Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Grate?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nimos
Well-Known Member
The universe is a pretty big place and as you know it is not exactly easy to just travel to other stars and have a look. We have huge issues simply getting off this planet, but then again we have hardly started on this journey, I think one can compare it to us having just figured out that things can float in water and now we want to sail across the pacific ocean on a piece of wood or something.
We do have some methods of examining distances planets for potential life or for them being somewhat similar to Earth, but still we are talking about something that are light years away, so if people expect to suddenly see pictures of small strange creatures running around on a distance planet, I think they are going to wait for a long time.
We have no clue how common life is around the universe, we can look at the diversity of it here on Earth and from what we can see here, is that it can survive pretty much all conditions.
You even have the Water bear creatures that can survive in empty space.
Tardigrades are the first known animal to survive after exposure to outer space.
But you don't know if its a coincidence or if its the only place, if the science community don't know, clearly you don't know either.
And as it is now, we don't even have a realistic way of travelling at the speeds it would require to explore space. Even if we could somehow manage to travel at the speed of light, the closest star is Alpha Centauri and it would still take 4.3 years to get there. And that is by travelling at a speed that we are not even remotely capable of and which is said to be impossible in the first place. And then we are not even taking into account simply surviving during such travel and all the other things that can go wrong. We hardly know anything about this.
Evolution does lead us to one single oganism, cyanobacteria.
Space is big, really big. You think taking a walk to the shop is a long way, thats peanuts to space. You mentioned trillions of planet's, science has located a few thousand exoplanets, it seems that about 10% of them are in their suns habitable zone. Only recent developments have allowed science to analyse the closest of these exo planets, some do have indications of organic life in the atmosphere.
Is it, how do you know this? The worlds leading astronomers don't know.
It did, and humans are apes
Science does not deal in fact
Evolution is happening all the time, species exist now that didn't exist 10,000 years ago. The pygmy three-toed sloth for example. And biologists are studying several animals that arw evolving right now, the Langkawi bent-toed gecko for example.
And of course, why do we need a different flu jab each year? Could ir be because the flu virus evolves?
Ten thousand years? There are species existing today that didn't exist 100 years ago, or even 50. New species develop all the time.
Audie
Veteran Member
Full many a creationist shows up here, or there,
to regurg semi digested garbage, then depart claiming victory.
Back in creo-land , he can claim to have argued yet another roomful of evos to a standstill.
And some evos fall for it every time.
Who is smart?
Audie
Veteran Member
Uh, seriously?
Correct, i was just giving an example of the pygmy three-toed sloth which i find fascinating.
Audie
Veteran Member
Had to skip a lotta news of the well known to get to the examples.
So ok, got what you meant.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Same here regarding creationism.
I found that creationism basically provided no positive support for its position, just attempted refutations of what scientists have discovered, so it is pretty reactionary, which I now realize is a big problem. I also realized that my side was being dishonest but that was only after I left the JWs and didn't have a desire to defend a preconceived belief. But even before that, I was looking at the many debates on RF and that was making me question my position on the matter.
Fact checking people is a very important part of deciding whether you believe them or not. People like Michael Behe have been pretty much debunked yet creationists still quote him as if he wasn't and that there is some conspiracy in the science community to silence him. I also, have not come across a creationist who accurately represents the actual facts and theory.
When people debate in the way that you mentioned, then that is a sign that they are deceptive. We can apply the same style of debating to Flat Earth theorists, White Genocide Proponents and Scientific Miracles in the Quran proponents and see the same deceptive and anti intellectual style of reasoning.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
For my penny's worth, I think that those like @Loaai are often averse to treading the path of knowledge (virtually all of science), especially if it might contradict their current beliefs, and perhaps because they are afraid to do so, and thinking/knowing that all knowledge lies in some particular text (the Qur'an in his case). Not much of an example for finding any truths though, where an open mind might be better. Plenty here with religious beliefs who are not so afraid though.
Welcome @Loaai, by the way.
PS And just like it no doubt takes time to understand any particular religious text, it also takes an enormous amount of time and effort to understand the vast array of knowledge that goes into making the scientific realm, much of which tends to reinforce the accounts and theories of any one area, such that none tend to stand alone in defiance against all reason. Religions, not so much, even though there are plenty to choose from.
It is difficult for us to question our beliefs and beliefs held by our tribe because to challenge ones own preconceived beliefs takes quite a lot of courage and actually creates a fight or flight reaction in us as if we are in danger, as the consequences of having our mind changed can lead to lots of problems in the real world on a personal level.
With all due respect, you do not seem to understand what Darwin said, and you do not seem to understand science in general. (But you ARE using a computer, so there is that.) So you want to USE the benefits of science when it suits you, and you want to criticize science, but you don't understand it.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
Since there is a lot of people out there that believe in scientific theories which is good, but actually barely know anything about some specific theories, yesterday I read in details what exactly Darwinism is talking about, and here's my conclusion:
(Charles Robert Darwin) was born in 1809 AD and died in 1882 AD. As the Facilitated International Encyclopedia says: He is an English naturalist who studied medicine in Edinburgh ... and then specialized in natural history, and Darwin wrote in his book (The Origin of Species) 1859 CE. He established his theory and the evidence for it in a wonderful way, as well as his theory of the origin of the coral reefs, which has been accepted by many. Among his other works are: (The Origin of Man and Election in Relation to Sex) in 1871 AD, and (The Diversity of Plants and Animals under Domestication in 1867 AD) ended.
As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.
Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).
Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine": The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.
Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.
Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial, and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.
The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.
This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.
(Charles Robert Darwin) was born in 1809 AD and died in 1882 AD. As the Facilitated International Encyclopedia says: He is an English naturalist who studied medicine in Edinburgh ... and then specialized in natural history, and Darwin wrote in his book (The Origin of Species) 1859 CE. He established his theory and the evidence for it in a wonderful way, as well as his theory of the origin of the coral reefs, which has been accepted by many. Among his other works are: (The Origin of Man and Election in Relation to Sex) in 1871 AD, and (The Diversity of Plants and Animals under Domestication in 1867 AD) ended.
As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.
Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).
Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine": The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.
Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.
Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial, and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.
The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.
This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.
And a mere 500 years ago, we had none of the technological stuff we have today. But 500 years a a blink of an eye compared to 10 million years. Who knows what elephants of chimps would do in another 10 million years?
Also, we developed a big brain for our size: one of the largest of any animal. Large brains are a fairly recent development for life on Earth.
Evolutionary biology has been verified by the fossil record, by genetics, by comparative anatomy, by studies of proteins, by comparisons with chromosomes, etc.
We *can* verify that humans evolved from other apes because we have the fossils.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
read my previous reply please.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Yes. he had the basic insight that was then elaborated upon by others. Just like Newton had some fundamental insights, but his ideas were modified later.
Plus, for example, comparative anatomy. We have DNA from some of those fossils and can use that to show relatedness.
True. Might like to put that to @Loaai since he appears not to have vanished entirely. Personally, I find that the biggest obstacle, when some will not even do the work necessary to understand what we do know about life in the basic sense when applied across the field of science and then expect their beliefs to hold up against such. Which is really a form of dishonesty, given that most people these days could educate themselves so as to have sufficient knowledge of what science shows us.