they all died because they couldnt compete with the brain capacity of homo sapien... we were just superior taking over their towns, superior at hunting strategies and superior in organizing towns/armies etc.. they lost just because they were inferior... its kind of like when you start a business... if you offer inferior service you are going to collapse... borders offered less selection and inferior service to barnes and noble and now borders is going bankrupt... its precisely what darwin said... survival of the fittest... and the iguanas were a totally seperate species until they became cut off from their predecessors and the 2 sets of the same animal evolved to suit their environments or perish
....i love how you just accept everything you hear about evolution as absolute truth.Prove to me this happened.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
prove it? go look... it happens every day... one day dodos exist and the next day they cant compete with hunting by us and natural predators and die off... tehre are still other birds here... just not the dodo... it failed to adapt and died... plain and simple... there is a reason that the alligators and crocodiles are still here but not parasauralophus or pachysephyllasaurous
....i love how you just accept everything you hear about evolution as absolute truth.Prove to me this happened.
hes not exactly right, since there were no towns back then, as humans were mainly hunter-gatherers migrating around in different hunting seasons.
but there are fossils of ancient man with the obvious marks of combat, ie clubbed bones and cuts due to stone edges. but many of the different species did not even exist together at the same time and place. only records of 3 fossils have been found to be in the same place and time, and those are ones with marks on them. but rarely did these species fight because they were scared of each other, and they rarely met. homo sapien survived mainly due to some obvious advantages in mental capability and just pure luck. if u have an interest in human evolution, look it up, paleoanthropology.
there has been years and years of evidence and scientific backing to prove that natural selection and evolution does occur. its in all biology textbooks and is the cornerstone of most of those books. which is why intelligent design and creationism no longer have any followers nor is it included in any scholarly texts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
That link leads nowhere. You keep pointing me to books, I read those before, they were very, very blurry.
Quote from "applesoffury" »
creation theory inaccurately dates the age of the earth and our solar system by an amazing billions of years.
I am not talking about the "official" creation theory. I am talking about deism. Belief that there was a being that created what we see. That's it. That's the whole theory. There was an architect, a god, a creator. The rest is speculation.
I don't think we can accurately date anything when it comes to "amazing billions of years". Carbon dating is imprecise, and how do we know under what conditions did the world exist at any point in time? I think guessing how old this planet is outside of the existence of mankind is assumptive and purely theoretical.
Quote from "gamma11" »
prove it? go look... it happens every day... one day dodos exist and the next day they cant compete with hunting by us and natural predators and die off... tehre are still other birds here... just not the dodo... it failed to adapt and died... plain and simple... there is a reason that the alligators and crocodiles are still here but not parasauralophus or pachysephyllasaurous
Exactly. Failed to adapt > Died. Not "evolved". Not turned into a big scary dodo that eats humans.
In fact, humans override anything else. They can destroy anything, and if they were not intelligent, they'd kill themselves by making every other species extinct and dying of hunger... lol
If evolution was true, tigers would adapt to radiation, and species wouldn't die out because of some little atmospheric disbalance. If you look at nature, it's hella fragile. Touch it, and it dies. Where did anyone see evolution? It only exists as steady improvement (like with the iguanas that adapted a bit better), but there are no extreme cases. If anything ever gets too extreme they just die. If anyone can adapt truly, it's humans.
That link leads nowhere. You keep pointing me to books, I read those before, they were very, very blurry.
I am not talking about the "official" creation theory. I am talking about deism. Belief that there was a being that created what we see. That's it. That's the whole theory. There was an architect, a god, a creator. The rest is speculation.
I don't think we can accurately date anything when it comes to "amazing billions of years". Carbon dating is imprecise, and how do we know under what conditions did the world exist at any point in time? I think guessing how old this planet is outside of the existence of mankind is assumptive and purely theoretical.Exactly. Failed to adapt > Died. Not "evolved". Not turned into a big scary dodo that eats humans.
In fact, humans override anything else. They can destroy anything, and if they were not intelligent, they'd kill themselves by making every other species extinct and dying of hunger... lol
If evolution was true, tigers would adapt to radiation, and species wouldn't die out because of some little atmospheric disbalance. If you look at nature, it's hella fragile. Touch it, and it dies. Where did anyone see evolution? It only exists as steady improvement (like with the iguanas that adapted a bit better), but there are no extreme cases. If anything ever gets too extreme they just die. If anyone can adapt truly, it's humans.
i didnt cite any books in my post, i explained to you how there is no way for humans to evolve a lizard into a bird in any lab, and to point out that you see evolution in the wrong way, a linear path, where in reality its a tree stemming from common ancestors. and that evolution takes from thousands to millions of years.
and example of an extreme condition is the mass extinction of dinosaurs, only the small mammals survived and evolved quickly to deal with their new environment.
and carbon dating is pretty damn accurate, since it has to do with molecules of carbon 12 and 14 in a subject, which can only be affected by time or natural catastrophic disaster such as a world ending meteor or nuclear bomb.
and you dont seem to understand extinction as a subject of evolution, called population mechanics and natural selection...
leave the science to scientists; deism is a philosophy based on religion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
and example of an extreme condition is the mass extinction of dinosaurs, only the small mammals survived and evolved quickly to deal with their new environment.
