation of Man and Woman for the purpose of the creation of families. He also claimed to predate Abraham (some 2000 years before), and His disciples came to understand His work in the creation of the world. No viable evidence has been presented to the contrary.
If you deny these reports, then you need to deny the veracity of Plato, Aristotle, Chaucer, Beowulf and Shakespeare. But then, they could be theoretical, as well.
Homo Naledi. the new ''missing link'' they just found in a cave
there is no evidence your JC existed yes there are gospels written much later by unknown authors in the second century
btw zombies are reported in one gospel [the saints arose from their graves and walked the city] but no jews romans or greeks noticed or wrote about them ? nor did the other bible gospels note zombies really ?????
JC himself never appeared to any public event post the cross only was claimed to be see by followers in secret what was he afraid of ? why no return to the temple to show himself ? or to the public areas to show the people ?
so no in fact you do NOT have any evidence that any court would allow what you do have is hearsay by unknown people much later dated
you said in an other post in this thread ''You have firsthand knowledge of this? Or know someone who has firsthand knowledge?'' your gospels FAIL THIS TEST none of the authors were there then
Your misunderstanding of the term "theory" in relation to practice, is the problem. The big bang is pretty much settled science. If you think humans have no effect on the climate, then you just can't comprehend basic math and human physiology. It really is that simple.
On the contrary. Something that is repeatable in a laboratory is "settled science," otherwise it is a theory. The big bang, due to its nature (something from nothing) can not be demonstrated repeatable (or even once) in a lab, therefore, it is a theory. That the Earth has warmed significantly more than it is now (though it hasn't in quite a while), is not repeatable in a lab, therefore, it is a theory, and far from "settled science." The sun has scads more to do with warming and cooling cycles on the Earth, and we are far too small to affect it in any great way. There is much more to it than us.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: On the contrary. Something that is repeatable in a laboratory is "settled science," otherwise it is a theory. The big bang, due to its nature (something from nothing) can not be demonstrated repeatable (or even once) in a lab, therefore, it is a theory. That the Earth has warmed significantly more than it is now (though it hasn't in quite a while), is not repeatable in a lab, therefore, it is a theory, and far from "settled science." The sun has scads more to do with warming and cooling cycles on the Earth, and we are far too small to affect it in any great way. There is much more to it than us.
The big bang is not something from nothing. You must also believe that nuclear explosions are impossible too then, because such a tiny thing can't possibly release so much energy. The idea that your car could be crushed down into a 12" cube must also be impossible, because something so large couldn't possibly fit in a space so small. The effects of the big bang, have been replicated in a lab. The results of the big bang can be observed in the universe. Because scientists haven't created a complete new universe inside a lab, which would overtake and destroy the current universe, making the research irrelevant anyway, doesn't mean there is no evidence or proof of the big bang.
As for global warming, the effects of human activity can also be replicated in the lab, and are observable on other planets. Making the claim that humans are not involved, because they don't generate as much heat as the sun, is just ludicrous. They do however, produce carbon dioxide. It is the compound which we exhale. Likewise, domesticated livestock produce methane and carbon dioxide. Humans require food, and that food requires food. Humans require water, and the food we eat, requires water. Humans do not live naked amongst the animals in the forests. We clear away land and build structures to occupy. There is currently the greatest number of humans to have ever lived on this planet. As a result, the greatest number of livestock are also alive. Humans also burn things, and build machine which burn things. The only way you could absolutely prove that humans have no impact on climate change, would be to have an exact duplicate earth, that evolved without humans, which we could observe, and having the global average temperatures and weather patterns be exactly the same on both planets. Otherwise, we must conclude that humans are in fact, contributing to the changes in climate on Earth, simply because we do in fact, exist.
But your claiming that these things are not true, must mean that you have hard evidence that disproves them, rather than just pulling the "it's a theory" line, and showing that you do not understand what the term "theory" means here. There are mountains of evidence supporting the claims of science, and none supporting the claims of the creationists whom are denying these things. The big bang is not purely theoretical, nor is human-invovled climate change, nor is evolution. They are hypotheses for which incredible amounts of evidence exist in support of. Scientists do not create hypothesis out of thin air for no reason. A hypothesis is created from observation.
But none of this really has anything to do with morality, or what it might be based on.
