Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 66 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Islam’s god is the greatest deceiver, according to their ‘holy’ writings

 

If you get your definition of مکرالله from "Answering Islam", a web site that's intended to convert Muslims to Christianity, it does at least.

And it's interesting how 'holy' gets scare quotes when referring to Islamic scripture but not Judeo-Christian scripture.

But no, you're not talking about your beliefs, only about one particular aspect of science, aren't you?

 

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It is a difficult organization to sort out...for sure. I know some swear it really helped them.

Yeah, but so much mis-information to make it creepy and really strange.  If governments are afraid of it, I'd say they are more afraid about their money and their monies involvement with what is considered the main religion in America, Protestantism and Puritanical values trying to be enforced on all of us.  Enforced especially through censorship and media control.   While some say alt-left or left media blah blah...still Puritanism is the ultimate in what one can or not say in America though it has gotten a bit better.  

   

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

It does seem there are likely prejudiced sources in the list. But aren’t you being biased about the sources being biased? And did you look to see if the point I was making was true by looking at other searches?

You placed that search towards an academic ( not me of course ) . And likely prejudiced sources is of course a euphemism.

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

 

If one clicks over to Google and runs the same search ‘fired questioning evolution’ we get 3.16 million hits and these sources;

 

  • ·         Wikipedia – now identified as biased by one of its founders

     

  • ·         Discovery – The TV people – talking about the problem

     

  • ·         University of Missouri-Kansas @ KC – Law Dept

     

  • ·         Atheistic Republic

     

  • ·         The Dispatch

     

  • ·         Washington Post

     

  • ·         Washington Times

     

  • ·         USA Today

     

  • ·         NPR

     

  • ·         The Guardian – UK

     

I think I made my point.

You haven't. Twice your link refers to a Duck Duck Go - result which leads to various links mainly reporting about a religious researcher being fired for questioning evolution. The links supplied basically belong to the religious inclined opposed to 'darwinism'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Islam’s god is the greatest deceiver, according to their ‘holy’ writings.

In Islam they believe Isa (Jesus) they also believe their holy book (Bibble) god's message, but they say it is changed and corrupted..

Ironic.. it says that Islam also changed and shifted many directions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting about the RS conference being discussed here is that in the summary of what occurred there, most agree that although they poked holes in the theory, no one gave any concrete evidence for another theory.  Theory definition..

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

So over time, one would expect elements of the theory to be proved or disproved.  Neither of which happened at the conference. 

Just because someone tosses out a new theory, does not invalidate the old one unless you provide proof of your theory.

In essence, this entire thread is pointless.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

What's interesting about the RS conference being discussed here is that in the summary of what occurred there, most agree that although they poked holes in the theory, no one gave any concrete evidence for another theory.  Theory definition..

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

So over time, one would expect elements of the theory to be proved or disproved.  Neither of which happened at the conference. 

Just because someone tosses out a new theory, does not invalidate the old one unless you provide proof of your theory.

In essence, this entire thread is pointless.

 

I disagree that Natale's posts were pointless. It was very informative that Darwin's theories are no longer seen as the way life came about. The Royal Society is admitting this if somewhat obliquely. What is the really interesting though is the manner in which they propose to move on from Darwinism.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RunawayBunny said:

My personal observation when some one constantly talking about religion and trying prove it is legitimate and correct, they are most likely having doubts about their religion. They usually read a lot of things to prove their belief and dismiss everything that does not fit their religion.

They can talk hours and hours even if you don't refuse or accept anything and they end up arguing with themself.

Not sure how it works in other places but this is what I perceived in middle asia.

I agree with you from the perspective that Darwin's evolution has become a religion for many of its adherents. :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Darwin's evolution has become a religion for many of its adherents.

Not much different IMO.. both subjects have no direct profs you cant disprove or prove it. Same as religion.

Edited by RunawayBunny
Typos Grammar etc.. :3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I agree with you from the perspective that Darwin's evolution has become a religion for many of its adherents.

To be fair, "science" is taken on faith by a large number of people simply because to fully understand most of the proofs would require too great an effort.

Back in the 1600s when the Royal Society came to prominence it was possible for a Hooke, a Newton, a Liebnitz to be enough of a polymath to be able to follow all the arguments and verify them for oneself, but the expansion of knowledge has now rendered that too much for an individual mind.

It is simpler to accept the scientific method, the peer-review mechanism, and say that on balance science has the greatest chance of being correct. That is a belief system.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

He uses the appeal to authority tactic.

