The Religion Discussion Topic (P. 2)

Lakers News Surge Forum/Message Board » Everything Else
Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Hopefully I can comment here without offending anyone too much. I suppose some offense is inevitable when it comes to this topic. Deeply established paradigms of thinking do not shake easily on either side. All I might stress and add to the discussion here is that an individual's presumptions are almost completely predictive of his/her outcome in thinking in this arena. I know I've seen that in my own life and approach too. It's not even close to as simple as saying creationists are idiots or misinformed as so many seem so desperate to do. There are gifted thinkers on both sides of the argument and everyone has to deal with the same evidence. There is truly a mountain of material on both sides. Honest debate should not be so scary to so many. If one only has room in their thinking for ages of uniformitarianism (which by nature no one has witnessed) and naturalistic processes, then by definition anything even hinting of the supernatural is ludicrous and out of the question to them. But that doesn't in itself make that view either more scientific or more true. After all, which view is more fanciful? Is it that a designer created the remarkable unique design that exists or that completely random processes somehow developed everything that exists out of "nothing"? Is nothing really nothing? The same basic questions for origins exist even if the only thing that existed in the beginning was some sort of primordial building blocks. Specifically, if we were to know that only naturalistic processes exist (a reasonable assumption to some), then Darwinistic evolution is probably the best we can postulate, even though it does nothing for us in the way of explaining origins. But even on a scientific and philosophical level, there are so many problems and holes in....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I would say this, most scientists don't have any problems what so ever with evolution. In fact, most of them when talking about all say the same thing, anyone who doesn't understand evolution just doesn't want to. DNA also backs it up. I won't get into an evolution debate because there is none. It was proven long ago and has only been backed up by more evidence since. You can always find some people who deny facts, for whatever reason, and I'm sure you can still find people who just don't think the world is round or don't think we went to the moon or think that Obama is the Antichrist or Princess Di was killed by the Royal Family. But it doesn't make it so. Some things are indisputable. Evolution is one of them. Both in the fossil record that goes back forever, in evolution we see here now as in the case of the bears I spoke about or bacteria (and that was just two of many, many examples I could list) and now DNA. Sometimes people just don't want to accept things that are. And there really isn't anything you can say to those people. Sometimes it just comes down to this: you understand reality or you don't. As for things science can't yet explain, I go back to an earlier post I did here. Science can't explain all things...yet. But as it grows, it will explain more and more. Eventually, a thousand years from now, five hundred thousand years from now, a million years from now, there will be precious little, if anything it won't. I mean think about what science couldn't explain five hundred years ago. Then one hundred. Compare that to now. Dan, As to a great designer and our own gods here. I would say this,....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Randy, it appears that you don't realize that both the unbelievably complex design in DNA as well as the massive gaps in the fossil record are two of the most serious arguments against evolution as it has taken shape in the past century. As an example, the Cambrian Explosion remains a major issue. Plus, the complexity of genetics is just incredible, and we've barely scratched the surface. There is great material in existence along those lines now. It's a major problem when intelligent folks have been led to believe en masse that evolution is just a "fact" of life using those areas as examples. It's extremely far from it. I've never been impressed with sheer numbers, although as I said before there are an extremely large number of scientists on both sides of the argument. It's just that one side is so entrenched in the academic world right now that they call all the shots...and hand out the jobs. You have to look below the surface and basically trust none of the hype when it comes to this topic. Again, if you presume there is no creator or any possibility of the supernatural, then evolution or something similar is inevitable and even admirable. But that doesn't in itself make it true. Eventually, I have a feeling that our society may be viewed as one of the most backwards thinking societies ever in existence when it comes to some of these unsubstantiated beliefs. And macro evolution really is a belief taken on faith. In so many ways it takes more blind "faith" to believe in it than it does to believe in a creator. The preponderance of scientists realize that the processes involved are basically mathematically "impossible" many times over, but they decide to believe in it anyway. By nature, evolution is....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125

SPQR wrote:
Happy holidays to you too Dan and all those who have been on this thread and on LTB.

As for arguments and debate on LTB, did you hear that we may trading Pau for Drew? No kidding.

Now that will start debates on LTB that make this look like a love fest.

I've been catching up on all the rumors. Plus I've been battling a cold or mild flu bug after coming back from that cruise I told you about. I never get sick, but the cruise sure took care of that. Ha! Maybe it was all those rugrats running around. LOL.