I couldn't help notice the lack of links to supporting evidence in the post above. The universe is supposed to be working toward a state of equilibrium yet the expansion of the universe is supposed to be increasing. That's right. The galaxies of the universe are supposed to be increasing in speed. If the laws of motion require objects to remain in motion at the same speed unless acted upon, what is causing the acceleration? If anything, everything should be slowing down.
Also, if everything was once compacted in a tiny space and then suddenly exploded, what caused that explosion when it should have been in a state of equilibrium? If all matter in the universe was distributed from that central point, why is there not a great expanding void somewhere in space where this supposedly took place?
If gravity is the weakest form of energy in the universe, why was it able to overcome the power of explosive propulsion causing all matter to expand at great force and speed in all directions? The further things got from the point of explosion, the further apart they would have been from neighboring bodies. How did weak gravity overcome the ever-increasing distance between objects as well as their acceleration?
Lots of "settled science" there. I find it funny that some people cannot believe that the human race began with two humans but they can believe that human race came from slime!
I couldn't help notice the lack of links to supporting evidence in the post above. The universe is supposed to be working toward a state of equilibrium yet the expansion of the universe is supposed to be increasing. That's right. The galaxies of the universe are supposed to be increasing in speed. If the laws of motion require objects to remain in motion at the same speed unless acted upon, what is causing the acceleration? If anything, everything should be slowing down.
Also, if everything was once compacted in a tiny space and then suddenly exploded, what caused that explosion when it should have been in a state of equilibrium? If all matter in the universe was distributed from that central point, why is there not a great expanding void somewhere in space where this supposedly took place?
If gravity is the weakest form of energy in the universe, why was it able to overcome the power of explosive propulsion causing all matter to expand at great force and speed in all directions? The further things got from the point of explosion, the further apart they would have been from neighboring bodies. How did weak gravity overcome the ever-increasing distance between objects as well as their acceleration?
Lots of "settled science" there. I find it funny that some people cannot believe that the human race began with two humans but they can believe that human race came from slime!
The energy causing the acceleration, is the energy from the big bang. That's what the hypothesis is.
There is a great expanding void in the universe. It is everywhere. There are also several hypotheses about what might have caused the explosion.
Gravity hasn't overcome the explosive propulsion of the big bang. For it to do so, would require an infinite mass in the center of the universe, with infinite gravity, that was constantly pulling all matter in the universe back toward it. However, the opposite is happening. Celestial objects are constantly moving further away from each other. Because of the expansion, gravity is exactly not overcoming the acceleration of objects away from each other. Galaxies have enough gravity to hold themselves relatively together though, because they have massive black holes at the center. The Milky Way we're in, has a supermassive black hole at the center. Everything in the glaaxy is constantly falling toward the black hole. There's enough gravity within each solar system to hold it together in place within the larger field of gravity which holds the galaxy together, but most all galaxies are moving further apart from each other.
Nobody said humans came from slime. Well, no scientists did. That's what creationism teaches. According to Genesis, the first human was made from a mud pit:
"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
However, even a definitive DNA proofing showing that all current humans were derived from two specific individuals, does not mean those two first humans did not evolve from more primitive beings.
''Gravity hasn't overcome the explosive propulsion of the big bang. ''
um NO
there was not a explosion or propulsion of stuff as there was NO stuff so no explosion or propulsion
current thinking is a mass of hot plasma energy was formed
then space it's self inflated by an unknown force
that event created the micro-wave background so we know it happen , but not how or why [yet]
as it expanded and cooled hydrogen was formed [the first stuff]
after a time the matter cooled then matter could begin to clump into stars
the current problem is understanding how the dark twins dark matter and dark energy that are 95% of the universe work if they were created in the big bang or are a property of space/time but current thinking is dark energy is powering the current expansion and the odd thing is that expansion is gaining speed now not slowing down but that is not a relic of the big bang or the post big bang inflation
The energy causing the acceleration, is the energy from the big bang. That's what the hypothesis is.
Hypothesis. You mean, theory?
Where did the infinitesimal point that exploded come from? What was around it, and does whatever the singularity once exist, still exist? Is that what's outside the confines of this universe? What is it, since height, width, depth and time only exist in this universe? What was the origin of all of this? What was the impetus for the creation of this singularity? Whose impetus was it? What caused it to suddenly explode? How did the four basic forces align in just the way they did? How did simple things become complex things, and those things even more complex? What happened to Entropy? How did sentience become?
The answer to these questions (other than, "I don't know.") posits (by some) answers that require odds greater than a lottery that would choose a billion numbers out of a googleplex for a winner.
Homo Naledi. the new ''missing link'' they just found in a cave
Another one? I'll wait on it, as many of the others were found to be something else.
quote
there is no evidence your JC existed yes there are gospels written much later by unknown authors in the second century
First of all, your argument then attempts to disprove Plato, Aristotle and many others up to about the Enlightenment. A fragment of the Gospel of John dates to the first half of the 2d Century. This is well within one lifetime of John's death, so the people who used this would well have overlapped his lifetime. Verification of firsthand account was still available to them until he died. If you can't accept this, then you would have to discount anything your grandfather told you. Maybe even your father. The Epistles cross reference each other and the Gospels, as well. So, by the 2d Cent, these books were obviously in common use and by many relatives of those firsthand accounts.
quote
btw zombies are reported in one gospel [the saints arose from their graves and walked the city] but no jews romans or greeks noticed or wrote about them ? nor did the other bible gospels note zombies really ?????
You fixate on this. Do you follow "The Walking Dead," like my 15YO, too?
The Gospels all include details that the others don't. I don't find this remarkable. The Jews would necessarily downplay this - there is no Jewish literature about the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holiest of Holies being rent from top to bottom, either. Would the Romans even care bout this stuff?
quote
JC himself never appeared to any public event post the cross only was claimed to be see by followers in secret what was he afraid of ? why no return to the temple to show himself ? or to the public areas to show the people ?
1 Corinthians 15:5 - 8: "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
Italics mine
He appeared to many people, not just the twelve, but, let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was only the twelve. What would make eleven scared men, whose leader had just been crucified, and one apostate, bold enough to take on the world for one idea?
[quote]so no in fact you do NOT have any evidence that any court would allow what you do have is hearsay by unknown people much later dated
Maybe not in your kangaroo court....
quote
you said in an other post in this thread ''You have firsthand knowledge of this? Or know someone who has firsthand knowledge?'' your gospels FAIL THIS TEST none of the authors were there then
Methinks it's your assertions that don't hold up to scrutiny.
''Another one? I'll wait on it, as many of the others were found to be something else''
no but there is a reason they are called links there was one fake 100 or so years ago the rest are pre human or branches not direct links and yes there are now many links in a long chain evolution is fact creation is fiction
the new guy is a first HUMAN
''You fixate on this. Do you follow "The Walking Dead," like my 15YO, too?'' no I just note it is in your book
''The Gospels all include details that the others don't. I don't find this remarkable. The Jews would necessarily downplay this - there is no Jewish literature about the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holiest of Holies being rent from top to bottom, either. Would the Romans even care bout this stuff?
the gospels are EDITED there are long and short versions no gospel is first century john is not by the disciple john it is Gnostic and the last one written
romans at that time were very very concerned about odd events zombies would sure be a MAJOR EVENT ROMAN RELIGION WAS BIASED TO SIGNS
BTW NO EARTH QUAKE OR DARKNESS NOTED ETHER nor any sign of your JC except to insiders of the cult
if you agree the worst sinner can be saved if he follows your magic acceptance of the christ then hitler or stalin can go to heaven if they get it just before they die where is the moral there ?
but someone who trys to be just and kind but fails at belief is condemed not by his moral acts but by the rules of religion again where is the moral there ?
sorry but even if your made up religion was true it fails at morals
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Hypothesis. You mean, theory?
Where did the infinitesimal point that exploded come from? What was around it, and does whatever the singularity once exist, still exist? Is that what's outside the confines of this universe? What is it, since height, width, depth and time only exist in this universe? What was the origin of all of this? What was the impetus for the creation of this singularity? Whose impetus was it? What caused it to suddenly explode? How did the four basic forces align in just the way they did? How did simple things become complex things, and those things even more complex? What happened to Entropy? How did sentience become?
The answer to these questions (other than, "I don't know.") posits (by some) answers that require odds greater than a lottery that would choose a billion numbers out of a googleplex for a winner.
Time doesn't exist. It is not some universal constant. It is an invention of man, to give order to our daily lives. You cannot travel forward or back in time. What we know as time is only relevant to us, and only on Earth.
Why are you asking irrelevant questions? The odds for the answers aren't impossibly great. Answering them won't give you the answer to the meaning of your existence. Knowing them won't solve the morality debate. Were you to have all the answers, it would not bring about universal peace. The only universal truth is that all things end.