I'm fully aware of logic fallacies and the 'argument of authority'. But in this case I wasn't even arguing or trying to convince anyone. That's fruitless in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this illustration again with approx. dates added :

590295483_Darwinatcenter-min.thumb.png.5bf5f8d9e9eda9e94be480f5cf8b8df8.png

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

My point was/is there are problems with the ‘central dogma’ or core of the Darwin’s hypothesis and the RSoL and others are moving on from Darwin’s hypothesis.

A paper published in 2017 by the Royal Society titled,  Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessarywould suggest that the RS are not "moving on from Darwins hypothesis" but looking to add to it, (extending it ).

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

 

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Notice in your diagram that Information Theory and the math and time issues are not shown. Since they admit they are not showing all the issues, it begs the question why some of the biggest ones are not listed.

Doing a search for Evolution and Information theory I come across, what seems to me to be two very different ideas.

The first one, again published by the RS in 2017 : Information theory, evolutionary innovations and evolvability.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2016.0416

 

And the second,  referred to here:           Does information theory refute evolution?

David H. Bailey
Updated 2 January 2021 (c) 2021

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/information-theory.php

 

If this second theory, (William Dembski) is the one you are referring to when asking why "Information Theory and the math and time issues"  are not included in the Extended Synthesis then perhaps the following quote from the above mentioned article would explain why :

" Introduction

Both traditional creationists and intelligent design scholars have invoked probability and information theory arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. "

 

 

 

Edited by Aquila Kytori
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Talligurl said:

It only tells us the mechanism that the deity used to bring it into being if in fact it is inspired.

You missed the point of my post entirely.

Explain how different cultures like those I posted (Australian Aboriginals) can loosely have the same oral tradition than the 'inspired word of God' when those cultures do not believe in the same or even a God but spirit people and animals? i.e. they believe a rainbow serpent that carved out the valleys and frogs that came forth from the barren land, opened their mouth and water came out making the rivers and seas.

The underling fundamentals are in both creation stories (Bible and Dreaming Stories), there was land and water, the land was divided and then water came between the divided land. Does this mean that the Aboriginal Dreaming Stories are inspired by God as well seeing as whilst different carry the same fundamentals?

To assume that it is, is an insult to other cultures and to assume that it is not shows that the the Bible is just mankind's oral tradition and not inspired as you can not discount other cultures earliest traditions that PRE-DATE the bible.

8 hours ago, Talligurl said:

The Bible does not have to be an account of literal facts in order to be true. If man can teach us profound things through fiction, why couldn't God? 

So speaking of the Flood Story even if looking at it as there to 'teach us profound things', which culture's version is 'inspired by God' the version in the bible or the version in the Sumerian scripts? 

The Gilgamesh Epic in the Sumerian texts predates the bibles written account meaning that because they were written down first it has less a chance of been distorted which was common with oral traditions. That said they match so closely that it is impossible for them to not be of the same story.

Lets also not forget that more than likely Abraham heard the Gilgamesh epic and passed it down to his descendants in a different format instead with then Moses writing it 1000 years later or a descendant even later in the Torah. Abraham was after all born in Ur which was a Sumerian city state of which the Gilgamesh Epic is based around (King Uruk, Third Dynasty of Ur).

The Gilgamesh Epic shows parallels between the bible and Sumerian texts that arguing that one is inspired and the other not is open to ridicule and impossible to argue that inspiration of the Bible is from God and other scripts are not.  For example the creation story and garden of Eden both having first man, Sumerian Enkidu/Shamhat - Bible Adam/Eve. Both created from the dust, both living amongst animals, both having woman introduced to man, both having woman eat from apple, both have women tempting man, both have covering the nakedness and unable to return to the garden, and both having a snake.

Even the Book of Enoch (Apocrypha) is a parallel to the Gilgamesh Epics Book of Giants.

If this is the case (Abraham hearing the Sumerian texts and passing those down) then surely you are not suggesting that Abrahams version is inspired by God because it is in the Bible and the Sumerian text isn't, despite those stories clearly coming from the Sumerian civilization first.

You say the Bible is inspired. If that is the case so is the Sumerian texts of which predate the bible and are near identical between the Gilgamesh Epic and early Torah books.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

the Bible is just mankind's oral tradition

God can use mankind's oral tradition, it does not have to be one or the other.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

If this is the case (Abraham hearing the Sumerian texts and passing those down) then surely you are not suggesting that Abrahams version is inspired by God because it is in the Bible and the Sumerian text isn't, despite those stories clearly coming from the Sumerian civilization first.

You say the Bible is inspired. If that is the case so is the Sumerian texts of which predate the bible and are near identical between the Gilgamesh Epic and early Torah books.

