A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]

Author Topic: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)  (Read 12219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #200 on: March 08, 2011, 04:30:30 AM »

As for my opinions:
UFOs in evolution - I kinda doubt that they have anything to do with evolution.  I think there might be some out there, just don't know where.
god - don't believe in any sort of god deity anymore, for reasons above with the friends.  Therefore, I don't think that there's any chance that any sort of deity could have been involved in evolution...
Spirits - um, well, I don't think others would share my opinions, but the way I see it, humans are just balls of energy (spiritual and the fact that we're made up of sugars, yady yada), and there's a law of energies that says basically: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Because of that and that alone I think that there's still an afterlife, I'm not sure if it's a sort of heaven or if it's a reincarnation type deal.
Just my opinions.
-
those are kind of my beliefs too
i.e. i don't believe in diety either - more like how depak chopra explains things re energy and the other part of your post . . but i guess i'm a mild ufo semi crackpot compared to you. lol - ur cool jude
-
uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.  roll:) intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.
-
uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.  roll:) intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.
ok, then i guess i don't read well
anyway -
i don't think i understood what "intelligent design" refers to as a phrase . . because i do not believe in bible, diety etc.
basically - i saw a documentary with 'intelligent design' in the title on pbs that made me doubt the party line re evolution and i've yet to be 100 percent de-skepticized
also - the evolution of life on earth was never observed a to z in a laboratory.
just 'survival of the fittest' type selection in instances - which i do ackwledge and believe in
...
it's just that none of this explains the ufos to me..... and why everyone says they look like a version of us !
Logged
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #201 on: March 08, 2011, 04:32:02 AM »

lol - drats, it's late !  ha2ha
take care guys
 :)
Logged

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #202 on: March 08, 2011, 04:34:45 AM »

In the Big Cluedo Game that is life I don't think you can say God did it just because some of the other answers don't add up. I think to say "hmm - not enough matter in the universe to support The Big Bang (for which their is some compelling evidence) therefore it can't be true - therefore it must have been made by a supernatural being (for which the evidence is zilch) is a bit silly.
One thing I want to push - whether or not The Big Bang or any other scientific answer about the universe's origins can be proven correct DOES NOT alter the fact that evolution proves beyond doubt that man is descended from a common ancestor of the ape.
And is it not a basic tenant of the bible that god created man in his own image? If it is so wrong on this one basic issue, how can you so unquestionably accept the rest of it? Don't you EVER go "hang on a bit...made woman out of a rib? That don't seem right????"
i agree totally with these statements. the bible is just too thick with contradictions.
Logged
day tripper yeah

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #203 on: March 08, 2011, 04:46:24 AM »

also - the evolution of life on earth was never observed a to z in a laboratory.
just 'survival of the fittest' type selection in instances
perhaps i was unclear here, google "darwin machines" and "darwinian machines".. i can't find any references for the laboratory thing right now, but consider the Galápagos Islands as a makeshift science laboratory in the meantime.
Quote
from : Darwin Machine

In its original connotation, a Darwin machine is any process that bootstraps quality by utilizing all of the six essential features of a Darwinian process:
A pattern is copied with variations,
where populations of one variant pattern compete with another population, (competition)
their relative success biased by a multifaceted environment (natural selection)
so that winners predominate in producing the further variants of the next generation (Darwin's inheritance principle).
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 04:52:42 AM by 7 of 13 »
Logged
day tripper yeah

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #204 on: March 08, 2011, 11:58:10 AM »

perhaps i was unclear here, google "darwin machines" and "darwinian machines".. i can't find any references for the laboratory thing right now, but consider the Galápagos Islands as a makeshift science laboratory in the meantime.


yes, i know what that is. it's in the first paragraph of my first post
. . . . . . convinced me to question 'evolution' (defined as one string on life that mutated from species to more complex species by means of natural selection i.e. less favorable survival triats not procreating and being weeded out of the gene pool...) . . . .

and unless there's been a bank security camera filming the earth since the beginning of the planet - then life on earth has never been observed from starting point of chemicals all the way evolving and morphing to the modern human being (A to Z)
what's been observed is more like..... all within a species of insects that aren't green being selected out of a gene pool because they don't camouflage with plants in their habitat so they get eaten and don't pass on traits . .
that's why no matter how you huff and puff, evolution is a theory . . . a theory that makes alot of sense and has supporting evidence suggesting its veracity
 . . but none the less -> a theory

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again, the part that has yet to be explained to me is ufo aliens .... and why are they supposedly taking sperm and egg samples .... why do the reported aliens look like a version of humans .... why have multiple abductees reported being shown alien/human hybrids ?
-
my beliefs don't rule out that they are us! and our entire 'evolution' has been guided like an ant farm
-
by the way, a nasa scientist named richard hoover claims to have found evidence of alien life this week
he found some kind of bacterial fossil in a meteorite . .  it resembled life as we know it on earth....
it was in the news
(again, more theory)


i believe no one living has the answer - just bits and pieces of it


this is a cave painting that some people believe depicts aliens or time traveling astronauts
there are others
-
and this is from wikepedia...
Proponents of ancient astronaut theories often maintain that humans are either descendants or creations of beings who landed on Earth thousands of years ago. An associated idea is that much of human knowledge, religion, and culture came from extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times, in that ancient astronauts acted as a “mother culture”. Other proposals include the idea that civilization may have evolved on Earth twice, and that the visitation of ancient astronauts may reflect the return of descendants of ancient humans whose population was separated from earthbound humans. These ideas are generally discounted if not ridiculed by the academic and skeptical communities.

Proponents argue that the evidence for ancient astronauts comes from supposed gaps in historical and archaeological records, and they also maintain that absent or incomplete explanations of historical or archaeological data point to the existence of ancient astronauts. The evidence is said to include archaeological artifacts that they argue are anachronistic or beyond the presumed technical capabilities of the historical cultures with which they are associated (sometimes referred to as "Out-of-place artifacts"); and artwork and legends which are interpreted as depicting extraterrestrial contact or technologies.

Mainstream academics, when they comment at all on such proposals, have responded that gaps in contemporary knowledge of the past need not demonstrate that such speculative ancient astronaut ideas are a necessary, or even plausible, conclusion to draw. Academic researchers in related disciplines generally maintain that there is no evidence to support the proposals of ancient astronauts or paleocontact. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, however strongly believed in what he called panspermia, the concept that earth was 'seeded' with life, probably in the form of bluegreen algae, by intelligent extraterrestrial species, for the purpose of ensuring life's continuity. He believed that this could have been done on any number of planets of this class, possibly using unmanned shuttles. He talks at length about this theory in his book Life Itself.

In their 1966 book Intelligent Life in the Universe astrophysicists I.S. Shklovski and Carl Sagan devote a chapter to arguments that scientists and historians should seriously consider the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred during recorded history. However, Shklovski and Sagan stressed that these ideas were speculative and unproven.

Shklovski and Sagan argued that sub-lightspeed interstellar travel by extraterrestrial life was a certainty when considering technologies that were established or feasible in the late '60s; that repeated instances of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth were plausible; and that pre-scientific narratives can offer a potentially reliable means of describing contact with outsiders. Additionally, Shklovski and Sagan cited tales of Oannes, a fishlike being attributed with teaching agriculture, mathematics, and the arts to early Sumerians, as deserving closer scrutiny as a possible instance of paleocontact due to its consistency and detail.
Logged

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #205 on: March 08, 2011, 06:22:38 PM »

the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good example of evolution in action.
Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance

From the book Evolution for Dummies :

amazing adaptations

different kind of teeth

the evolution of the eye

cave blindness

photosynthesis

deep sea thermal vent organisms

endosymbiosis

vertebrate flight

trap jaw ants

the book faults plain vanilla "intelligent design" theory on the grounds of the confusion concerning the random aspects of DNA replication and mutation - where the stumblingblock of a  buzzword irreducible complexity is usually used as a foolproof foundation for the theory. ???  this is just scientific jargon, no more no less, the theory is not scientific, no hypotheses is offered, in fact intelligent design is just creationism poorly disguised.

"(ID proponents)...are confusing the fact that some of the evolutionary process of natural selection involves random events with the idea that the whole idea is random."

source:
Evolution for Dummies
p. 337
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 06:24:51 PM by 7 of 13 »
Logged
day tripper yeah

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #206 on: March 08, 2011, 08:09:28 PM »

disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap
Logged
day tripper yeah

emmi_luvs_beatles

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2914
  • I'm an Expert.
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #207 on: March 12, 2011, 09:51:16 PM »

Dunno why I'm going to get myself into this, but here I go anyways.

I am an Agnostic. (I'm going to count on the fact that you all know what that means.) I believe in Evolution, and I believe that there is some kind of life after death, I'm just not going to put my stake into one religion. Because so many religions out there believe that there is something that happens after we die, how could so many different people and ideas be wrong? I also believe that the Bible is a good source of teaching (Not that we should stone our wives or anything.) As in do onto others as they do onto you, and love thy neighbor. But these people who take the bible literally, (I knew someone who said to me: If it isn't in the bible, don't do it.) are very mis-guided.

I am growing up in a small town where there's 7 churches on one street. (Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, and Assembly of God to name a few.) And I've been called every name in the book at school. (They're also all Republican, and I'm Democratic. But that's another story.) So if someone's going to argue the religious side against me, save yourself, I've heard it all.

Some words of wisdom from Philip DeFranco: Religion is like a penis; You can enjoy it in your own home, but don't take it out in public or shove it down my throat.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
 

Page created in 1.956 seconds with 26 queries.