Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

CLEARLY the Noah story is just a morality story to teach right from wrong ...

that known, then so much for speaking to God ... that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free.

seabo, you do have a Spirit ?

.

What? Are you speaking in tongues? First of all, what did you even just ******* say to me??? I keep re reading it and it doesn't make sense.

Second of all, are you agreeing with me that the book is just a man made book?

Are you agreeing with me that the bible is just a book written by man?

Then you say, "that said, so much for speaking to god.....that is until. Hold it right there. Are you saying you can and do talk to god?

Then you continue on to say "that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free." Please explain yourself. You theists think you are so deep and insightful but really you make no sense whatsoever.

And then you go on to say "seabo, you do have a Spirit ?". What is the question mark all about? Are you telling me I do or asking? Because I don't believe we have spirits that live on. When our bodies die we die just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.

 

[Boss]

Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

 

[sealybobo]

from *******.....

Seriously though, there weren't any Asians on Noah's boat, so where did they all come from?

how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else......

Flood Stories from Around the World

Did you also know that the Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings already existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

 

[Boss]

...how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else.

It's magic tadpoles, don't you see? They sprang forth from the ponds and some decided to be Asian rodents while others decided to become European rodents, then they 'evolved' into Asian apes and European apes, and then into Asian people and European people! ....It took millions of years man! lol

 

[sealybobo]

Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

You should have watched the Cosmos. It explained it all. I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHgHI8YnsF8]The Eye - Cosmos A SpaceTime Odyssey - YouTube[/ame]

 

[sealybobo]

...how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else.

It's magic tadpoles, don't you see? They sprang forth from the ponds and some decided to be Asian rodents while others decided to become European rodents, then they 'evolved' into Asian apes and European apes, and then into Asian people and European people! ....It took millions of years man! lol

Or god did it in 7 days.

 

[Boss]

...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.

But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?

 

[sealybobo]

Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

It took millions of years and was completely random.

No evidence for evolution? I beg to differ. The only one with zero evidence on his theories is you my little buddy.

Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals. Both had temporal fenestrae, a pair of holes in their skulls behind the eyes, which were used to increase the space for jaw muscles. Synapsids had one opening on each side, while diapsids had two.

The earliest mammal-like reptiles are the pelycosaurs. The pelycosaurs were the first animals to have temporal fenestrae. Pelycosaurs are not therapsids but soon they gave rise to them. The Therapsida were the direct ancestor of mammals.

From Eucynodontia (cynodonts) came the first mammals. Most early mammals were small shrew-like animals that fed on insects. Although there is no evidence in the fossil record, it is likely that these animals had a constant body temperature and milk glands for their young. The neocortex region of the brain first evolved in mammals and thus is unique to them.

It is thought that the earliest multicellular animal was a sponge-like creature.

Animal movement may have started with cnidarians. Almost all cnidarians possess nerves and muscles. Because they are the simplest animals to possess them, their direct ancestors were very probably the first animals to use nerves and muscles together. Cnidarians are also the first animals with an actual body of definite form and shape. They have radial symmetry. The first eyes evolved at this time.

Some fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda.

The first tetrapods evolved in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.

Primitive tetrapods developed from a lobe-finned fish

Acanthostega is an extinct amphibian, among the first animals to have recognizable limbs. It is a candidate for being one of the first vertebrates to be capable of coming onto land. It lacked wrists, and was generally poorly adapted for life on land. The limbs could not support the animal's weight. Acanthostega had both lungs and gills, also indicating it was a link between lobe-finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates.

 

[Boss]

Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

You should have watched the Cosmos. It explained it all. I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.

Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative.

Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.

 

[sealybobo]

...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.

But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?

No fool. When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out? Does it go to light heaven? Does it still feel/exist? Do an experiment. In a dark room light a match. When the match burns out, what happens to the light? That is what happens to your soul when you die. The light doesn't move on to light heaven.

Oh by the way, From amphibians came the first reptiles: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile.

Reptiles have advanced nervous systems, compared to amphibians.

So amphibians came from the first reptiles. Do you dispute that?

Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals.

So all mammals evolved from early reptiles.

I'm not a scientist but I believe them more than I believe you.

Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form? You don't believe we came from

100 Ma Last common ancestor of mice and humans (base of the clade Euarchontoglires).

A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Euarchonta begins a speciation that will lead to the primate, treeshrew and flying lemur orders.

Primates diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (wet-nosed primates) and Haplorrhini (dry-nosed primates). Strepsirrhini contain most of the prosimians; modern examples include the lemurs and lorises. The haplorrhines include the three living groups: prosimian tarsiers, simian monkeys, and apes. One of the earliest haplorrhines is Teilhardina asiatica, a mouse-sized, diurnal creature with small eyes. The Haplorrhini metabolism lost the ability to make its own Vitamin C. This means that it and all its descendants had to include fruit in its diet, where Vitamin C could be obtained externally.

Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). Our trichromatic color vision had its genetic origins in this period.

 

[sealybobo]

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

You should have watched the Cosmos. It explained it all. I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.

Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative.

Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.

Bullshit. The Cosmos uses scientific evidence and you are merely guessing.

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you and the organized religions don't believe in evolution but its a fact just like man made global warming.

We don't care if you believe. Its your kids that we are after. The future!

 

[sealybobo]

Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.

You should have watched the Cosmos. It explained it all. I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.

Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative.

Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.

Homininae ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the orangutan.

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery. It had special adaptations for tree climbing, just as humans and other great apes do: a wide, flat rib cage, a stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, and shoulder blades that lie along its back. The lineage currently represented by humans and the Pan genus (chimpanzees and bonobos) speciates from the ancestors of the gorillas.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe science doesn't tell us everything but what it does tell us is that religion and boss are wrong.

Hominina speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precondition for vocalized speech in humans. The latest common ancestor lived around the time of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, ca. 7 Ma [4]; S. tchadensis is sometimes claimed to be the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but there is no way to establish this with any certainty. The earliest known representative from the ancestral human line post-dating the separation with the chimpanzee lines is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya; ca. 6 Ma).

 

[sealybobo]

...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.

But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?

Seriously. What happens to the light in the room after you turn the light bulb out? Where does it go? Is that light god because you can't touch or harness it? Where does the light go in a room when you turn the light off? Wow, that's deep.

The same thing happens to your spirit when you die in that hospital bed. It does not leave the room. It just ends.

Hey, I just exhaled a breath. Where did that breath go? It lives on forever? Or does it go to a breath heaven?

I understand or should I say I don't understand everything about energy and matter and time and space but what I do know doesn't suggest a god to me or anyone else. Everyone who believes in god except you admits you just have to have faith.

But I look at human history and read scientific studies about the brain and I realize how/when/why we invented a god. I even understand how/why humans like you can seem perfectly intelligent but then believe such an irrational belief. Why? Because you want to believe, despite all the evidence. That's ok, but I think that way of thinking is holding us all back. It says "I'm happy with my ignorant theory rather than admitting I don't know and keep looking" And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.

I know Boss, it's scary to think you are all alone. And maybe you need something bigger than self. Isn't your community bigger than yourself? Isn't your family bigger than yourself? Isn't society, this planet, the sun and the universe bigger than self? Isn't that enough?

 

[Boss]

...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.

But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?

No fool. When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out? Does it go to light heaven? Does it still feel/exist? Do an experiment. In a dark room light a match. When the match burns out, what happens to the light? That is what happens to your soul when you die. The light doesn't move on to light heaven.

But wait, your analogy is only considering the obvious thing we see and have obvious evidence of, rather than the thing we don't see or have obvious evidence of. When you die, life doesn't go somewhere else to exist just like the light doesn't go somewhere else. However, the thing that enabled the light to burn is still there, just as your spirit is still there after you die. You can't see it, there is no 'evidence' apparent, but it's there. With the light analogy, you can stick your finger in the socket and confirm it if you like.

While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have?

Oh by the way, From amphibians came the first reptiles: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile.
Reptiles have advanced nervous systems, compared to amphibians.
So amphibians came from the first reptiles. Do you dispute that?

I'm skeptical of anything I don't have evidence for. You have ZERO evidence that anything came from anything else, it's all speculation.

Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals.

So all mammals evolved from early reptiles.

More speculation. You have ZERO evidence. You've provided nothing to confirm this.

I'm not a scientist but I believe them more than I believe you.

And that's FINE! You can have faith! It's a natural and normal human behavioral attribute to have faith! I've been making this point all along, and you can't understand that for some odd reason.

Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form? You don't believe we came from

I don't think humans "came from" anything. We were always hominids. Perhaps we were a more primitive form of hominid at one time? That's a possibility. All this garbage you are spouting about mice and lemurs is theory and speculation based on NO EVIDENCE!

Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.

 

[Boss]

Why? Because you want to believe, despite all the evidence. That's ok, but I think that way of thinking is holding us all back. It says "I'm happy with my ignorant theory rather than admitting I don't know and keep looking" And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.

I know Boss, it's scary to think you are all alone. And maybe you need something bigger than self. Isn't your community bigger than yourself? Isn't your family bigger than yourself? Isn't society, this planet, the sun and the universe bigger than self? Isn't that enough?

Problem is, I know that I am making a real connection with something greater than self. I can't prove this to you but I don't need to prove it to you. It's not a theory, it's not a "belief" or something that requires my "faith" at all. I'm not all alone, I have something greater than self that I make contact with daily, so I shall fear no evil.... (get it?) This force is bigger than my family, the community, the sun, the universe, the planet... all of it. Nothing less than that is enough, since I am certain it exists.

And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.

Oh, I know you don't... which is what this is really ALL about. It's too bad you can't just be more honest about it, and we only get little glimpses of this now and again when you unconsciously let your guard down and admit it. Life is much easier to live when you aren't confined by moral constraints or limits. When you can justify pretty much anything you desire, life is cool. When you don't have to be accountable for your actions, you can do anything you please.

That's the world you think you want to live in. The problem is, when everyone in the society around you is operating on the same debased morality, things are going to become really unpleasant in a hurry. You'll discover that some humans have a lesser natural sense of right and wrong than you have, and won't really give a shit about how you feel. Things you think of as morally wrong, other people will be like.... meh, **** you, don't judge me! Pretty soon, you are living in a world where nothing matters anymore... so what if people die? They're going to die someday anyway, right? We devolve into animals operating on animalistic instinct rather than a sense of moral right and wrong, because you've destroyed that. Once it is destroyed it can't be replaced. It's gone and so is your civilization... then you are fucked.

 

[BillyP]

Bossy, science isn't faith, it's fact. Just so you know.

 

[Boss]

Bossy, science isn't faith, it's fact. Just so you know.

Hey, I have NO problem with science. It's a subject that constantly fascinates me. The things we are currently discovering about quantum mechanics in particular, the possibility of other universes and dimensions, the consideration of all the possibilities that enables, is extraordinary. The large hadron collider and all the 'secrets' it is unlocking... ******* amazing stuff right there.

What I object to is the usurping of science to support faith-based beliefs that science hasn't confirmed or established. I'm a pretty smart cookie, and I can't sit here and allow people to make outrageous claims as if they are fact while hiding behind science.

Even your innocent assertion that "science isn't faith, it's fact!" I understand what you mean, but that is an incorrect interpretation of science in general. Science does not proclaim anything as a "fact." By definition, it can't, that refutes the very nature of science itself. That's why everything presented in science is presented as "theory" ...because it remains open to challenge, open to new possibilities, open to further investigation. Science can do nothing with a "fact" because science can only evaluate possibilities and predict probabilities. Once MAN has used science to conclude a fact, science is done. There is nothing else science can ever do with a concluded fact. You are then practicing FAITH... a belief in whatever conclusion you have drawn, and science has punched the clock. I prefer to let science continue to work, continue to investigate and explore possibilities... acknowledge that science may establish things as true facts, but the possibility always remains open that theories are wrong, that science hasn't found all the answers.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Did you also know that the Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings already existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

I've heard idiots make the claim.....however, every time they try to come up with an example I demonstrate how stupid they are and they run away.......are you next?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.

I suspect it was actually a Super 8.......