I really don't know what to make of it all on the Pau/Drew deal. It's fairly clear that Pau no longer wants to be here as well as his most productive days are behind him. It has been made to sound like the Lakers would simply be acquiring Drew to clear salary and save tax money. Would they really just acquire him and waive him? I don't know the ramifications of that move, but in a way it would be pretty ugly.

Best to you too my friend. I hope 2014 is an awesome year for you.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, DNA does support evolution. So does the evolution of very close species that have through time and circumstance been put in different areas, like the Grizz and Polar bear, like Indian and African elephant and so many other examples. I watched a show several years ago about this mouse population in the south pacific. A group of them managed to get to another island that was not their native habitat, probably by ship. Well in just a very short time in evolutionary terms, this colony of mice had evolved so much that they had to classified as a different species. The amazing thing is people saw the mice before that very fast forward evolutionary process, then observed over the decades as they changed. The fossil record is also beyond doubt, not to mention that we have tail bones. We don't have tail bones to help us sit on the toilet, that long ago tail was used by a branch of our ancestors when they were in trees. The evidence of evolution comes from four different sources: The fossil record, the remnants of things current species have that their evolutionary ancestors used (our tail bone), evolution we see now like bacteria and the mice and the bears and elephants and thousands of other species, and DNA. No offense, Dan, and I mean that with utmost sincerity, but I don't really debate evolution with anyone because there is no debate about it. Any person who knows about the many different proofs of evolution knows it is incontrovertible. Anyone who denies evolution in 2013 simply doesn't understand the facts or for other reasons, just resists them. You have to understand, Dan, that people with an agenda can take almost anything and try turn it around. Now one can say that about me too, right? But....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125

SPQR wrote:
All I know is I want in that lottery so the Lakers can evolve (pun intended) into something different with a new, top young player.

Indeed. And with the same final result in mind, I hope they create a fresh new Lakers culture and stop depending on blind, random chance to get the desired results. There's no intelligence in that. Otherwise it could take trillions of years and they'd still be in the same fix! Wink Just kidding you. More response to come.

Also--NO! I was NOT drunk the whole time contrary to anything you might have heard or that might have been reported in those nefarious Caribbean newspapers about a rogue cruiser. Wink


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286

I saw on the news some guy named Dan got roaring drunk and was accosting people yelling about how the KC Chiefs were going to destroy everyone in the playoffs on their way to the super bowl title. They had to strap him down. I thought about you but then realized, naw, couldn't be our Dan.


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125


Repped High Quality Post
As anyone can see just from reading your examples, you're talking exclusively about horizontal, adaptive changes that NO ONE denies. The bears are still bears. The elephants are still elephants. The mice are still mice. They're examples of life and the flexibility that they have to adapt to changes in their surroundings. So what? No one denies natural selection and how that occurs. That's something that breeders have understood for many centuries. Yes, it may be "survival of the fittest" but it also appears to be a mechanism for change that is already built into the animals. I'm sorry to say this, but have you really bought into that vestigial organ line of thinking to this day? That has been debunked so many times that it's almost a joke. And really...seriously...the tail bone question? No way you just used that. It's almost comical. Do you realize just how off base and really desperate that is? It's embarrassing as a "proof." To begin with, tails are more about muscle and cartilage than they are about association with bones. And hopefully you know how many muscles and tendons are attached to the human tail bone. It's vital in the human anatomy. Just to illustrate how silly that whole line of argument is--have you ever heard of a person volunteering to have his or her tail bone removed? It would make sense to do that if it's not doing anything for anyone. Please don't volunteer though! I like you too much. Good luck getting up and walking...or SITTING ON THE TOILET (your example) if anyone should opt to have that operation done! It should go without needing an answer, but for some strange reason, people still bring it up. It's laughable. It's probably because they read that in an elementary textbook somewhere along the line....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I don't really get into too many religious discussions unless someone wants to engage in it. There are several reasons: First off, to be blunt, I have found most people who believe in Christianity don't really seem to understand the nature of the world, their own religion or history. They seem oblivious to the facts of evolution and the genesis of their own religion. They also are so scared of dying I know they will not abandon their fables and look at things as they are. Not only the scientific evidence but also the myriad holes in their own theology. So the discussion ends up pointless. Like I said before, religion holds that trump card that people need, never ending life. The thing people wish for and can't have yet in the real world. I understand when you say people should not blow off the other side as ignorant, but to be again bluntly honest, it is like saying those who believe the world is flat or Santa Clause exists should not be blown off as ignorant. What religious people ask those of us who are not is to admit the possibility of a fable, something supported ONLY by a book written by people who had no conception of the world or universe we live in. They thought lightening and volcanoes and earthquakes were an angry god. They believed people with epilepsy and mental problems were possessed by demons. In fact, they went so far as to believe pigs were possessed by devils as in the biblical story. It would be like some six year old child or some aboriginal tribe with no contact with civilization writing down all these stories and beliefs then you saying, Well, you can't just blow that off. It could be true. No, it can't. So while I know....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
^ Randy, I'm sad to see that you missed my point re: DNA. Oh, goodness, my foiled efforts to enlighten and to keep it about the science! Wink Ha! Just kidding you. The only reason I brought up DNA was because you said it's a "proof" of evolution. That's the thing that is a massive stretch into the irrational. You almost need to disengage the brain to even say it. When Crick and Watson discovered the DNA double helix back in the 50's they instinctively knew that the amazing intelligence it revealed was quite contrary to what Darwin expected and predicted. That's why Crick made his statement warning the scientific community, and the world in general to still stick with the evolutionary "plan" and continue to assume a naturalistic beginning to life, regardless of what the scientific evidence looked like. But the main part you missed is that DNA was only the beginning. I didn't even make a point about DNA specifically. As complicated as DNA was at the time, and still is, it is pretty much "Patty Cakes" compared to the more recent scientific discoveries of the staggering coding and intelligence in a single cell, as well as the role of the non-coding elements of the genome, even in the most basic forms of life like a bacterium. Also, the argument is not so much that "life is complicated." Everyone knows that. It's the BEGINNING of life and the immensely complicated intelligence that had to be there from the start to get self-replicating life that is the issue. And it appears that the nightmare for the naturalist is just beginning. I know it's horrifically frustrating the more a naturalist thinks about it, but the evidence is the evidence. More and more intelligence, of a nature that is impossible to have developed naturally,....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I didn't say it was proof by itself. It is a chain of all the very clear, distinct proofs that go together supporting evolution. Dan, my main beef is not really Christianity, though how any person who is aware of this world, our history, this universe and the stories in the bible can believe that long ago fable written by people who didn't know anything is beyond me. I mean the stories in there are like a bad childrens fable. Talking snakes, giants, possession, Noah, Jonah, the resurrection, burning bushes, the red sea, mists that killed the first born and lots of other stuff that is laughable. Don't even read Revelations, or you will really get a belly laugh. I mean its a joke. People actually believe stuff in the book of revelations will happen? Have you read it? It is like some drugged up nightmare from some burnout. People think some anti christ is coming? Wars between angels and demons? A multi headed monster rising out of the ocean? Really? Millions of dead people popping out of their graves, their dust, bones and bodies reforming and flying off to heaven? That will happen? In the year 2014 people still believe that? That all that other stuff happened? They still believe it, in the year 2014? I mean I defy anyone to read the book of revelations and say it is any thing other than a story, a prediction, written by some very, very confused, scared, superstitious people who knew nothing. This is the word of god? And my larger point is this: we are supposed to reject all the scientific proof of evolution and support the baseless, non supported, fact devoid description of creation from that same book that contains Revelations, not to mention other wild, ridiculous stories? Uh huh. My....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Randy, out of deference to you, I won't try to engage you directly on the topic any longer since you don't like discussing it and it gets you riled up. It does that to a lot of people. But thanks for the prior discussion anyway. The only thing I would have hoped you could take away from this discussion--but it looks like you won't--is that the science, particularly regarding the origin of life is actually far more favorable to the idea of an intelligence of some kind (or creator) than it is for a completely naturalistic beginning. That's why guys like Richard Dawkins, who is an avowed atheist favoring evolution, is willing to prefer that giant leap of faith in saying that life might have been planted on earth by aliens from another planet. Hmmm...that's hardly science and ultimately it's no answer, but he's forced into that stance by the unbelievably perplexing complications in the actual science such as the amazing nanotechnology built into the simplest forms of life and the extraordinary intelligence in the coding of the genome. But Dawkins is not alone. No doubt the daily life of the origins of life scientist is getting horrifically frustrating. Most will admit that the research points to intelligence or a creator, but they refuse to abandon naturalism, apparently because of the implications of doing so. They take their position on faith, just like the religious folks do. The trouble for the pure naturalist is that the evidence doesn't support anything he chooses to believe. I knew you weren't much into talking about religion in the thread, but I thought the science might be far more interesting to you. That's why I went that route instead of talking about religious faith directly. I would not expect you to trust me or anyone else....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I can't speak for Richard Dawkins. I have read those theories. I know that many propose earth was devoid of life, then a meteor or asteroid or rock with primitive life or the beginnings of life on it crashed on earth. I have also heard that aliens planted life here. I mean both of those ideas are pure speculation to me. There is no proof or evidence. Also, it would not explain where that original organism on the rock or the alien life form came from. I don't subscribe to either of those theories simply because I see no evidence of it. If strong evidence of either of those theories is uncovered, then I would have to evaluate it. Until then, for me, they are just proposed ideas. As for the aliens seeded earth theory, well, I don't buy it at all. Although the writers of Prometheus made some money with that idea, lol. Like I said Dan, I am no scientist so I won't even pretend to explain the origins of life because I have no idea where it came from or where it started. I know that some scientists have been replicating early earth, the soup that was here, for lack of a better word. With light, water, the elements that they know were present. And they have replicated the amino acids that are such a large part of primitive life and are the building blocks of life. For me, this sounds like it may be the way and the explanation. The reason I feel this way is just the huge amount of time since the creation of the universe, then the creation of the world and first evidence of life. We are talking billions of years from when the earth was created till the first primitive cells and cellular....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125