"How did simple things become complex things, and those things even more complex?" This is the question that exactly defines evolution, which you want to deny because a powerful group of people indoctrinated you to believe it is impossible because some cabal of white dudes in Europe didn't include it in a collection of books that was written by hundreds of people, over hundreds of years, with plenty of editing in the process, which claims some impossibly old white dude with a magnificent beard, created all the things out of absolutely nothing, in the blink of an eye.
There's already way too much who began whom, in the bible. How long do you think Genesis would be, if it described the evolution of every species in existence on the planet from the formation of the planet, up until the supposed point of creation? First there were the algae, who begat the multicellular organisms of the sea, then became the trilobites and brine, oh great sea monkeys of yore. And on and on and on ad nauseum and then homo erectus up through to homo sapiens, have we. And then on with the story.
And FFS, his name was Yeshua (Joshua as translated in English), not Jesus.
But praise be to the name given unto the poor Jew, by the heirs of the white Romans who killed the kid, and then created a religion based on it, for the purpose of subjugating the weak and powerless.
Trappist breweries are probably the only good thing to come out of it.
The conclusions can all be labeled as "theory," except that some (the Big Bang crew, if you will), treat their theory as "settled science," just as they do for Human induced global warming.
Actually any astrophysicist would tell you if he accepted the big bang theory as "settled science" they would flat out tell you, no.. Its just a fancy way of saying. "We don't know"...
As for morals, and where they come from..
In my opinion "morals" are an abstract construct of human design that does not really exist. Every person on this planet will have varying views on morality, there is no "set of rules" for what, how, or why a person does what they do. I believe people, despite the situation, person, thing, or subject, just do what THEY believe is "the right thing".. Weather thats finding a lost puppy and taking it home to love, or finding a lost puppy and killing it dead in the street. A human of whatever upbringing, will convince themselves their actions about whatever is the "right" moral choice to make. The society of the world looks at Hitler as an immoral killer, im sure Hitler himself believed he was "doing the right thing"...
Its all about perspective, and everyone's perspective is different from everyone else's. "Morals" or "Morality" are just words to define what society as a whole would deem "appropriate behavior" which human history has taught us, means very little as a whole, and means even less when you get down to individuals. Morals or Morality are just words, nothing more, kinda of like "Love", love isn't a "real thing" its just a word, its the definition that we as individuals, individually give that word that really defines it for ourselves. The meaning we create for ourselves may not be the same as the meaning someone else would give it.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 09-19-2015).]
How many of you "morality hackers" have kept on top of the most recent research that uses behavioral experiments to probe whether very young children have a bias towards altruism in their behavior that is "innate"--that cannot be explained as the children learning to replicate altruistic behavior patterns by processing non-verbal cues during their interactions with their parents or with older children? Do humans come from the "factory" (the womb) with a certain level of altruism already installed? I have seen reports of different experiments with outcomes that point in opposite directions. This (it's not very long) could be an interesting read in the context of this discussion:
Children are NOT born nice: Researchers claim that environmental factors play a major part in altruism New experiments indicate altruism has environmental triggers Suggest altruistic behaviour governed more by relationships than instincts
It's still the best explanation for human behavior. The majority of us simply make choices that balance our need for safety, food and companionship. I think our instinct to survive influences our morals more than our religion or beliefs do.
I have noticed when the topic of morality comes up, it is often attached to the question of social responsibility. But really, aren't morals more about the individual's relationship to their environment. Any since of morality in our treatment of others may just be us projecting our perceptions of mortality and needs on them. After all, most of what we define as charity is based on what WE define as necessary or NEEDED.
What is the basis for our morality? It starts with you and only extends to others as you seek affirmation of your accepted standard of morality. And it only changes as you prune it. IMO
"Scientists study how the heavens go; theologians study how to go to heaven."
Attributed to Catholic Cardinal Baronio, a contemporary of Galileo, and memorably revived far more recently by the late Stephen Jay Gould, who referred to science and theology as Non-Overlapping Magisteria (abbreviated to NOMA, for the convenience of anyone who uses such a phrase on a recurring basis.)
Originally posted by Jonesy: Morals or Morality are just words, nothing more, kinda of like "Love", love isn't a "real thing" its just a word, its the definition that we as individuals, individually give that word that really defines it for ourselves. The meaning we create for ourselves may not be the same as the meaning someone else would give it.