You just negated this:
and that evolution takes from thousands to millions of years.
and carbon dating is pretty damn accurate, since it has to do with molecules of carbon 12 and 14 in a subject, which can only be affected by time or natural catastrophic disaster such as a world ending meteor or nuclear bomb.
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
and you dont seem to understand extinction as a subject of evolution, called population mechanics and natural selection...
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
leave the science to scientists; deism is a philosophy based on religion.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
re·li·gion //dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400"">http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400" target="_blank">//cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif"">http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /> Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7.religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. —Idiom9.get religion, Informal. a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re-re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn--ion; cf. rely]
Religion is any stance on the existence of a god, be that negative or positive. Therefore, since you believe there is no god, you are, by definition, an Atheist, and Atheism is a religion. You are religious.
and that evolution takes from thousands to millions of years.
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
thats why scientists use more than one sample of a fossil in more than one strata. no one is that dumb.
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
evolution: 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) :phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also: the process described by this theory
means extinction is a subject of evolution, for further reference look up natural selection. your missing a 'n' in environment.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
i didn't say anything about atheism. i am a Christian in a new era. interesting that atheism is a religion though...i already knew this.
so to put it simply, don't pretend to be smarter than scientists with years of experience and even more evidence and history. no one is that dumb. :rolleyes:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Scientists don't have all the answers, I can certain cite a lot of cases where this type of straight line thinking doesn't work. Take health care for instance, The united states as a whole consumes over half the worlds drugs and yet on the global over all health we rank somewhere around the 30's. In other words, there are something like 35 other countries with better health than the united states, despite having the most advanced medicine in the world. Why do you suppose this is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Scientists don't have all the answers, I can certain cite a lot of cases where this type of straight line thinking doesn't work. Take health care for instance, The united states as a whole consumes over half the worlds drugs and yet on the global over all health we rank somewhere around the 30's. In other words, there are something like 35 other countries with better health than the united states, despite having the most advanced medicine in the world. Why do you suppose this is?
blame that on your healthcare system and businessmen and CEOs or whatever, scientists just make the drugs, they dont sell and distribute them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
Religion is any stance on the existence of a god, be that negative or positive. Therefore, since you believe there is no god, you are, by definition, an Atheist, and Atheism is a religion. You are religious.
jeez, magistrate just killt it lmao
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Really? So you don't believe in evolution, then? Because for you to be a real, Bible-believing Christian, believing in evolution would contradict the Creation in Genesis 1-2, which in turn would destroy the credibility (from a religious integrity standpoint) of the rest of the Old Testament and its multiple prophecies for the birth and life of the true Christ, which in turn would undermine the whole point of Christianity.
That is, assuming you are one of those Theistic Evolutionists/Christians. But you could have perfectly logical reasoning for thinking that they can coincide, and I would be very interested to read your thought process, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I myself am still trying to discern my own beliefs on these things and if you can offer me some good information I would greatly appreciate it. We can continue this in a PM if you want.
I could point out the same for any of the more advanced medical systems in other countries, I used the United states because it is an extreme example. Call me crazy. . . But doctors are pretty well known for "How brilliant" they are. Quite personally I know for a fact that the medical system as it stands is out dated, and ultimately going to faulter over time as it has already begun to do. It mainly stems from the idea that human beings some how are smart enough to over ride nature in many respects. Pharmacology is defined as: the science dealing with the preparation, uses, and esp. the effects of drugs. A drug is a compound isolated (generally from plants). These compounds are isolated because they are believed to be the active ingredient and hence having the most profound effect on the body chemistry. Problems arrive however in the fact that all drugs have side effects, why you ask? Primarily due to the fact that the system is not ordinarily exposed to what could be defined as mega doses of isolated chemicals, that throw equalibrium out. All drugs are, in fact, designed to mimic the action of naturally occuring functions within the body. By artificially throwing the switch in one direction, you throw off several other systems at the same time (Hence most drugs are accompanied by several others in order to counter-act side effects.)
For all of the wonderful advances in medical technology, they are simply advanced systems for adressing symptoms. Adressing symptoms in the short term will find you temporary relief, while in long term, will manifest the problems on a grander scale in different ways. It makes about as much sense as driving your car. . . Noticing the oil light is blinking. . . and then unplugging the oil light bulb to solve the problem.
