chiplee Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Chip - your posts and supporting information make for very interesting reading. I'm curious (don't feel you have to answer this) .. what is your background? ... just a normal guy well-read, professor of philosphy at a local university, something in between? Just seems the average person would not have studied/read the information you have without good reason. Just a normal guy, not well-read enough, but I've been somewhat seriously interested in this topic for about 15 years. My professional background is military. I've been in the Marine Corps for 18 years this June, and I fly F-18s. My degree is in English, but you're correct to notice my passion for philosophy. I hope to one day sneak into a philosophy PhD program. They're ridiculously selective though. Edited March 28, 2012 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Why should it? T-Rex wasn't a mammal. The protein in meat theory is one of many, and it's meant to offer insight as to how one primate species might have made an intellectual leap ahead of the rest. The T-Rex comparison does little other than to point out your misunderstanding of the science and your willingness to rely not on findings, but on how things "seem" to you personally. That's nice for you, but that's not an argument anyone should ever listen to or take seriously. It seems you may have failed to fully conceptualize the idea of eternity. No matter how vast the Universe, and no matter how much knowledge there is to be had, with an eternity to figure it out, you could figure it all out an infinite number of times. Eventually, rehashing your perfect knowledge of everything everywhere in the universe would be like watching reruns of the same episode of Sex in the City all day everyday forever, and forever after that, and forever after that. Again, the very idea of "eternity" would rob your life of purpose. I tend to disagree and i don't think you grasp the concept either. You just used your imagination like i did. did you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think the game is over...Even though the questions asked of us were met with reason, they simply ignored our questions and dance around the issues. It was fun while it lasted. we heard you the first time brah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 On the science topicSince we came from simple single celled organisms where did they come from?. Who says we "came from" single celled organisms? Science doesn't have any theories about the origin of life. It has a theory about the diversity of life. That's called the Theory of Evolution. And it has a theory about the observable expansion of the Universe. That's called the Big Bang Theory. But science has no theories of origins whatsoever. It has many hypotheses, but nothing that has earned the ultimate title of "Theory". That is reserved for hypotheses that survive the rigorous peer review process and make falsifiable predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I tend to disagree and i don't think you grasp the concept either. You just used your imagination like i did. did you not? You can't possibly actually think that can you? Eternity has a definition. Words mean things. No imagination required. With an eternal life, you could do everything there is to do, and do them all an infinite number of times. Talk about boredom. No comment about the fact that T-Rex wasn't a mammal eh? Edited March 28, 2012 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 You can't possibly actually think that can you? Eternity has a definition. Words mean things. No imagination required. With an eternal life, you could do everything there is to do, and do them all an infinite number of times. Talk about boredom. No comment about the fact that T-Rex wasn't a mammal eh? i never said i can but you seem to be implying you can because words mean things?really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Who says we "came from" single celled organisms? Science doesn't have any theories about the origin of life. It has a theory about the diversity of life. That's called the Theory of Evolution. And it has a theory about the observable expansion of the Universe. That's called the Big Bang Theory. But science has no theories of origins whatsoever. It has many hypotheses, but nothing that has earned the ultimate title of "Theory". That is reserved for hypotheses that survive the rigorous peer review process and make falsifiable predictions. ok then Life, is it not true that science says that life evolved from single cell organisms? if not then please tell me from where. post a quote from a book if you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Eternity has a definition. Words mean things. No imagination required hahahaha for some reason this statement reminded me of the debate between dawkins and the creationist, where the creationist literally did not understand the definition of 'scientific evidence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOHO Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I know you heard me brah??? Yet you don't answer anything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwii Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 He already ate with people, walked and slept with them even healed them ... (which ranks a little higher than mowing your grass or cleaning your cat box) and people STILL didn't believe after witnessing Him. As a matter of fact they thought He must be possessed and killed Him instead. Opps. I don't think our society would really react any different? Do you really think you would? Thomas was looking right at Him and asked to see the nail-holes.i don't accept the bible as proof. i know that your faith tells you that it is to be relied on as the ultimate authority, but this is where reason and faith part ways. just because the bible says it doesn't mean it is so. using it as evidence to support your faith holds no more weight with me than using the 'three little pigs' as evidence for the reality of house building pigs and wolves that can blow them down. as to doubting thomas - if god showed up and started working with scientists to prove he was god, we would quickly reach a consensus that he was, if not 'GOD' then something beyond our capacity to explain. he could use any manner of feats to prove himself godlike to any number of scientists. omnipotence is pretty cool like that. he could use that omnipotence to take a billion years outside the flow of time with each person on earth individually to talk to and show and convince them of who he was. if god chose to be unambiguous he could be. if god is real, then there is no reason for us to be doubters except that he wants it that way. don't tell me an omnipotent god would have trouble revealing himself if it were his desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHARDmitsu. Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Albert Einstein "Imagination is More Important Than Knowledge." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwii Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) edited for being non-productive. Edited March 28, 2012 by lmwii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) ok then Life, is it not true that science says that life evolved from single cell organisms? if not then please tell me from where. post a quote from a book if you please. life didn't evolve from a single cell. living things evolved from that cell (or potentially multiple cells). "life" is itself something defined by science, so in that sense, 'life', as what science considers it, didn't evolve so much as it just happened. things were lifeless, then things we 'alive'. we need to make sure that when we have these discussions, we can't flip back and forth between formal and layman definitions, when we are trying to formalize our understanding. so becareful when interchanging 'life' and 'living creatures'. the distinction needs to be made, as with all things. Edited March 28, 2012 by patra_is_here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I know you heard me brah??? Yet you don't answer anything.... what did you answer? you gave your opinion and I gave mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Gotta' call it quits early tonight fellas. On a squadron detachment. There's beer to drink. Will check in later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) but to answer your question, science says it looks like there is a biological connectivity between all living creatures that we can trace back fairly far. science gives no absolutes, it's just looking at all the data we can find, and seeing if there are patterns and connections and way to explain things while still remaining a closed system. and by closed system i mean that science can't use 'non-science' to explain or 'prove' something. data and conclusions must be within the realm of science, and science is allowed to expand. if there were a scientific base for ghost and goblins, then we could use ghosts and goblins as a valid point when trying to prove something within science. (i know thats a silly analogy but i wanted to be obvious in my explanation of the mechanics of science) Edited March 28, 2012 by patra_is_here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think it's worth noting that science and god are not exclusive. there are incredibly intelligent, well known scientists, even in biology, who say they believe in god. they claim that they stand behind science, but use faith in god to explain the 'why' of science. something along the lines of: "we speak of the mechanics of evolution, and the variables of the system, but don't speak of the purpose of evolution" . some people adhere the purpose to god. and they do so while knowingly violating their own logic. for all intents and purposes these people would be atheists, yet they choose to admittedly disobey their own reasoning and accept that god exists and god is supplying the purpose. I choose to think there is some element to the universe grander than what simple observation has provided. I don't view it as some specific sentient being or a personal god, let alone the abrahamic god, but I think that there could be some algorithm beyond our own scope that is effecting the way reality plays out. but i do so knowingly, and with choice, even though I consider it illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwii Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) i don't accept the bible as proof. i know that your faith tells you that it is to be relied on as the ultimate authority, but this is where reason and faith part ways. just because the bible says it doesn't mean it is so. using it as evidence to support your faith holds no more weight with me than using the 'three little pigs' as evidence for the reality of house building pigs and wolves that can blow them down. as to doubting thomas - if god showed up and started working with scientists to prove he was god, we would quickly reach a consensus that he was, if not 'GOD' then something beyond our capacity to explain. he could use any manner of feats to prove himself godlike to any number of scientists. omnipotence is pretty cool like that. he could use that omnipotence to take a billion years outside the flow of time with each person on earth individually to talk to and show and convince them of who he was. if god chose to be unambiguous he could be. if god is real, then there is no reason for us to be doubters except that he wants it that way. don't tell me an omnipotent god would have trouble revealing himself if it were his desire. I realize you don't take stock in the scriptures ... and that's OK. I was more just bringing the story up as an illustration. In my opinion, even if God walked among us today and did some of the things you've described above, there would still be doubters. It just seems that that is human nature. There's overwhelming evidence for the holocaust and people who were there, witnessed, even experienced it, yet there are still those that insist they are fabricated events. Crazy. I guess the question I'm posing is ... what would take from God for everyone to believe? Or is that really nothing He could do to make that happen? ____________________________ Correct me if I'm wrong, but this conversation has turned from the original question to ... is God real or not? (The original question had the built-in assumption God and Satan were real) And, unfortunately, there really is no satisfying answer to that question. There are those that believe, and there are those that don't. As time progresses, 1 of 2 things will happen: Either science, will exclusively and with authority prove God's non-existance, as Chip pointed out in an earlier post, or 'a' god (I use this term loosely - could be of any faith) will reveal himself in some fashion and exert his god-ness. Which do you believe? We have roughly 80 years to make that decision for ourselves, and I think eveyone ought to consider it, it's a question worth evaluating. Unfortunately, our American culture at large (I can't speak to many other cultures as I am not well traveled) seems to disregard both faith and reason and has more less settled for Relativism ... there are no absolutes ... do whatever. And, boy, we're doing great as of late (sarcasm intended). Very few ever stop to think about these questions. Sad. Edited March 28, 2012 by techboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 i am imortal , i can not be kill'd , i will live till the end of time and beyond .i will learn all there is to knowdam if liveing isn't boreing point is if life did not end it'd not be worth liveing just being on line and posting or reading this thread may make you smarter then 1/2 the people on earth,,but does that make you more inteligent , not by a long shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 You can't possibly actually think that can you? Eternity has a definition. Words mean things. No imagination required. With an eternal life, you