Very small reply here...because I promised I'd leave this in the dust since you said you don't want to discuss it. But you twisted something I wrote. I wasn't saying that all scientists are saying they refuse to abandon naturalism because the current state of science points to something other than a naturalistic beginning. But many of them do and they're not even afraid to admit it. It's much along the same lines as what you stated above that you have no idea how it all got started, but you're somehow absolutely sure that an intelligent creator had nothing to do with it. You don't seem to want to allow for that possibility even though the science points to it. Speculation, even though you're personally choosing not to speculate, is all they're left with if they choose to blindly believe that an intelligent designer had nothing whatsoever to do with all the amazing design that we openly see all around us on the earth and in the universe. By the way, the whole inorganic "primordial soup" notion is pure speculation as well, so keep that in mind if you're thinking it has more credence than the other speculations.

Anyway, many of the more prominent scientists have said exactly that. They openly refuse to allow for any possibility of the supernatural. They would rather wait for answers, since they have none to offer. And they'll continue to wait, no matter how long it takes to get any kind of an answer other than a supernatural or intelligent agent.

If you care, and if you want the quotes from those prominent scientists, I can look them up and send them to you. I'd be happy to send them privately if you prefer.

Thanks again Randy.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I will say this. Out of all the theories I have heard, I tend to agree with that scientist I heard who said people make a big mistake in assuming anything needs a creator. Like it is some law. It is not. It is a thought we developed. I will say this, because of the unimaginable size of the universe, it seems to me nothing could have created it, let alone some intelligence. It is just too big. And that's just the known parts of our universe. Then you go here, to the theory that is rapidly gaining credence of the mulit-verse. I'm sure you know what that is, so I don't have to describe it. But think of it, billions of universes like ours. And something created all that? Not likely. I asked you before, why do you make the leap that universe is big to meaning it has to have a creator? You didn't answer. Because there is no answer. Because when you really think about it, there is no reason for anything to have a creator. That is man made construct and thought. The universe is big=it was created by something? Why is that so? The other thing to remember is this, the universe is a cold hard environment. Stars and planets born and destroyed in the most violent ways. This is not some warm womb of safety. Ask the dinosaurs. Our sun will burn out. Or we may get smashed by an asteroid, a comet, a black hole or rogue planet. There is no love in this environment. It is as harsh and cruel as the wilds of Africa for the animals that live there. In the multi-verse theory, new big bangs happen all the time, growing new universes. But they don't go just that far. They believe it....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Dang. For somebody who doesn't want to talk about this stuff, you sure keep going on and and on. But maybe you're getting genuinely curious somewhere along the line, and that's always good. Like I have said many times, I know exactly where you're coming from because I used to feel exactly the same way you do now. I doubt you'll believe that, but it's true. I have no problem saying I'm a Christian. Did you think I was wanting to hide that fact for some reason? Why does that matter so much to you? I just thought that in the context of this discussion you would prefer to stick to the known science, but it's obvious that's far from the truth. That's fine. It's just not what I would have predicted. I thought you'd be more comfortable with the approach on a scientific level. However, it appears you're not sure that a Christian is even capable of thinking or that his thinking is always clouded. Ha! I know you're not alone in that false estimation. Christians, atheists and others of all kinds of varying backgrounds and beliefs do good science all over the world. I'm sure you know your history and realize that the scientific method was born out of a strong desire on the part of early scientists who hoped they could discover more and more of the incredible design built in by the creator. After all, if it's all just a mindless, random process of development, then how can we possibly know what's really true and what's not? How can we even trust these minds we have? Is it random chaos out of a mindless process that we see all around us? Is the "Blind Watchmaker" really this smart? I don't think so. Anyway, we all have....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, I respond because you do, lol. Dan, to your point of transitional fossils. The very nature of fossils make rare to find them. Simply because there are not tons of fossils to find. A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to a later population of a different species. But, in general, transitional fossils are considered to have features that illustrate the transitional anatomical features of actual common ancestors of different taxa, rather than to be actual ancestors. Like I said before, in order to disprove the evidence of evolution, you have to attack all the many areas that show it to be true. The fossil record, DNA, our own bodies, (tail....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286