So what are the grand and amazing advances the medical system has ultimately truely accomplished through all of their ingenius work? They have successfully improved saving lives in the immediate moment (Rush me to a hospital if I get hit by a bus, the cause isn't a mystery, they can adress symptoms in this case quite well.). They have successfully reduced the discomfort through the use of pain killers, and have successfully wiped out some diseases. . . I think the last big one was Polio (If you'd like look up how long ago that was.) They have successfully mapped out body systems and are great at diagnosing and telling you on a physical level what your problem is. Meanwhile all of the most dreaded diseases such as Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and the like are all far better treated in methodologies that are by natural means (Many of which are hundreds to thousands of years older than the current systems with few exceptions). Is that to say that there aren't newer treatments that work well on these problems? No, but then again they're generally guys that are shrugged off and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific and or medical community (Primarily because it doesn't make money). Some of the most intelligent people I know have seemed to lack common sense in some areas, simply because someone is intelligent doesn't mean that you should discard your own senses for what "the smartest one" believes to be true. Now, shrug this argument off with a "Must be a US thing" if you can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Really? So you don't believe in evolution, then? Because for you to be a real, Bible-believing Christian, believing in evolution would contradict the Creation in Genesis 1-2, which in turn would destroy the credibility (from a religious integrity standpoint) of the rest of the Old Testament and its multiple prophecies for the birth and life of the true Christ, which in turn would undermine the whole point of Christianity.
That is, assuming you are one of those Theistic Evolutionists/Christians. But you could have perfectly logical reasoning for thinking that they can coincide, and I would be very interested to read your thought process, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I myself am still trying to discern my own beliefs on these things and if you can offer me some good information I would greatly appreciate it. We can continue this in a PM if you want.
being Christian is knowing that God exists and gave his only son to save the souls of men, that i have faith in. i have faith in a God that created the heavens and earth and all its inhabitants. i have faith that the morals taught to me in the bible are true and most of them should be followed (of course with recent meanings). i have faith in those. i believe and trust science; i believe and trust evolution. faith is belief without scientific proof.
church and science are two things which may never combine; speaking of one and you are only speaking of one.
I could point out the same for any of the more advanced medical systems in other countries, I used the United states because it is an extreme example. Call me crazy. . . But doctors are pretty well known for "How brilliant" they are. Quite personally I know for a fact that the medical system as it stands is out dated, and ultimately going to faulter over time as it has already begun to do. It mainly stems from the idea that human beings some how are smart enough to over ride nature in many respects. Pharmacology is defined as: the science dealing with the preparation, uses, and esp. the effects of drugs. A drug is a compound isolated (generally from plants). These compounds are isolated because they are believed to be the active ingredient and hence having the most profound effect on the body chemistry. Problems arrive however in the fact that all drugs have side effects, why you ask? Primarily due to the fact that the system is not ordinarily exposed to what could be defined as mega doses of isolated chemicals, that throw equalibrium out. All drugs are, in fact, designed to mimic the action of naturally occuring functions within the body. By artificially throwing the switch in one direction, you throw off several other systems at the same time (Hence most drugs are accompanied by several others in order to counter-act side effects.)
For all of the wonderful advances in medical technology, they are simply advanced systems for adressing symptoms. Adressing symptoms in the short term will find you temporary relief, while in long term, will manifest the problems on a grander scale in different ways. It makes about as much sense as driving your car. . . Noticing the oil light is blinking. . . and then unplugging the oil light bulb to solve the problem.
So what are the grand and amazing advances the medical system has ultimately truely accomplished through all of their ingenius work? They have successfully improved saving lives in the immediate moment (Rush me to a hospital if I get hit by a bus, the cause isn't a mystery, they can adress symptoms in this case quite well.). They have successfully reduced the discomfort through the use of pain killers, and have successfully wiped out some diseases. . . I think the last big one was Polio (If you'd like look up how long ago that was.) They have successfully mapped out body systems and are great at diagnosing and telling you on a physical level what your problem is. Meanwhile all of the most dreaded diseases such as Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and the like are all far better treated in methodologies that are by natural means (Many of which are hundreds to thousands of years older than the current systems with few exceptions). Is that to say that there aren't newer treatments that work well on these problems? No, but then again they're generally guys that are shrugged off and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific and or medical community (Primarily because it doesn't make money). Some of the most intelligent people I know have seemed to lack common sense in some areas, simply because someone is intelligent doesn't mean that you should discard your own senses for what "the smartest one" believes to be true. Now, shrug this argument off with a "Must be a US thing" if you can.
you are so off topic!! a lot of words for a simple concept. you dont trust in doctors? they went to school for at least 12 years to do what they do. as for the advances, it saves lives and alleviates pain and suffering, which is a doctors duty, (read the hypocratic oath and its meaning), maybe not for terminal illness (get it? lol.) but some things u just cant cure, like the cold, or cushings syndrome.
u mention side-effects? everything has side effects, you eat to much red-meat, you get high LDL and thus your fat and in danger of dying very soon. you eat too much calcium, kidney stones, you drink to much water? you die of hypotonic diseases.
natural means? as in alternative medicine? it only works for a small minority of people. otherwise itd be more mainstream, and its not about money either, if alternative medicine worked, they will find a way of selling it.
in China, traditional medicine commonly takes back seat to alternative medicine. that is, by choice of people, doctors rather like traditional medicine more for some odd reason....ahh i see why, because it works better.
ohh and that thing where docs think they can alter nature and fate or whatever...its called a God-complex, ive just made your post on topic lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
being christian is believing that God exists and gave his only son to save the souls of men, that i have faith in. i have faith in a God that created the heavens and earth and all its inhabitants. i have faith that the morals taught to me in the bible are true and most of them should be followed (of course with recent meanings). i have faith in those. i believe and trust science; i believe and trust evolution. faith is belief without scientific proof.
church and science are two things which may never combine; speaking of one and you are only speaking of one.