could do everything there is to do, and do them all an infinite number of times. Talk about boredom. No comment about the fact that T-Rex wasn't a mammal eh? A mere oversight. So dinos did not evolve because they are reptiles?What is the theory/hypothesis on that? what if the asteroid did not hit.Has anything been said on non avian dinos from your reading? just curious Chip-You are not an authority on what you speak about but you seem to be an expert which means as good as you are you can be wrong like any of us. Science is always changing right? on the John Carter planet thing-why not? tech boy- i am not in anyone's face and i am not trying to convince anyone of anything. this is simply a conversation among men sharing what they believe to be true. I would like someone to tell me if i have been in their face. I don't feel the need to tell people that they misunderstand this or that, which implies they should go read it. do I? Though i could have many times in this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 A mere oversight. So dinos did not evolve because they are reptiles?What is the theory/hypothesis on that? what if the asteroid did not hit.Has anything been said on non avian dinos from your reading? just curious Chip-You are not an authority on what you speak about but you seem to be an expert which means as good as you are you can be wrong like any of us. Science is always changing right? on the John Carter planet thing-why not? chip is gone for the night, but i can tackle this question if you could rephrase it carefully and in detail. as it stands now, i'm not really sure what you're asking, simply because there's some ambiguity in the language, and you're referencing something specific with chip that I wasn't following earlier. So I could answer a science based question for you if you state it again more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionbull Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 chip is gone for the night, but i can tackle this question if you could rephrase it carefully and in detail. as it stands now, i'm not really sure what you're asking, simply because there's some ambiguity in the language, and you're referencing something specific with chip that I wasn't following earlier. So I could answer a science based question for you if you state it again more clearly. I am just asking if a plausible reason has been found as to why "smart" dinos, did not evolve like we did and could they have evolved...same for non human mammals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHARDmitsu. Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think it's worth noting that science and god are not exclusive. there are incredibly intelligent, well known scientists, even in biology, who say they believe in god. they claim that they stand behind science, but use faith in god to explain the 'why' of science. something along the lines of: "we speak of the mechanics of evolution, and the variables of the system, but don't speak of the purpose of evolution" . some people adhere the purpose to god. and they do so while knowingly violating their own logic. for all intents and purposes these people would be atheists, yet they choose to admittedly disobey their own reasoning and accept that god exists and god is supplying the purpose. I choose to think there is some element to the universe grander than what simple observation has provided. I don't view it as some specific sentient being or a personal god, let alone the abrahamic god, but I think that there could be some algorithm beyond our own scope that is effecting the way reality plays out. but i do so knowingly, and with choice, even though I consider it illogical. The "element" as you've describe is similar to what I perceive as a "constant creative energy." Its "never ending" and infinite as the Cosmos.Perhaps this is what some might call God for the lack of a better understanding. Who knows, maybe it is but there is no way of telling. The confusion cause by religion vs science makes it even less conceivable. Our size, scale and time in existence is nothing compared to that of the Universe. Still, the ego, or that belonging to some, thinks it is grander than everything else. Its quite amusing to listen even though I don't have the answers. I find that some who have achieved higher academic merits than average seem to think that they have more authority in explaining reality or existence or life itself. When their uttered substance is all carefully analyzed, its more of the ego saying "I'm better than you." Thinking along those very lines you've posted^^ in two recent paragraphs and keeping an open mind seems to paint a clearer picture, well, at least I think so. Its appears as though I look at the big picture from a similar angle but explain myself in different words. This form of thinking or perceiving is neither religious, scientific or agnostic; its consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john82wa Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Never. That's how many times, because it never published a "final" end all be all theory of anything. I think you, like most people, have a fundamental misunderstanding of the tentative and provisional nature of ALL knowledge. Science tells us right up front that its findings are tentative. It tells us its opinions are subject to updating when and if better information becomes available. It tells us that its current understanding is limited to certain observations. That's not because scientists refuse to take a hard stance on anything. It's because the very nature of knowledge dictates that it be this way. None of us can prove anything is true without a single exception, so the best we can EVER do is rank our various conjectures based on the quantity and quality of the evidence and reason that supports them. That's it. That's all we can do. The fact that science is always "changing its stance" is something to be applauded, celebrated in fact, because that's how we get closer to the truth. Science isn't in the business of establishing facts, because that's not possible, but we can get VERY close. We will always update our theories as we gain new evidence and better information. So really, and im snagging this from Chip, if Science is truly an ever changing thing with findings always tentative (which it is), then those who only believe (atheist) in science as there foundation to whats real or not, then they are putting just as much faith in science as we do God. If I had to look at the two where God has not lied (by bible standards) or broken any promises and has been correct on all things vs something (science) that has been proven wrong over and over again - I would pick God. This is ultimately a decision for anyone - but I suppose there are people who don't believe in either?? "I have learned that faith means trusting in advance what will only make sense in reverse" ~ Philip Yancey Edited March 28, 2012 by john82wa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts