Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I use this post as a sterling example of the obvious fact that there is nothing to learn from talking with footprints. This is a good example of the quality of his contributions.
-
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!
Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Is it also my imagination that we don't find fossils of modern animals in the pre-Cambrian?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
imaginaryme
Active Member
Guess I need a booster shot, then. Hey, wolf! Need a jolt of some of that "atheist evolutionist" serum you guys keep on hand! I'm starting to hear the siren call of salvation!
Not exactly. Scientists like wolf work from a specific definition because when one is building the forty-second floor of a skyscraper, one doesn't wanna worry about the foundation. Being a pure mathematician, I don't have that problem; I'm all "blue sky." Is a virus truly alive? How about a prion? In my mind, the number four is pretty lively.
To be a working scientist in a field of study is to restrict extraneous variables. Life is a function of organization and reproduction, as I understand the scientific literature; and I would welcome wolf to correct my generalization, and defer to her superior knowledge. And it doesn't cost me a thing to say as much. Science is an endeavor of shared understanding and mutual respect; if I was evolutionary biologist, there might be a point of theory or conjecture open to debate. In such a case, there would be no individual right or wrong, there would be a mutual growth of understanding.
This is what life means to science.
footprints
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your input.
footprints
Well-Known Member
Could be your imagination, It could be we just haven't found them, or it could be they never existed then. According to many researchers life existed in the pre-Cambrian period. I will leave it up to your imagination what you put there yourself, as for me, I will wait for evidence to tell me one way or the other.
footprints
Well-Known Member
Ah derr, tumbleweed, please in your intelligence tell me why life is so defined in science? If humans didn't draw this line, who did?
footprints
Well-Known Member
Guess I need a booster shot, then. Hey, wolf! Need a jolt of some of that "atheist evolutionist" serum you guys keep on hand! I'm starting to hear the siren call of salvation!
Not exactly. Scientists like wolf work from a specific definition because when one is building the forty-second floor of a skyscraper, one doesn't wanna worry about the foundation. Being a pure mathematician, I don't have that problem; I'm all "blue sky." Is a virus truly alive? How about a prion? In my mind, the number four is pretty lively.
To be a working scientist in a field of study is to restrict extraneous variables. Life is a function of organization and reproduction, as I understand the scientific literature; and I would welcome wolf to correct my generalization, and defer to her superior knowledge. And it doesn't cost me a thing to say as much. Science is an endeavor of shared understanding and mutual respect; if I was evolutionary biologist, there might be a point of theory or conjecture open to debate. In such a case, there would be no individual right or wrong, there would be a mutual growth of understanding.
This is what life means to science.
No data is extraneous to science. An extaneous variable is there for a reason. True many scientist and other people will leave these out, simply because with them in there they don't quite make their theory or hypothesis work.
Many skyscrapers of science are built on shaky foundations. Certainly in time these foundations may get reinforcement by way of hard core evidence to replace the power of suggestion (theories, opinions, hypotheses, guesses) some scientist now use in the foundations place.
LOL many scientists tolerate each other, most, like other humans respect their own knowledge and opinions over their peers and over others. Please tell your perception based theories to other people who don't know better.
footprints
Well-Known Member
LOL is a celibate monk excluded from life? Can an atom not divide and become two?
I am just trying to think now the last time I caught two trees having coition? Can a rock not change form? Can a rock not evolve due to the environment around it? Can a rock not be made?
No matter which way you look at it painted wolf, which ever theory you hold on to, Big Bang or otherwise, life as we know it is nothing more than the evolved atom, photon et al.
imaginaryme
Active Member
No. Cephid variables are little help in oceanography. Brownian motion can be seen in water. What species is water? Cloud? Agriculture? Have you any idea what you are talking about? Sure, this crap happens. We're human. We fall in love with our own hypotheses. We try to make the facts fit the crime. But this is why science is built upon theory. Old modes of thought come under review with new evidence or considerations. And if a scientist is sloppy, that scientist's reputation suffers, and all work done under that name falls under suspicion. These days, I have seen hypotheses invalidated within the year. Information is too readily available for analysis. Look at Global Warming. It is a scam bought and paid for by big-money industrialists to play both sides against the middle. One day I've heard of it, the same day I was able to dismiss it; even if the general public is still swallowing this malarkey.
Like the sun being just a ball of gas, a four-year old observation made with a telescope you couldn't give away these days. Science is intensely conservative. If there is no pressing need for revision, there is no revision. Have you the least idea of the scope of science? I'll give you a hint: can't fit it in a six-hundred-page book.
Oh, yeah. You know better, all right. You know everything. Atoms and photons evolve, you are the Master Sage. I mean, we got all these atomic fossils for study, jeez; we should know better.
Why can't we swear on this forum? Why can't we call a ******* a *******?
footprints
Well-Known Member
Did you mean Cepheid variables?
Humans only have one water base albeit due to the environment it changes to many species. Sounds familar isn't that what other species including humans did? Of course just like some theories of evolution water too was chemically created, just couldn't have happened without chemistry and the environment. Now let me just try and think what both these things had in common, oh that is right according to you nothing.
Changed your tune now pertaining to science? I already knew many theories and hypotheses get invalidated, some in a short period of time some over a long period of time. Time of course is irrelevant as long as the truth finally prevails.
Yeah I know how inane are some humans, Global Warming isn't a debatable point. Certainly the cause of the effect is debatable, certainly the duration of the effect is debatable, Certainly whether or not it was man made is a debatable point, Global Warming itself though isn't a debatable point, nor is the facts as they pertain to carbons and the ozone layer, albeit it is for the totally inane.
Yeah science sure started from some ignorant positions, albeit it wasn't really science it was scientist and they weren't really ignorant back then, it was conceived as credible knowledge. To think some people even in todays pool of available knowledge can even begin to conceive that we have all available knowledge, that what we have now is the be all and end all of knowledge. Some people sure are conceited aren't they, where knowledge is concerned us mere mortals haven't even begun to scratch the surface and what we don't know can fill more books than science now knows.
Science doesn't have a personality, only people in science do. Of these people in science some are intensely conservative and others are extremely extraverted in their views. Mostly you find that those who are conservative understand their theory or hypothesis is dependant on another theory or hypothesis, and or that one or the other or even both can be built on the premise of a power of suggestion, or that their evidence can be viewed in one or more ways. Either that or they themselves or some of their peers have made big statements only to fall flat on their face.
LOL I don't know everything, but I do know how scientist treat each other, which was nothing like you tried to imply some even have total contempt for some of their peers even if they both have the same goal in sight, they don't always have the same insight of how to get there. Anyway you proved that yourself when you talked of invalidated theories et al.
As for atoms, photons et al, please tell me where you believe everthing started from I would love to hear your sage ideas. Whilst you are at it, I would like to hear your stories as they pertain to Piltdown Man, people in science being so credible and all.
But just for the fun of it, tell me what the human genome consists of, let us say it together A, A, A, Atoms.
Last edited:
Malleus_de_Philosophia
Member
Really? Then why is it they're happening here?
Did you even read what I said or just look at it half-assed? I said you gave evidence but NOT the argument. An argument is not tossing a book at someone when a debate arises and telling them to read it. I want to here your argument and see if you understand it. I'm glad you find the concept of contradiction amusing.
For some reason, I get the image of a retarded kid laughing.
First intelligent response thus far in your post. Let's see if a new pattern can emerge... .
REALLY? NO WAY!!! At least some of your responses weren't nonsense, I'll give you that this time. I mean, you showed something that's unknown cannot be known at the same time. That's not nonsense, it's correct, but it's just of no value because a 10-year old knows this. So you've gone from nonsense to useless and stupid posts. Baby steps, baby steps.
See, this is a cop-out. I ask you a question about what you said and you return with an answer and dance away from the question. So let me re-phrase my question: how is creationism scientifically possible? How are we to study the creator (whatever deity you want it to be)? How can we study the process of the creation? If it is scientifically possible, then how is it to be studied?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Reproduction only has a specific meaning in science because some humans gave it that terminology then indoctrinated every educated person who followed that line with the same belief.
Inertia only has a specific meaning in science because some humans gave it that terminology then indoctrinated every educated person who followed that line with the same belief.
Gravity only has a specific meaning in science because some humans gave it that terminology then indoctrinated every educated person who followed that line with the same belief.