My thoughts on the religious matter are as follows: A christian is defined as "Follower of Christ." More to the point, it is directed to practicing the principles of his teachings. Based on the information I have run across concerning the Bible, there are several contradictory notions that I think should be adressed.
1.) The Bible is composed of books by individuals (Argue if you wish that they are all inspired by God.
2.) The books were composed of several languages, and much of that does have mistranslations within them in regards to switching it to English format.
3.) The books were not written in chronological order.
4.) The books used to comprise the actual Bible were decided upon by a group of people while other doctrines and religious texts created in the same time frame were rejected. "Hey guys, let's have a vote."
5.) Since even the original translation, there have been subsequent other translations by others.
Now, personally, I'm not a religious person and though I have come from a Christian back ground I would call myself a spiritual person. I find it rather odd that most "Christians" I have run across have not only not read much into the Bible, but seem to lack an understanding of the messages the key figure tried to impart. Furthermore, many of these people intrust their religious beliefs to those they consider to be more qualified and experienced: Aka their priest, pastor, etc. The irony of course is that even within all of these different religions that I've looked into at all, they'd all tell you that salvation is something you find on an internal level, not by merely accepting a belief system of "Thank Jesus all is well." I further would like to say that I find it appauling the idea that many people in any religion have that the vast majority of the world's population are condemned to eternal damnation (By an all knowing all loving God) for giving the wrong answer to the "Do you believe in God?" question. I think people who actively search for meaning within the realm of spirtuality deserve far more respect than the average person who claims to be part of a religion primarily due to fear based mental/emotional programming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
being Christian is knowing that God exists and gave his only son to save the souls of men, that i have faith in. i have faith in a God that created the heavens and earth and all its inhabitants. i have faith that the morals taught to me in the bible are true and most of them should be followed (of course with recent meanings). i have faith in those. i believe and trust science; i believe and trust evolution. faith is belief without scientific proof.
church and science are two things which may never combine; speaking of one and you are only speaking of one.
you are so off topic!! a lot of words for a simple concept. you dont trust in doctors? they went to school for at least 12 years to do what they do. as for the advances, it saves lives and alleviates pain and suffering, which is a doctors duty, (read the hypocratic oath and its meaning), maybe not for terminal illness (get it? lol.) but some things u just cant cure, like the cold, or cushings syndrome.
u mention side-effects? everything has side effects, you eat to much red-meat, you get high LDL and thus your fat and in danger of dying very soon. you eat too much calcium, kidney stones, you drink to much water? you die of hypotonic diseases.
natural means? as in alternative medicine? it only works for a small minority of people. otherwise itd be more mainstream, and its not about money either, if alternative medicine worked, they will find a way of selling it.
in China, traditional medicine commonly takes back seat to alternative medicine. that is, by choice of people, doctors rather like traditional medicine more for some odd reason....ahh i see why, because it works better.
ohh and that thing where docs think they can alter nature and fate or whatever...its called a God-complex, ive just made your post on topic lol.
Don't kid yourself into believing that the topic was won because of the fact that you can simply look at what I said and callously say "No that's just silly." There are no diseases that don't have cures in my opinion, and that's due to the research I've been spending my time doing for the last decade. The common cold for instance has "No known cure" according to the medical hierarchy because of the simple fact that Anti-biotics don't work on viruses. Viruses unlike bacteria replicate themselves within the cells of the body, making them immune. There are in fact several alternative ways you can fix the problem. You wouldn't know about this because of the fact that your view point is based on a system that would have you believe their is no cure for the sake of earning money. Think about this for a moment, if I were to cure you in 1 treatment cheaply and effectively, would I make more money or less money than if I treated you your whole life, and never really cured you at all? There's a simple answer and I'm quite certain you can figure it out. As long as you want to talk about the Hypocratic oath, how about this, The fourth leading cause of death in the United states are the actions of doctors. There are cases for instance where doctor's went on strike and the death rates dramatically dropped. Alternative medicine doesn't work for a small amount of the population, it works for anyone willing to try it, and as of the past few decades has been gaining favor once again (It goes back and forth historically as I'm sure you're aware from all of your meticulous research I'm sure.) In china, their methodologies for treating illness has been working for the past several thousand years, the current medical system has been around about. . 100 years? To think of the sheer arrogance that the Alopathic medical system has is truely remarkable. Here's a fun fact for you, during the Nixon administration (which is when the doors to china were opened to the west) there was one of his advisors who was in need of surgery I believe it was for his gall bladder that was going to rupture. There was of course no western medicine there and so what they did, pre-surgery, as an anesthetic was an acupuncture needle. That was the event that brought Eastern Medicine to the west. And as long as we're on the topic of being off topic. . . Care to explain your theory of evolution/creation on a thread talking about do you believe in angels? My "Off Topic" discussion was in regards to your belief in scientific approach. I'm naturally a very scientific person and it wsa by far my favorite subject (Hence I can tell you in great detail about body systems). Despite that fact, I'm also willing to see the fact that scientists can be the most closed minded people on the face of the planet. Why don't you try backing your arguments against mine with something substantial this time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Don't kid yourself into believing that the topic was won because of the fact that you can simply look at what I said and callously say "No that's just silly." There are no diseases that don't have cures in my opinion, and that's due to the research I've been spending my time doing for the last decade. The common cold for instance has "No known cure" according to the medical hierarchy because of the simple fact that Anti-biotics don't work on viruses. Viruses unlike bacteria replicate themselves within the cells of the body, making them immune. There are in fact several alternative ways you can fix the problem. You wouldn't know about this because of the fact that your view point is based on a system that would have you believe their is no cure for the sake of earning money. Think about this for a moment, if I were to cure you in 1 treatment cheaply and effectively, would I make more money or less money than if I treated you your whole life, and never really cured you at all? There's a simple answer and I'm quite certain you can figure it out. As long as you want to talk about the Hypocratic oath, how about this, The fourth leading cause of death in the United states are the actions of doctors. There are cases for instance where doctor's went on strike and the death rates dramatically dropped. Alternative medicine doesn't work for a small amount of the population, it works for anyone willing to try it, and as of the past few decades has been gaining favor once again (It goes back and forth historically as I'm sure you're aware from all of your meticulous research I'm sure.) In china, their methodologies for treating illness has been working for the past several thousand years, the current medical system has been around about. . 100 years? To think of the sheer arrogance that the Alopathic medical system has is truely remarkable. Here's a fun fact for you, during the Nixon administration (which is when the doors to china were opened to the west) there was one of his advisors who was in need of surgery I believe it was for his gall bladder that was going to rupture. There was of course no western medicine there and so what they did, pre-surgery, as an anesthetic was an acupuncture needle. That was the event that brought Eastern Medicine to the west. And as long as we're on the topic of being off topic. . . Care to explain your theory of evolution/creation on a thread talking about do you believe in angels? My "Off Topic" discussion was in regards to your belief in scientific approach. I'm naturally a very scientific person and it wsa by far my favorite subject (Hence I can tell you in great detail about body systems). Despite that fact, I'm also willing to see the fact that scientists can be the most closed minded people on the face of the planet. Why don't you try backing your arguments against mine with something substantial this time.
first off, dont act like you know me, my father is a doctor in a public hospital and he does EVERYTHING he can for a patient, if you honestly think your better than them by bashing them off and calling them callous then your at fault. its not a scientists fault or doctors fault that everything is driven by money, have u even thought of the fact that the world revolves around money? i dont argue that healthcare is corrupt when i know drugs that are good get the boot because they can make a company lose money. it is, for the last time, the marketer or whoever is incharge of economic operations of a company to blame.
my evo posts are relevant because it has to do with belief in angels and heceforth, God. while your rant on healthcare of the world has not much to do with angels and God.
i do agree with your look on religion (u read the da vinci code i see); it is driven by mostly fear. and dont double post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I don't think we can accurately date anything when it comes to "amazing billions of years". Carbon dating is imprecise, and how do we know under what conditions did the world exist at any point in time? I think guessing how old this planet is outside of the existence of mankind is assumptive and purely theoretical.
From a pure philosophical standpoint, if we cannot trust the results produced by technology that has proved to work in conjecture with established theories of the world, such as the fundamental basics of radiation, how then can we know that the knowledge of past civilizations is true?
What I'm saying is, if the natural laws and physical principles of our Universe were different in our past, then would this not also apply to our records of past human civilizations? How can we trust that Greece did exist back then?
Well, we do have massive columns standing everywhere, texts and explanations for everything. But we also have fossil records and DNA from past and present creatures.
(Sort of rambling here, I'm having trouble formulating myself.)
Quote from "Equinox" »
If evolution was true, tigers would adapt to radiation, and species wouldn't die out because of some little atmospheric disbalance. If you look at nature, it's hella fragile. Touch it, and it dies. Where did anyone see evolution? It only exists as steady improvement (like with the iguanas that adapted a bit better), but there are no extreme cases. If anything ever gets too extreme they just die. If anyone can adapt truly, it's humans.
Touch it, and it gets thrown out of balance. But it doesn't die. Mess with it, and bacteria that are otherwise in minority spread like wildfire. Life continues on like it always has, only the most advanced seem to be hit.
This can be seen in fossil records. After every massive wipeout in history, tons of life has disappeared. But life never went entirey backwards. We never went back to some primordial state of bacterial life.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
I don't see how this is true. A natural extinction would be something like a cataclysmic seismic activity, such as massive volcanic eruption. Evolution doesn't say creatures will be able to adapt to poisonous air and liquid rocks within moments.
Quote from "Umpa65" »
jeez, magistrate just killt it lmao
Once again, how does this contribute to anything?
And speaking of why only one species of humans exists, well, I don't have the answer to that. But that doesn't disprove evolution in either case.
Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
An example would be if we were two find two animals who looked different, but had the exact same DNA. That would be proof against the theory of evolution. So far nothing like that has been presented however.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Clearly you got no clue. Deism is not related to religion in any way. Thinking that a higher creature existed is not a religion. Religion is believing in Jesus, or into Bible, or whatever. In any case, there is 0 proof. Deism is just a conclusion that the existence of a creator makes sense due to the structure of the visible world. It may be harder to undrestand than agnosticism, but doesn't make it a religion.
Atheism is a religion. Unfounded belief that God does not, can't, and never existed.
From a pure philosophical standpoint, if we cannot trust the results produced by technology that has proved to work in conjecture with established theories of the world, such as the fundamental basics of radiation, how then can we know that the knowledge of past civilizations is true?
We can't unless there are secondary factors.
For instance, if you find a lot of SOLID stuff via archeology, it is normal to assume someone human built them, under the condition that they were not built in a fashion not suggestively available at that supposed area. Aka, Egypt and pyramids. Nobody is 100% sure where did they get that technology and how the heck did they build those and why, so that area is blurry.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
What I'm saying is, if the natural laws and physical principles of our Universe were different in our past, then would this not also apply to our records of past human civilizations? How can we trust that Greece did exist back then?
Well, I think there was enough stuff for archaelogists to find regarding Greece, but I didn't really explore the subjects.
It's a different matter to prove something existed, and a whole other matter to prove WHEN it existed, and WHY, and HOW.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Well, we do have massive columns standing everywhere, texts and explanations for everything. But we also have fossil records and DNA from past and present creatures.
I do not defy the existance of fossils. I defy where did the creatures that resulted in those fossils came from, and at what time.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
That's the reverse approach, and I don't believe it. Just because there is a theory, and it's not disproven, doesn't mean that theory is correct. Deism also works. Everything that evolution describes can be explained, very nicely, by experimetns and exploration of a creator, and to me, it makes tons more sense than evolution. The most annoying thing for atheists is saying "fossils are there because God had a joke and made them". But they'd say that's impossible. God has no sense of humor. I say that's narrow-minded.
If I see something I can explain, I say "I don't know" until I find concrete proof. I found that proof for a creator, I did not find that proof for evolution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
gamma11 > east
but there are fossils of ancient man with the obvious marks of combat, ie clubbed bones and cuts due to stone edges. but many of the different species did not even exist together at the same time and place. only records of 3 fossils have been found to be in the same place and time, and those are ones with marks on them. but rarely did these species fight because they were scared of each other, and they rarely met. homo sapien survived mainly due to some obvious advantages in mental capability and just pure luck. if u have an interest in human evolution, look it up, paleoanthropology.
there has been years and years of evidence and scientific backing to prove that natural selection and evolution does occur. its in all biology textbooks and is the cornerstone of most of those books. which is why intelligent design and creationism no longer have any followers nor is it included in any scholarly texts.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I am not talking about the "official" creation theory. I am talking about deism. Belief that there was a being that created what we see. That's it. That's the whole theory. There was an architect, a god, a creator. The rest is speculation.
I don't think we can accurately date anything when it comes to "amazing billions of years". Carbon dating is imprecise, and how do we know under what conditions did the world exist at any point in time? I think guessing how old this planet is outside of the existence of mankind is assumptive and purely theoretical. Exactly. Failed to adapt > Died. Not "evolved". Not turned into a big scary dodo that eats humans.
In fact, humans override anything else. They can destroy anything, and if they were not intelligent, they'd kill themselves by making every other species extinct and dying of hunger... lol
If evolution was true, tigers would adapt to radiation, and species wouldn't die out because of some little atmospheric disbalance. If you look at nature, it's hella fragile. Touch it, and it dies. Where did anyone see evolution? It only exists as steady improvement (like with the iguanas that adapted a bit better), but there are no extreme cases. If anything ever gets too extreme they just die. If anyone can adapt truly, it's humans.
and example of an extreme condition is the mass extinction of dinosaurs, only the small mammals survived and evolved quickly to deal with their new environment.
and carbon dating is pretty damn accurate, since it has to do with molecules of carbon 12 and 14 in a subject, which can only be affected by time or natural catastrophic disaster such as a world ending meteor or nuclear bomb.
and you dont seem to understand extinction as a subject of evolution, called population mechanics and natural selection...
leave the science to scientists; deism is a philosophy based on religion.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
You just negated this:
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
re·li·gion //dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400"">http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400" target="_blank">//cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif"">http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /> Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7.religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. —Idiom9.get religion, Informal. a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely]
—Related formsre·li·gion·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Religion is any stance on the existence of a god, be that negative or positive. Therefore, since you believe there is no god, you are, by definition, an Atheist, and Atheism is a religion. You are religious.
evolution: 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
means extinction is a subject of evolution, for further reference look up natural selection. your missing a 'n' in environment.
i didn't say anything about atheism. i am a Christian in a new era. interesting that atheism is a religion though...i already knew this.
so to put it simply, don't pretend to be smarter than scientists with years of experience and even more evidence and history. no one is that dumb. :rolleyes:
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
jeez, magistrate just killt it lmao
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
That is, assuming you are one of those Theistic Evolutionists/Christians. But you could have perfectly logical reasoning for thinking that they can coincide, and I would be very interested to read your thought process, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I myself am still trying to discern my own beliefs on these things and if you can offer me some good information I would greatly appreciate it. We can continue this in a PM if you want.
For all of the wonderful advances in medical technology, they are simply advanced systems for adressing symptoms. Adressing symptoms in the short term will find you temporary relief, while in long term, will manifest the problems on a grander scale in different ways. It makes about as much sense as driving your car. . . Noticing the oil light is blinking. . . and then unplugging the oil light bulb to solve the problem.
So what are the grand and amazing advances the medical system has ultimately truely accomplished through all of their ingenius work? They have successfully improved saving lives in the immediate moment (Rush me to a hospital if I get hit by a bus, the cause isn't a mystery, they can adress symptoms in this case quite well.). They have successfully reduced the discomfort through the use of pain killers, and have successfully wiped out some diseases. . . I think the last big one was Polio (If you'd like look up how long ago that was.) They have successfully mapped out body systems and are great at diagnosing and telling you on a physical level what your problem is. Meanwhile all of the most dreaded diseases such as Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and the like are all far better treated in methodologies that are by natural means (Many of which are hundreds to thousands of years older than the current systems with few exceptions). Is that to say that there aren't newer treatments that work well on these problems? No, but then again they're generally guys that are shrugged off and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific and or medical community (Primarily because it doesn't make money). Some of the most intelligent people I know have seemed to lack common sense in some areas, simply because someone is intelligent doesn't mean that you should discard your own senses for what "the smartest one" believes to be true. Now, shrug this argument off with a "Must be a US thing" if you can.
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
church and science are two things which may never combine; speaking of one and you are only speaking of one.
you are so off topic!! a lot of words for a simple concept. you dont trust in doctors? they went to school for at least 12 years to do what they do. as for the advances, it saves lives and alleviates pain and suffering, which is a doctors duty, (read the hypocratic oath and its meaning), maybe not for terminal illness (get it? lol.) but some things u just cant cure, like the cold, or cushings syndrome.
u mention side-effects? everything has side effects, you eat to much red-meat, you get high LDL and thus your fat and in danger of dying very soon. you eat too much calcium, kidney stones, you drink to much water? you die of hypotonic diseases.
natural means? as in alternative medicine? it only works for a small minority of people. otherwise itd be more mainstream, and its not about money either, if alternative medicine worked, they will find a way of selling it.
in China, traditional medicine commonly takes back seat to alternative medicine. that is, by choice of people, doctors rather like traditional medicine more for some odd reason....ahh i see why, because it works better.
ohh and that thing where docs think they can alter nature and fate or whatever...its called a God-complex, ive just made your post on topic lol.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
My thoughts on the religious matter are as follows: A christian is defined as "Follower of Christ." More to the point, it is directed to practicing the principles of his teachings. Based on the information I have run across concerning the Bible, there are several contradictory notions that I think should be adressed.
1.) The Bible is composed of books by individuals (Argue if you wish that they are all inspired by God.
2.) The books were composed of several languages, and much of that does have mistranslations within them in regards to switching it to English format.
3.) The books were not written in chronological order.
4.) The books used to comprise the actual Bible were decided upon by a group of people while other doctrines and religious texts created in the same time frame were rejected. "Hey guys, let's have a vote."
5.) Since even the original translation, there have been subsequent other translations by others.
Now, personally, I'm not a religious person and though I have come from a Christian back ground I would call myself a spiritual person. I find it rather odd that most "Christians" I have run across have not only not read much into the Bible, but seem to lack an understanding of the messages the key figure tried to impart. Furthermore, many of these people intrust their religious beliefs to those they consider to be more qualified and experienced: Aka their priest, pastor, etc. The irony of course is that even within all of these different religions that I've looked into at all, they'd all tell you that salvation is something you find on an internal level, not by merely accepting a belief system of "Thank Jesus all is well." I further would like to say that I find it appauling the idea that many people in any religion have that the vast majority of the world's population are condemned to eternal damnation (By an all knowing all loving God) for giving the wrong answer to the "Do you believe in God?" question. I think people who actively search for meaning within the realm of spirtuality deserve far more respect than the average person who claims to be part of a religion primarily due to fear based mental/emotional programming.