Dan,

If you watched cosmos last night, I'm sure you noticed they used my polar bear grizzly bear situation in their evolution discussion. But more ironic was how they really focused on DNA and double helix to show how DNA does indeed strongly support evolution, in direct contravention of what you said about DNA. He laid it out in a way even a layman can understand. Very simple, very logical, very factual and very conclusive.

Sorry Dan, but you are arguing against an avalanche of facts no matter how you try to avoid it or skirt it or try to make it go away. You and others just don't wish to accept them, for reasons that don't have anything to do with facts, but what you (and others) wish to believe. That is the difference between what you propose vs what I propose and why 97 percent of scientists on earth know. It is called facts and evidence. All on the side of evolution.

He said it best at the end, "The theory of evolution is as factual as the theory of gravity." And that is true. For those who are really interested in the truth about the world and universe we live. For those who have reasons not to seek the truth, then there are other explanations, not backed by facts, that appeal to them more.

I do choose facts because they not scare me where they lead to creationism or evolution. In this case only evolution is supported and buttressed and proved by the facts. Creationism is supported by a book written thousands of years ago by people who knew nothing about the world we live in. The choice of what to believe of course is everyone's decision to make. I just happen to make the one grounded in reality.


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Randy, I know well what is often presented as items that are in support of evolution. A person really has to think through this because you won't get much help on Discovery or Smithsonian or biology textbooks for that matter. What you wrote in this thread wasn't out of the ordinary in that regard at all. Typically using those examples reveals either a complete lack of understanding of what's required for macro evolution to even be viable, or worse yet, if the understanding is there, then it shows a lack of honesty about the subject. I KNOW for a fact you wouldn't be dishonest about the subject, so I certainly wasn't accusing you of that. It's a tactic that's used to kind of put on a production and snow the masses under and make them believe that evidence is there for the full package of macro, Darwinistic evolution--and thus explaining the full variety of life we see all around us. But really, it's meaningless in that pursuit. Horizontal change within a species is denied by NO ONE including the most staunch creationist unless he's looney bins. I can't stress that enough. It's good science, but it's misapplied. It would be rehash to go over it all again, but I hope you understand what I'm saying, even if you disagree completely. Clarity is always better than initial agreement in my opinion. It's alarming how often the horizontal changes within an animal kind are extrapolated out to be a proof of evolution overall and it's done by people who really should know better. Once again, it's all about defining the terms. There are some great articles about the different meanings that people have in mind when they use the term evolution. Maybe I should post one. I think that's at the core of this....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, Going to your first paragraph. One can only look at data and facts and draw a conclusion. For me it was that simple. Do the data and facts, from many sources, ie DNA, the fossil record, vestiges of long ago discarded body parts (tail bone for us as an example) and of course the evolution we see in certain species right now, and make a decision. For me, as an admitted layman, the evidence is overpowering and incontrovertible. Then go a step further. Then you have scientists who know as much about these things as possible. I know it is fashionable in some circles to ridicule scientists which of course is ridiculous. These guys are sharp. The guys who came up with the big bang, which of course was even further proved just the other day. These guys are smart Dan, I mean really, really smart and for lack of a better phrase, know their sh*t. So besides my own conclusions, 97% of these guys, world wide, believe in evolution. So I guess one could read you here and say, Well, I guess these guys are wrong and Dan is right. No offense Dan, but no way am I buying that. These guys forgot more than you will ever now about this topic. That is not an insult to you, the same applies to them and me. It would be like 97 percent of nuclear physicists saying something and you saying, No, that is not true. You are in over your head in that crowd. Just as I would be. Lastly Dan, one thing that becomes apparent throughout or discussion is your steadfast refusal to answer very logical and pointed questions I ask you about your own religious beliefs. I have asked you very logical questions about certain matters pertaining to our world and the....