Id say those things exist and the words are just the things we invented to describe them.
Time doesn't exist. It is not some universal constant. It is an invention of man, to give order to our daily lives. You cannot travel forward or back in time. What we know as time is only relevant to us, and only on Earth.
... The only universal truth is that all things end.
Things end, we age, etc. Which is to say time passes, which is to say it exists. You cannot travel back and forth in it, which sort of is to say that it is fixed.
"How did simple things become complex things, and those things even more complex?" This is the question that exactly defines evolution...
Evolution says Dogs came from a common acestor for example, I dont see that as simple things becoming more complex as much as a complex very genetically diverse thing becoming simpler more limited things.
Originally posted by 2.5: Things end, we age, etc. Which is to say time passes, which is to say it exists. You cannot travel back and forth in it, which sort of is to say that it is fixed.
Blue exists, but it is a descriptive word.
You're using the word you're trying to define, in the definition itself. Time is not a universal measurement. How we have defined time, as humans, is entirely based on the movements of our own planet. Then we try to claim it as a universal measurement. It's not. It is a human invention; just another means of control.
Evolution says Dogs came from a common acestor for example, I dont see that as simple things becoming more complex as much as a complex very genetically diverse thing becoming simpler more limited things.
Evolution says all life has a common ancestor. However, all dogs being derived from a common ancestor doesn't make the modern dogs simpler or more limited. I don't even know how you could claim such a thing. What they have done, is adapted to different environments, at least, until humans got involved and started trying to "pure breed" them. http://www.dogster.com/the-...-dogs-of-all-nations
We've pushed several plants and animals to extinction too, and even some humans, and still today are pushing more to the brink. The impacts we have made on the environment affect human tribes that have only just been discovered, or haven't even been found yet.
You're using the word you're trying to define, in the definition itself. Time is not a universal measurement. How we have defined time, as humans, is entirely based on the movements of our own planet. Then we try to claim it as a universal measurement. It's not. It is a human invention; just another means of control.
No, my point was time passes. Yes we measure it, but it passes whether we do or not.
Originally posted by dobey: Evolution says all life has a common ancestor. However, all dogs being derived from a common ancestor doesn't make the modern dogs simpler or more limited. I don't even know how you could claim such a thing. What they have done, is adapted to different environments, at least, until humans got involved and started trying to "pure breed" them. http://www.dogster.com/the-...-dogs-of-all-nations
Its debatable by science that all life shared a common ancestor. Selective breeding, and natural selection is what we've got IMO, eliminating those who cant survive in an area because they are not fit. I dont know how you couldnt see them as more limited.
IMO the "big bang" is very vague, and leaves much room for interpretation. In as much as "it is settled" seems kind of like saying "life began" is settled science.
Originally posted by 2.5: IMO the "big bang" is very vague, and leaves much room for interpretation. In as much as "it is settled" seems kind of like saying "life began" is settled science.
Life beginning is pretty settled science. We are in fact, living proof, as it were.
The big bang is also pretty settled science. It's very well agreed in the scientific community that the big bang did in fact happened. What isn't settled are the exacts on How and Why it happened. Also, with life appearing on Earth, what is not settled 100% is How and Why. There are very good hypotheses for both items of debate, though, none of which involve invisible beings of worship.
Its debatable by science that all life shared a common ancestor. Selective breeding, and natural selection is what we've got IMO, eliminating those who cant survive in an area because they are not fit. I dont know how you couldnt see them as more limited.
How is a dog that's adapted to live in an environment where it's predecessor wasn't, "more limited" exactly? There are no perfect entities that can survive in any condition, know all things, etc… However, to imply something is more limited and less sophisticated than its predecessor, is just wrong. The DNA strands have more branches, thus there are more opportunities for its development (iow, it's less limited, not more), and it is more sophisticated, because there are more possible mutations in the DNA.
Originally posted by 2.5: No, my point was time passes. Yes we measure it, but it passes whether we do or not.
And my point was it doesn't exist, therefore it cannot pass. We do not measure time, we created a measurement, which we call time, that is specifically related to only us. What we call time has no universal value. It is not measured like distances. The measurement of a kilometer is exactly the same, regardless of where in the universe you are. However, the measurement of 1 day, is not. There is absolutely zero evidence of a universal property of time.