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Don't kid yourself into believing that the topic was won because of the fact that you can simply look at what I said and callously say "No that's just silly." There are no diseases that don't have cures in my opinion, and that's due to the research I've been spending my time doing for the last decade. The common cold for instance has "No known cure" according to the medical hierarchy because of the simple fact that Anti-biotics don't work on viruses. Viruses unlike bacteria replicate themselves within the cells of the body, making them immune. There are in fact several alternative ways you can fix the problem. You wouldn't know about this because of the fact that your view point is based on a system that would have you believe their is no cure for the sake of earning money. Think about this for a moment, if I were to cure you in 1 treatment cheaply and effectively, would I make more money or less money than if I treated you your whole life, and never really cured you at all? There's a simple answer and I'm quite certain you can figure it out. As long as you want to talk about the Hypocratic oath, how about this, The fourth leading cause of death in the United states are the actions of doctors. There are cases for instance where doctor's went on strike and the death rates dramatically dropped. Alternative medicine doesn't work for a small amount of the population, it works for anyone willing to try it, and as of the past few decades has been gaining favor once again (It goes back and forth historically as I'm sure you're aware from all of your meticulous research I'm sure.) In china, their methodologies for treating illness has been working for the past several thousand years, the current medical system has been around about. . 100 years? To think of the sheer arrogance that the Alopathic medical system has is truely remarkable. Here's a fun fact for you, during the Nixon administration (which is when the doors to china were opened to the west) there was one of his advisors who was in need of surgery I believe it was for his gall bladder that was going to rupture. There was of course no western medicine there and so what they did, pre-surgery, as an anesthetic was an acupuncture needle. That was the event that brought Eastern Medicine to the west. And as long as we're on the topic of being off topic. . . Care to explain your theory of evolution/creation on a thread talking about do you believe in angels? My "Off Topic" discussion was in regards to your belief in scientific approach. I'm naturally a very scientific person and it wsa by far my favorite subject (Hence I can tell you in great detail about body systems). Despite that fact, I'm also willing to see the fact that scientists can be the most closed minded people on the face of the planet. Why don't you try backing your arguments against mine with something substantial this time.
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
my evo posts are relevant because it has to do with belief in angels and heceforth, God. while your rant on healthcare of the world has not much to do with angels and God.
i do agree with your look on religion (u read the da vinci code i see); it is driven by mostly fear. and dont double post.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
What I'm saying is, if the natural laws and physical principles of our Universe were different in our past, then would this not also apply to our records of past human civilizations? How can we trust that Greece did exist back then?
Well, we do have massive columns standing everywhere, texts and explanations for everything. But we also have fossil records and DNA from past and present creatures.
(Sort of rambling here, I'm having trouble formulating myself.)
Touch it, and it gets thrown out of balance. But it doesn't die. Mess with it, and bacteria that are otherwise in minority spread like wildfire. Life continues on like it always has, only the most advanced seem to be hit.
This can be seen in fossil records. After every massive wipeout in history, tons of life has disappeared. But life never went entirey backwards. We never went back to some primordial state of bacterial life.
I don't see how this is true. A natural extinction would be something like a cataclysmic seismic activity, such as massive volcanic eruption. Evolution doesn't say creatures will be able to adapt to poisonous air and liquid rocks within moments.
Once again, how does this contribute to anything?
And speaking of why only one species of humans exists, well, I don't have the answer to that. But that doesn't disprove evolution in either case.
Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
An example would be if we were two find two animals who looked different, but had the exact same DNA. That would be proof against the theory of evolution. So far nothing like that has been presented however.
Atheism is a religion. Unfounded belief that God does not, can't, and never existed.
For instance, if you find a lot of SOLID stuff via archeology, it is normal to assume someone human built them, under the condition that they were not built in a fashion not suggestively available at that supposed area. Aka, Egypt and pyramids. Nobody is 100% sure where did they get that technology and how the heck did they build those and why, so that area is blurry.
Well, I think there was enough stuff for archaelogists to find regarding Greece, but I didn't really explore the subjects.
It's a different matter to prove something existed, and a whole other matter to prove WHEN it existed, and WHY, and HOW.
I do not defy the existance of fossils. I defy where did the creatures that resulted in those fossils came from, and at what time.
That's the reverse approach, and I don't believe it. Just because there is a theory, and it's not disproven, doesn't mean that theory is correct. Deism also works. Everything that evolution describes can be explained, very nicely, by experimetns and exploration of a creator, and to me, it makes tons more sense than evolution. The most annoying thing for atheists is saying "fossils are there because God had a joke and made them". But they'd say that's impossible. God has no sense of humor. I say that's narrow-minded.
If I see something I can explain, I say "I don't know" until I find concrete proof. I found that proof for a creator, I did not find that proof for evolution.