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Yo Randy. No offense here either, but you must be skipping over everything I write. Did you not at all read what I very pointedly wrote to you in response to your questions about my personal beliefs? Please pay attention my friend or this becomes an absolutely worthless pursuit in a hurry. Frankly, anyone could ask the same thing about anyone else. You obviously are convinced that a person's religious beliefs are determinative of their approach to scientific matters and questions regarding the origin of life. Undoubtedly there's influence there, but that's not what you're dealing with from me in this thread. Do you seriously not realize that same argument could be made regarding the non-religious person or even more so the anti-religious, or anti-God person? I suppose I could try to make a personal issue here out of your clear obsession with religion, but I prefer to choose to not go there. I would think you would respect that and try to learn more about the science I've discussed. I can barely carry on this conversation with you until you do. But keep in mind, I didn't go there. You did. I was the one who stuck to the science and preferred it that way. You were the one who showed an extremely thin understanding of the science...and have as yet failed to even acknowledge it. It's bizarre that you would continue to state extremely vague things like DNA and the fossil record support evolution. How could you NOT possibly know that those are both currently extremely difficult problems for evolutionary theory with major questions yet to be answered. The gaps in the fossil record are definitive, prominent and very well understood by scientists even though there is a reluctance to publicly acknowledge them. Also, as stated many, many times in....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, When you talked about my "going there" about your religious beliefs, I kind of got the impression that you thought I was going dirty or trying to slur you. I want to assure you that it was not my intent. But this is a religious discussion thread. And also since you doubt the mountain of evidence for evolution, I am curious why you believe something (Christianity) that there is no proof at all for. In other words, how do you reconcile your rejection of reams of evidence for something, yet believe in something that has no evidence at all? It is a valid question to ask you since in the case of evolution you seem to demand evidence over and above what convinces 97% of scientists. As for your change from evolution to creationism. It is funny because I took the same path you did, only in reverse. My mom religiously (pun intended) to church as a young boy. I was taught the bible and all that good stuff and listened to all the lessons. But when I was about 11 or 12 I began to realize some very important facts: The fact that world was 4 billion years old before man appeared. The fact that myriad life existed here for hundreds of millions of years before mankind did. That man's time on earth if you used one calender year to measure the totality of the worlds existence would equal the last fourteen seconds of December. That is it. That little time. And the implications of that hit me. It was undeniable. And at the same time I began to realize all the things I was learning in church were just words. They were stories, with no evidence to support them. And not only stories, but to be blunt, crazy mystical stories. Noah's Arc,....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
^I didn't take it as an attack at all and really, I couldn't care less even if it was. I'm more interested in the substance of the discussion, or more pointedly, the lack of substance thereof. I wonder why you thought I might be flinching from a perceived attack? By "going there" I simply meant how you mostly ignored the details of the specific science I brought up, and the detailed problems regarding evolutionary theory--only to bring up the question of my faith as if that was the be-all, end-all question. I don't expect everyone to know the inside details of the current scientific issues. Many don't. You're not alone. But someone who is so adamant about the evidence being "incontrovertible" probably should know more than you showed that you understand. All you have done is appeal to the authority of an estimated percentage of belief in the theory within the scientific community. You realize that's all they've ever been taught...right? Talk about indoctrination! Again, do you think the nearly unanimous scientific support in the first part of the 20th century for eugenics was correct or incontrovertible simply because it was so widely believed and accepted by scientists? Surely not! And when it comes to numbers, you know anyone could appeal to the literally BILLIONS of people in the world who believe in an intelligent creator. Right? But I don't buy into that as an argument one way or the other either. However, surely you don't think they are ALL idiots, or just twisted mentally because of their beliefs do you? That's all too convenient and too easy a way "out." Massive numbers of people believe both ways. So what? You have to investigate and think for yourself. Anyway, I just thought it was very odd that I answered you in no....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, There is certain ground that becomes useless to go over. Such as your perceived "evidence" that refutes evolution and supports creationism. I understand that for you it is there. I understand for many other laymen, it is there. But for scientists, those who know this stuff the best (unless you claim to know more than trained scientists, kind of like saying you know more about nuclear energy than nuclear physicists, in fact in our particular discussion, you would have to claim you know more about nuclear reaction and energy than 97% of the worlds nuclear physicists which is what you are doing as far as scientists and evolution) and for others like me, the fact of evolution is well established. And I can assure you despite your claims that evolution will be turned on it's head, it won't. It will only be strengthen further. I know you don't believe this, but I can promise you in your lifetime, the big epiphany you expect to hit won't happen. I can also assure anyone reading this thread, no matter how young, it will not happen in their lifetimes either. Because it will never happen. A fact like evolution will not be disproved, but only further confirmed simply because it is a fact. You and I can go around about this forever and not convince the other. But the facts and science are on my side. I guess the best I can is say this, some day, and I hope it is far away, but when that day comes Dan, and you are on your deathbed, you can think back on this conversation and say, Well, I still don't believe in evolution (because you wont) but Randy was right about one thing, evolution was not overturned by some big discovery. And by that Dan, I don't....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
My apologies that I haven't been on LTB in quite some time. But it looks like you raised a few interesting quesions along with some convoluted ones that are somehow important to you. So I'll take the time to write a bit here again and answer as best I can. Off the top, I don't think you followed the line of thinking presented in earlier messages. At this point in time the scientists who are leaning toward some type of intelligent design, and are predicting the eventual demise of Darwin's original presentation of evolutionary theory are NOT the ones who need an "epiphany" to survive scientific scrutiny long term. You've made it extremely clear that you don't realize this, but evolutionary scientists are currently quite desperate to come up with something to substantiate the old theory on these fronts: (1) some kind of proof...or any kind of proof of a naturalistic origin of life (2) some kind of documented mechanism that will show that even the simplest forms of life (which are impossibly complex on their own) can in reality evolve to higher, even more complex forms of life complete with more "evolved" genetic makeup than their predecessors (never been shown or demonstrated) (3) find some kind of legitimate transitional forms in the massive amount of fossil records that exist. More power to them if they do it. One way or the other, scientific scrutiny should not be squelched like is currently happening in our society. The deceit and the censorship going on in this day and age is downright scary. What does so much of the scientific establishment fear to such a large extent? The only thing that makes a discussion like this one useless is if one of the parties involved refuses to address the issues that are raised within, or simply....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286
Dan, No need to apolgize for your absence. I am glad you are fine and still here. Now back to the topic and discussion at hand, lol. You keep talking about the debate in the scientific community about evolution. Yet 97% percent of scientists world wide believe it. So what debate? The 3 percent who don't subscribe to it? I would wonder how many of those 3 percent are Christians or highly religious and need to believe in a creator, who don't want to believe in evolution because it may conflict with their own determination of what their religious beliefs predicate? Once again, 97 percent vs 3 percent. Not much a debate. But people who back your view always keep trying to bring in this big debate that is going on. There is none. That debated ended long ago, at least in the scientific community. If there is this debate going on, as you and other religious people keep saying, why do 97% of scientists world wide, the people who understand processes and evidence better than anyone on the planet, by far, believe in evolution and reject creationism. Dan, 97% to 3% is not a debate, it is a rout by any measure. If you side with the three percent, fine, but when you talk about holes in evolution vs the proof of it, you are on the losing side of both the percentage and the proofs. As I said, there will be no epiphany coming that will turn evolution on its head. Not in your lifetime, nor mine, nor anyone's. Because facts are not overturned. We can go around and around on that statement, but it will play out exactly as I said. And at least you will have to accept that fact in your lifetime, because as I said, you will not see....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125
Hey Randy! Hope all's going great for you. Back again here after another 2-3 weeks absence. Ha! This is so unusual for me, but that's just the way it is. There's no question that it's better to be busy than not employed though! Ya know? I've gotten way too damn busy (and tired) here lately. I hope you don't mind that our protracted discussion here gets drawn out over longer stretches of time like that. It's probably no big deal, because I doubt very much that anyone else is even reading it. lol. I still find it very interesting that you don't seem to know the science surrounding the topic very well, and yet you make very bold pronouncements of absolute fact regarding it. That's a lot of faith and trust for such an important topic. Don't worry though, that's what happens a lot in these discussions. Evolution is pronounced as undisputed "fact" despite the paltry evidence for it. And again, I'm not speaking of microevolution either, which has massive amounts of undisputed evidence for it. But macroevolution, as conceived by Darwin and a few contemporaries is basically a matter of pure faith, conjecture and fantasy. There is a LOT of scientific "bullying" going on and typically it's done because there are so many who so desperately want to believe there is no God. Almost all of your questions or rants above about the impossibility of certain historical events seem to stem from how you're locked into naturalism and materialism in all you see and experience. I hope you can somehow see how that is completely self-predictive (and limiting) of your entire world view...no matter if it is right or wrong. It's a decent enough argument, but all you continue to do is cite a poll you've seen somewhere stating that 97% of....


LALayup
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 13693
Location: RRTX
votes: 125

I glanced back through your post above and remembered that I didn't answer your question about dating trees.

In general, I hope you don't get too hung up on the age of the earth questions. There are much bigger "fish to fry" in the whole question even though there are long lists of scientific observations that would indicate a young earth. They're not hard to find at all even if they're often pushed into the background. At the top of the list of more important issues for the naturalist such as yourself would be both the origin of life, as well as the origin of human consciousness. I've touched on both of those above already. The problems there can fill a lifetime. They are both monstrous stumbling blocks for the naturalist to even begin to overcome.

Anyway...about the trees. It's a common misconception that you can date trees simply by equating rings to years. Additional tree rings can be added in a very short amount of time, even a matter of a few weeks. That's because typically tree rings are a response to traumatic events including changes of seasons, but also including major changes such as drought, rain, heat, cold, fire, or any of a long list of other environmental factors. Additionally, keep in mind the traumatic impact of the Ice Ages. Assuming a uniformitarian, calm, seasonal change covering periods of thousands of years would be absurd.

Sorry I didn't mention that previously, but it's something to consider.

Best...


lakerfrommass
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 5008
votes: 15

What a great read this old thread is. Idk how I stumbled upon it, but some great content.


lakerfrommass
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 5008
votes: 15

I wonder what happened to RRTX aka layup aka Dan. Hopefully he is doing well


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286

I heard from sources he's riding on the back of a huge turtle conversing with a snake. Back in his homeland of China.


lakerfrommass
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 5008
votes: 15

SPQR wrote:
I heard from sources he's riding on the back of a huge turtle conversing with a snake. Back in his homeland of China.

Quollman

I did not know Dan was from China. Is he Chinese? I never knew that. I remember someone saying they were asian, but I thought that was OCLakerfan8


lakerfrommass
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 5008
votes: 15

This is my 5000th post! Wooowooo! All Hail Thee Mighty Baptist!


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9260
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 286

lakerfrommass wrote:
Quollman

I did not know Dan was from China. Is he Chinese? I never knew that. I remember someone saying they were asian, but I thought that was OCLakerfan8

The turtle took him there while the snake gave directions.

Congrats on all the posts! Once the lakers sign Bynum I'm sure you will post much more.


lakerfrommass
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 5008
votes: 15

SPQR wrote:
The turtle took him there while the snake gave directions.

Congrats on all the posts! Once the lakers sign Bynum I'm sure you will post much more.

I sure will


Options Quick Reply: RE: The Religion Discussion Topic
register
You are an anonymous user- or .
Quote the last message
Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)
Notify me when a reply is posted
Don't Check Spelling
Note: Twitter & Youtube BBCODE Tags are no longer necessary. The system will automatically convert links to tweets & youtube videos.
   
 
Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home
Post new topic   Reply to topic
register
You are an anonymous user- Register now or Log in Now!


Add our Los Angeles Lakers Blog RSS Feed, the Lakers Rumors RSS Feed, the Lakers News RSS feed, and the Lakers Forum RSS feed to get the latest Laker News and Rumors and Lakers Game info in your RSS/XML reader!