fly_tornado Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I can't believe you have read Darwin GNu. I just can't. Perhaps you read "cherry picked" propaganda somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 QUOTE: Ooooh.... question atheist doctrine or the high priest Darwin and you get a strong reaction! This is not a scientific, inquiring mind but a closed mind folks. No; I'm just tired of the whole stupid debate. That's what I say to religious hawkers, too, when they turn up at our place. I object to "atheism" being classed as a "faith" on logical grounds. Apart from that, and the entertainment provided by FT, I'm very much of the view of Voltaire's Candide; the universe can look after itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 ...Why do you claim this OK? Charles Darwin* himself stated that transitional fossils ought to be the most abundant types found and acknowledged that his theory rested on this being the case. So you disagree with him?.... His perception of how "transition" occurred may be different to mine. Time will tell which of Darwin's ideas was right. There are still a lot of fossils to be discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The shroud and remains of the Ark etc I am sceptical of and various scrolls. Some are fakes. I actually keep up with archeological finds with inscriptions or images of anything at all when I can. . Nev Just read a few yards of hieroglyphs after smoko myself Nev, got to keep my hand in! More seriously though, I did waste a day and a half of my life reading Rex Gilroys book before the penny dropped that the reason real scientists pay no attention to him is that they give exactly as much of their time as he deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 If you want to make imbecilic and hateful posts that's up to you. So that's the "eye for an eye" stand rather than "turn the other cheek"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 In a twist of fate, one of the first torpedoes to rip holes in the theory of evolution was unleashed by a biochemist. In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, a biology professor, points to a strange brew bubbling in the test tube. He focuses on five phenomena: blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides. He analyses each phenomenon systematically and arrives at a single startling conclusion: These are systems that are so irreducibly complex that no gradual, step-by-step Darwinian route could have led to their creation. This would presumably be the same Michael Behe who was an expert witness in the Dover School book trial where, under cross examination, he was obliged to admit - That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims. That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed. That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose. That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God. That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD." That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences did not encompass intelligent design, and that his own, broader, definition would also allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject; he insisted they were "not good enough.". It is a bit like particle physics, I don't really understand it ... Try "The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 . . . Try "The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw John, truth is I don't want to understand it. It hurts my head to think about it It is at the leading, bleeding edge and I don't have enough time left to really get into it. It doesn't affect flying or MotoGp that I've noticed so I can leave it to my nephew who's into to it and have friendly arguments on philosophical crap. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Ah, the good old Intelligent Design. Or known by its full title, which is: "Damn! People are starting to spot the holes in traditional dogma. Let's wrap the whole thing up in something that looks like science and hope it impresses people enough so they don't look at it closely..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I'm afraid I'm with Daffyd on the subject of Intelligent Design. It is just codswallop and I refuse to even debate such a silly notion anymore. People walking with dinosaurs, denial of every piece of geological science possible. And spurious arguments that no person that follows scientific method could ever accept. Evidence be buggered, just give me the writings of a bunch of goat herders from a few thousand years BCE. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 John, truth is I don't want to understand it. It hurts my head to think about it It is at the leading, bleeding edge and I don't have enough time left to really get into it. It doesn't affect flying or MotoGp that I've noticed so I can leave it to my nephew who's into to it and have friendly arguments on philosophical crap. Don I watch every Galaxy/Universe show that comes around, bloody fascinating stuff and the math that's behind the discoveries is beyond the grasp of us mere mortals and in the hands of only a few - Einstein being the best known of those few to us mere mortals of course. But whats the point? It consumes vast amounts of money to know why/where/when the Universe started or anybody else out there and it has no, and will never have, any effect on our daily lives. Incredibly fascinating, incredibly expensive and incredibly useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Rupert Sheldrake looks/sounds (to me) to be a little like that Erich van Daniken chappie who created a furor (created being the operative word) with his quasi-scientific novel "Chariots of the Gods?) .............. Onto the video posted by Dear Old Koreelah ......................I heard Sheldrake ridiculing 10 scientific Dogma. One of them, "The speed of light is constant" was being made fun of ( watch a little of the video to see the true definition of a smart ****) I was puzzled as I had not heard that. After reading a bit I see a couple of scientists believe that the speed does vary (according to the purity? of the vacuum in which it travels) The speed variation is quite small ( a noventillionth of a meter per second I believe- or 10 to the power of 54!) . You would think from the ridiculing given to the scientist to whom Sheldrake is speaking that the variation is in the order of several hundred miles an hour, after that bit I stopped watching. If you have to watch that to feel good in your skin then you are indeed in a bad way......Watch Richard Dawkins and see some brainwashed individuals attempt to talk down his speeches................................ Of course the speed of light varies according to what it's passing through - that's the fundamental principle of refraction. Your glasses, your camera lens, the reason you need to wear goggles to see under water, rainbows, etc. Scientific dogma, horse ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Incredibly fascinating, incredibly expensive and incredibly useless. I could not agree more. But have you heard the latest? The Abbott Government has just made it mandatory for all schools to have a trained chaplain on their staff! Do you want your kids to get the Hellfire & Damnation treatment? What are YOU going to DO about it? I managed to protect my kids from it, but I'm concerned - and legally powerless - to protect my grandson - tho fortunately my sons are quite clear headed and articulate on the subject. I suspect it's contrary to the Australian constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I don't think that "Noah" will be on my "to watch" list. If I want to watch fantasy, any of the Lord of the Rings sagas would be much preferable. You're missing out, I avoided it for the same reasons but caught it a couple of months ago, great movie. It's got action, adventure, sex, murder, deception, big frightening monsters (seriously!) and more blood and guts and a bigger body count than most war movies, I'm not joking! The religious aspect is very slight, I was quite surprised. Damn if they had sermons more like that movie I might even get along to church. I could not agree more. But have you heard the latest? The Abbott Government has just made it mandatory for all schools to have a trained chaplain on their staff! Do you want your kids to get the Hellfire & Damnation treatment? What are YOU going to DO about it? I managed to protect my kids from it, but I'm concerned - and legally powerless - to protect my grandson - tho fortunately my sons are quite clear headed and articulate on the subject. I suspect it's contrary to the Australian constitution. My Children went to Marsden State Primary School and one day came home and mentioned that they were attending a class about Christ. Bible etc. Next day I was at the school to find out what was going on and indeed they decided they were holding a religious class once per week. I said not for my kids thanks to have the reply of "Very well, we will make an exception form for the children for you to sign" .. I went off my tree at the Principle explaining they had it the wrong way around, they needed a permission form from me for my children to attend a non-curriculum class, not to not attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Saddest thing about the school chaplains is that ETHICS is banned. Lets not give our kids an understanding from first principles how to behave like a decent human being. Instead lets fill their heads with fairy stories and learn to hate others for their fairy stories. It has gone to the High Court and been lost by the Govt and the law changed to make it work. It would be unconstitutional in the USA and I suspect it still is here. The one thing I admired that megalomaniac mass murderer Bonaparte for was his Code Napoleon guaranteeing separation of Church and State. I am in strongly in favour of freedom of religion but much more important, for the religious and atheist, is freedom from one religion whether it be Shinto, Islam, Christianity, Judaism - you name it. And, please don't give me that B/S about this being a Christian country founded on christian principles. We are living in the 21st Century not the 18th Century. There has been a great deal of enlightenment since 1770. The UK was dominated by a schism of the Catholic Church for centuries and it was illegal for Catholics to be employed in the public service until our lifetimes. Nobody here wants Sharia Law why should we have to put up with Church of England Law or Presbyterian Law. Why not Law based on what makes sense in the 21st Century and that passes the test of fair to all and ethical? To be religious or not should be a personal thing not something to require others to be impaled on your belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Yahweh and Baal were both gods, of two opposed sects in ancient Israel. The Yaweh mob won, probably because they were nastier and more aggressive, so Baal became the devil cast out of heaven. So it goes, throughout all religion. If we were real theologians then someone would go round to a poster's house, kill him, then write the next chapter of our Rec flying bible where he was a really bad guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 "What are YOU going to DO about it? Don't vote for the LNP. If they try it with my kids I'll be doing the same as Bex, plus raising a lot of publicity about the attempt to brainwash. If I wanted my kids to be taught christian dogma I'd send them to a christian school. Wonder how many parents who don't mind RE being taught would like it if they held a class on the koran every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Of course the speed of light varies according to what it's passing through - that's the fundamental principle of refraction. Your glasses, your camera lens, the reason you need to wear goggles to see under water, rainbows, etc. Scientific dogma, horse ****. Sheldrake claims that measurements of this and other "constants" vary constantly. Either he is wrong or science is ignoring an opportunity for new discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 ...Incredibly fascinating, incredibly expensive and incredibly useless. Think more about that reaction, Bex. Our whole technological way of life is based on exploring new discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Don't vote for the LNP.[\quote] You better do some checking then, this is a Gillard Labor Government initiative which has been carried over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I believe the Labor initiative allowed for a secular counsellor instead, something I support wholeheartedly. Mandating that it must be a chaplain is all on the Mad Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Maybe those of Faith should brain given to them by their Creator for a reason... Sheldrake claims that measurements of this and other "constants" vary constantly. Either he is wrong or science is ignoring an opportunity for new discoveries. Ha! That explains why I keep having to get stronger glasses, then! God bless the man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Actually the religious folks almost got it right - when they say "God created man", the only thing wrong with that statement is that the subject and object are reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You dont know what you dont know . Listning to generally smart people argue over the meaning of life stuff , On this site !! And ...............? Yea ......naaah Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You dont know what you dont know . Listning to generally smart people argue over the meaning of life stuff , On this site !! And ...............? Yea ......naaah Mike I don't think it's required reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now