According to the genealogies Noah and Shem were alive at the same time Abraham was and according to tradition, he lived with them for 39 years. Lots of time to get the information firsthand rather than rely on Sumerian texts.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 3:35 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

Doesn't that rely on the existence of something that wasn't designed or created? And if it's not necessary for a creator to be designed or created, why would it be necessary for "creation" to be designed or created?

The thinking comes from philosophy. Created things all have creators. As one logically regresses back through the creators we get to where we have one uncreated creator as the logical answer. To challenge the idea, one has to go up against the big thinkers of history and provide a better logical argument than they did.

All run into logically needing to have one uncreated creator to stop the infinite regression problem.

Prior to the concept of the big bang, the universe was thought to be eternal, to have always existed. That was a modern science thing at the time. Thus, no creator god was needed. Then science progressed to the point we had the math and observations so that ir couldn’t be avoided and science had to deal with universe having a beginning. Oops.

On 3/12/2021 at 4:23 AM, BelindaN said:

I dont have time to slog through all this thread. And I don't have any answers either. So maybe I should stop there.

But I do have thought threads.

The everything from nothing big bang makes no sense in the context of known science.

There's more to the observable universe than the observable universe, which appears chaotic but in a single lifetime is quite stable.

Time and gravity seem to be fundamentals. How did those rules appear?

Life may travel around the universe like dandelion seeds, creating life when conditions are suitable.

There may or may not be a God. But there are natural rules. Maybe reality has always existed. We will never know the truth of that I suspect.

Darwin observed the obvious, which is how science creates a benchmark in time. It's obvious that remote places like Easter Island and Australasia will develop unique species in isolation, and the consequences of humans then introducing european fauna shows what can happen to indigenous species. 

But I only think Darwin got the obvious, and I don't blindly believe his version of life, simply because the obvious today has changed.

So there you have it. No answers.

Unless this whole thing is a simulation.

You really only need to ever read the OP to know what a thread is about. As the pages mount up the subject tends to diverge. People responding directly to the OP tend to pull it back on topic.

The idea of the big bang comes from the known science and math. That something came from nothing is what no one is making sense of. But math and observations say this is what must have happened. Oddly prior to the BANG idea the universe was thought to be eternal and to have existed forever, which most people thought made sense. Sort of says something about how little sense we may have.

A simulation… The Matrix… There are actually serious people looking at that possibility. (Ref) Did you notice that frame reset!?!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice.

Unlike earlier Sumerian law codes, such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, which had focused on compensating the victim of the crime, the Law of Hammurabi was one of the first law codes to place greater emphasis on the physical punishment of the perpetrator. It prescribed specific penalties for each crime and is among the first codes to establish the presumption of innocence. Although its penalties are extremely harsh by modern standards, they were intended to limit what a wronged person was permitted to do in retribution. The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

Hammurabi  realized regular law does not work because its mans (kings) order.

Man does not fear from man but man fears from unknown deity (aka god). He used this knowledge to apply laws efficiently, It appears to be worked out for them very long time and copied by other civilizations.

In reality he was fully aware this whole god thing a hoax but can be beneficial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:
7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

my mind is open to changing on anything..

Anything? Even things you've seen with your own eyes?

Yes, with my own eyes, and with anybody else's eyes too!   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes, with my own eyes, and with anybody else's eyes too!   :)

So, if you witnessed lets say, a car accident and seen who hit who.. You wouldn't be set in your mind on what happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Prior to the concept of the big bang, the universe was thought to be eternal, to have always existed. That was a modern science thing at the time. Thus, no creator god was needed. Then science progressed to the point we had the math and observations so that ir couldn’t be avoided and science had to deal with universe having a beginning. Oops.

1) What "modern science" believed that the universe was eternal?

2) Why do you assume that the "Big Bang" was "the beginning", rather than a point in a continuous cycle?

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/big-bounce-theory?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

3) Why do you assume that bubble created by the "Big Bang" is the entirety of the universe?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

According to the genealogies Noah and Shem were alive at the same time Abraham was and according to tradition, he lived with them for 39 years. Lots of time to get the information firsthand rather than rely on Sumerian texts.

According to the original scripts, the Green Hornet is the Lone Ranger's grandnephew.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

If this is the case (Abraham hearing the Sumerian texts and passing those down) then surely you are not suggesting that Abrahams version is inspired by God because it is in the Bible and the Sumerian text isn't, despite those stories clearly coming from the Sumerian civilization first.

If God can get into Abraham's head and tell him what to write, then He can get into the Sumerians heads and well and tell them what to write in preparation of Abrahams writing, The earlier texts are not "inspired" in the sense that they are not the final authoritive version, but they still may mave been influenced by God in preparation of the final text. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 66 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...