The Speed of Light only has a specific meaning in science because some humans gave it that terminology then indoctrinated every educated person who followed that line with the same belief.
_______ only has a specific meaning in science because some humans gave it that terminology then indoctrinated every educated person who followed that line with the same belief.
Fill in the blanks.....
imaginaryme
Active Member
Probably.
But thanks. I hate to think I don't like somebody, cause it doesn't happen in the real world. But you were being a donkey.
I do it all the time, so I should know. Anyhoo... what your are talking about is physics, not biology; and this is an evolution forum... so... let's start again. I project my own personality upon "science," rather than an aspect perhaps more in alignment with academia - sure, there's a lot of ego and brinkmanship; but I am of a type, tend to interact with a similar type - and it's all, "yay! Learn new stuff!" In my first post, I mentioned a specific interaction; if I was a biologist in debate with wolf, betting the odds, it would be, "yay! Learn new stuff!"
I'll go with Krause - cosmic vibration started it all. I've also just seen a video where vibrations in carbon may have assisted abiogenesis through interaction with hydrogen and oxygen to form simple fatty acids - and there you go - atoms. But that's not evolution, this is largely "blue sky" interaction between physics, chemistry and biology; there's a bunch of "if" in that "maybe." Working scientist don't wanna work from if nor maybe; what I was saying.
You're taking leaps here, across disciplines; through the forest and the trees and off to grandma's house - well, maybe not that far, but biologically speaking; the genome is made up of 20 amino acids, the g c a t "rungs" and 16 others forming the "rails." But that's amino acids. Molecules - Molecular biology... see where I'm going here? And if I read you right... you're not considering quarks and leptons and gluons, oh my! But where did the atoms come from? And what if there not even real? Then what?
I got all "spun up" on another thread after having another dip into the literature behind quantum mechanics, and coming back with a fish called quantum decoherence (and ended my fishing career for a while). I put two and two together and came up with 137, thinking that decoherence may be the "chaos theory" of the fabric of the universe. And Wolfram was no help, with his patterns of cellular automatons. Begin with a row of boxes, some checked, some not; in a seemingly chaotic pattern. Run a process of iteration (process 110, I think it was). He even mentioned how successive iterations formed patterns strikingly similar to particle collisions. If electrons show decoherence as a function of observation, it is not too much a stretch to suppose perhaps bosons do so as well; but only beyond the veil of uncertainty.
Meaning that actual reality, all of it; may derive from the discrete functioning of entropy. Structurally, the truth might just come straight out of the Kybalion, when it says, all is vibration. But I say, In the beginning, there was Number -
4.
Actually it does not. The main point generally contested is was man created or did it evolve from lower species? Clearly we can answer that question today and do so as fact.
Man was not created in their current form.
So if man was not created then what of this story Adam and Eve? Well many regard the story as not literal but there are some great yarns and spins to explore with that story if you are truly interested. One clever example I learned of here and later researched for a while was the adam and eve story as the dawn of consciousness. The point where man became conscious. Later man learns how to tell what is right from wrong and develops moral sense. (Have you ever read The Mysterious Stranger by Twain? He was a fantastic rider and goes on and on about moral sense hee hee) Others regard the story allegorically and claim there is still a lot to learn. (In much the same way as the tortoise and the hare race and slow and steady wins the day...)
Now evolutionists are not closed minded. If evidence were to arise which disproves evolution, which could happen, they would reconsider. As it is now all evidence we have found and continue to find all support the scientific theory of evolution. Creationists don't ever seem to do that. They generally just say it is or just make up nonsense. (VenomFangX on youtube hee hee, or Kent Hovind.)
Sometimes that can be interesting to me in another sense. Back when I was a smoker I would continue to rationalize why I should keep smoking. In much the same way a creationist continues to rationalize why they should believe the myth of creation.
footprints
Well-Known Member
You are jesting again right? LOL it is happening here because you are doing it.
Ah Malleus, the argument is in the books, most credible scientist are objective, they actually tell you when they use a power of suggestion. It is generally only people in debate forums like this who do not understand this and count the power of suggestion as fact.
You do amuse me Malleus. If you cannot observe as simple statement correctly, you cannot possible observe anything else correctly and why you have missed the objectivity in the books you said you have read. This is what prejudice and bias (beliefs) does to a human brain.
I do not find your abuse of impaired children amusing at all. I suppose it just shows your character as does your choice of words.
I doubt it Malleus, your faith of belief will stop this from happening.
Really Yes, such is the inanity of your agrument.LOL you were the person who said the statement was contradictory.... Der.... I suppose the good news is that now you understand.
I didn't dance away from the question, I told you where to find the answers. What is a cop out is you not wanting to put in the hard work to gain any knowledge.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not a hydrogen atom. (elements are indivisible on their own. Unless you are a believer in alchemy?) Fission and fusion require tremendous outside influence.
you haven't been paying attention then... it's ok, animals tend to be biased against plants.
footprints
Well-Known Member
Probably.
But thanks. I hate to think I don't like somebody, cause it doesn't happen in the real world. But you were being a donkey.
Yes I understand, you made a fool of yourself, jumping in not even knowing what the discussion was about, and it has to be me who was a donkey.
I was saying science and you were reading biology. Science does cover many more fields other than biology and even biology itself is defined down different lines of studies and specialisations. Somebody once told me the knowledge of science is more than to fill 600 pages, some of the most credible things this person has said to date.I do it all the time, so I should know. Anyhoo... what your are talking about is physics, not biology; and this is an evolution forum... so... let's start again. I project my own personality upon "science," rather than an aspect perhaps more in alignment with academia - sure, there's a lot of ego and brinkmanship; but I am of a type, tend to interact with a similar type - and it's all, "yay! Learn new stuff!" In my first post, I mentioned a specific interaction; if I was a biologist in debate with wolf, betting the odds, it would be, "yay! Learn new stuff!"
I do understand what I was talking about was physics, you were the only one in this conversation who seemed to think it was about biology, albeit in the greater cycle without the physics the biology just couldn't happen that is science for you.
Certainly vibration generates motion and friction and would definately aid the emulsification process. This though in no way defines where the carbon atoms came from to begin with.
I do understand what the genome is made of and what it consists of and to the best of scientific ability at this point in time how it unfolds.
And I am sorry I do take into consideration quarks et al, it is what et al means in my posts.
I will not even try to take your illusion away that atoms may not even be real. As it is your story I will allow you to put your own imagination to your then what question.
We are nowhere near the full extent of knowledge that is available to us. Science (this means all fields of science not just biology) isn't a closed book, it is a very much open book which is what makes the fields of science so fascinating and interesting, albeit I do understand that many people want to make it a closed book and only ever include one field of science in their equation. Unfortunately in life one theory down one scientific field of endeavour can and does impact on other fields, and much of the time in the other fields they are so focused on what they are doing they miss it, dismiss it if it doesn't align with what they are doing, or don't even think it relates to them as it is not even in their particular field of expertise. That though is human nature for you and yet another field of science which has an impact on all research.
This though doesn't doesn't define where the electrons came from
Meaning that actual reality, all of it; may derive from the discrete functioning of entropy. Structurally, the truth might just come straight out of the Kybalion, when it says, all is vibration. But I say, In the beginning, there was Number -
4.
4 is as good as any other guess at this particular point in time.
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could walk us through some of the math? Maybe post some equations and solutions you used to determine the mathematical impossibility?
Evolution has nothing to do with the begining of anything.
footprints
Well-Known Member
I will not dismiss alchemy as easily as some people, there are still many things as a species we do not know or understand. In many ways alchemy was the forerunner to many modern day scientific disciplines and I will not dismiss them easily either.
Not a hydrogen atom. Does a plant have coition the same way as humans?
Does a human down any field evolve without any influence?
LOL I have been paying attention, just answering your questions.
No species evolve on their own without influence. Whether or not we understand this influence at this point in time is another matter, many theories abound.
The term evolve isn't specific to one scientific discipline. Get biology out of your head it is narrowing your vision of focus and clouding your mind. You do seem to have a one track mind and try to relate everything to biology. I used the term evolve, you change it to evolution then relate it to biology.
Atoms have not remained unchanged, they have intermixed with other atoms and where of course the human species have come from. Down other lines they combine and make water, trees, rocks, in fact everything that you can see and touch and even possibily things you cannot see or touch. In order to change they have needed an influence, whether this influence is clear to us or not.
Last edited: