[Person of Color]

Tom Cruise iss one. Nigga is smart as fuck. He cayne even read!

[Wienerhole]

High Treason, on 14 January 2015 - 07:56 PM, said:

It is entirely possible to be both a Religion guy and a Science guy.

We've lost the common connection of honest discussion about the inner and the outer... which is what has created a divide in reaction toward the inner perception versus the outer signal. Sometimes for good reason, which is why it persists.

[Hendricks266]

BREAKINGTHELAYOUT ISACRIME, on 14 January 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Tom Cruise iss one. Nigga is smart as fuck. He cayne even read!

[Fox]

High Treason, on 14 January 2015 - 07:56 PM, said:

As for the discussion. It is entirely possible to be both a Religion guy and a Science guy.

Over different subjects.

[Wienerhole]

Fox, on 14 January 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

Over different subjects.

Prove it.

Not just assume it, prove that they aren't ultimately dealing with the same thing.

I can start in Austin and go to LA or New York before landing in Japan. I still wind up in the same place.

[Fox]

If you are talking about getting to the same results using religion and science, that's a fallacy. Even if you get to a (presumed) correct result, it doesn't prove the path is correct. Example:

To calculate 64 / 16 first you cut the six, then you are left with 4 / 1 which equals 4. Would you deny that 64 / 16 equals 4?

[Wienerhole]

Not a proof... and based on an assumption regarding the method of inquiry possible in "religious" inquiry, which is absurd as inquiry is inquiry and the only reason we use a term to differentiate is "someone's" goal is to create a "universal objective perspective" that all agree upon as "our one true reality".

The Subjective is not only part of but necessary and inseparable from the Objective. "Who's" Subjective is ultimately defining "The" Objective of "Our" Objective?

Thomas Aquinas - Science of Religion
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Religion of Science

[Mblackwell]

The trick is to believe what you want but recognize that you're probably just smelling your own bullshit.

Question everything!

[High Treason]

^ The above statement is true. Especially the second line.

[Wienerhole]

I don't think it has to be stated so cynically.

Someone can question, observe, and explain the mechanics of Whirling Dervishes all they like, but they will never understand until they love being one.

[Forge]

funny the science orientated are close minded to the possibilities of what this universe might hold and what's beyond it.

[Hank]

funny how religion accept fantasy as real, worth dying for, ah let's even say it's very sad

[Forge]

funny how the science minded accept fantasy as real
they just come up with fancier names for "we don't know and probably never will" (e.g. primordial soup, infinitesimally small point, dark matter, dark energy, entangled particles, etc. etc.)
but are quick to militantly reject other possibilities.

neither camp has all the answers, but they sure seem to enjoy pointing out the other side's flaws without admitting their own

the major difference is reproducing results and observations.
An astronomer can look at a distant galaxy and wonder why it rotates like a record instead of like a solar system. It can be seen over and over, so they know it's happening, just not why or how.
Thousands of people can witness a religious miracle, but since it can't forcibly be reproduced in a test tube or a collider it's called a mass illusion and written off as bunk.

[Fox]

Forge, on 15 January 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

they just come up with fancier names for "we don't know and probably never will" (e.g. primordial soup, infinitesimally small point, dark matter, dark energy, entangled particles, etc. etc.)

Are you serious? The first one, for example, also involves a practical test.

[Hank]

@ Forge -murharharharhar, yep it's funny, but those competing with Walt Disney in the science camp are just that, the new preachers in lecture halls. Only fools accept their trash verbatim. Actually I have the most fun with them.

@ Fox - the Mystery Soup; what practical test? Did they explain yet how amino acid becomes protein? Or did they just repeat the blah blah from way before even I was born?

[Fox]

[Hank]

Fox, on 15 January 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

https://www.youtube.c...h?v=R-LQ0Sbuz9Y

Now we know how God made the universe

[Forge]

Hank, on 15 January 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

@ Forge -murharharharhar, yep it's funny, but those competing with Walt Disney in the science camp are just that, the new preachers in lecture halls.

is this some kind of compelling reasoning that puts religion in its place? Good thing it's apparently not common knowledge that most major universities, libraries, museums, science labs, and astronomical observatories are funded by religious organizations. One might start thinking that the education system and scientific observations might be skewed.

Fox, on 15 January 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

Are you serious? The first one, for example, also involves a practical test.

alot of assumption and a rigged experiment to get favorable results. Conveniently preloading a tube with all the "proper" ingredients (sugars and nucleotides) that don't readily collect together in one location then combine like that in nature before zapping it with simulated lighting.
it's still a bunch of guessing, but you'll never see it that way. For you it's fact, for me I neither deny or admit that's the way it happened, it's just a possibility.

[Fox]

You have an overcomplicated idea about the experiment. It's possible to figure out the chemicals from the early atmosphere by cutting rocks deep down and analyzing them. The Miller–Urey experiment simply put these chemicals together and applied electric discharge, and resulted on rudimentary forms of life.

[Kathy]

What camps Forge is talking about? There is no "science camp". At the forefront of science there are lots of confusion, scepticism and debate about various discoveries. But if you still want to talk about camps, then almost everyone on earth is it this "science camp" because all those devices, machines and instruments are products of scientific discovery and experimentation.

[Forge]

Fox, on 15 January 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

You have an overcomplicated idea about the experiment. It's possible to figure out the chemicals from the early atmosphere by cutting rocks deep down and analyzing them. The Miller–Urey experiment simply put these chemicals together and applied electric discharge, and resulted on rudimentary forms of life.

hardly overcomplicated. easy-peasy

The oldest known rock at nearly 4.4 billion years old (from Australia's Jack Hills range) indicates a water rich granite like surface on the Earth. This suggests the earth cooled much faster than previously thought.
The earth supposedly had water oceans at this time that were 230 °C but remained liquid due to a thick and mostly exclusive CO2 atmosphere.
Plate tectonics and the ocean trap most of the CO2 4 billion years ago and the earth cools enough to form solid rock continents and temperatures similar to what we have today
The first possible sign of biological life is 3.5 billion years old.

geologically speaking; that's a very small window for primordial soup to haphazardly and randomly collect the exact right sugars (which there were not alot of), a hydrogen molecule (most of the hydrogen had escaped out of the early greenhouse atmosphere, so there wasn't alot of that floating around at the time), and the phosphate element (which at the time was restricted to mineral apatite that has a low solubility, so there wasn't alot of that floating around) go from basic molecules to nucleotides to ribosomes to DNA.

Small, but it's there, that's why I consider it a possibility, but not a proven fact.

[Wienerhole]

"Hey Halo... fire your pistol and tell me what happens."
"Hey COD... here is all my data."
"Your data must be wrong. Let me help fix you."

[Wienerhole]

Robman, on 14 January 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

But then alas, the next question asked is " Who created nothing?" and it makes me chuckle, call it a cosmic joke hehe

We created nothing.
But we think we did.
*cackle*

[Zaxtor]

Fav quotes from the film "The day the Earth stood still" (2008)



Helen Benson: I need to know what's happening.
Klaatu: This planet is dying. The human race is killing it.
Helen Benson: So you've come here to help us.
Klaatu: No, *I* didn't.
Helen Benson: You said you came to save us.
Klaatu: I said I came to save the Earth.
Helen Benson: You came to save the Earth... from us. You came to save the Earth *from* us.
Klaatu: We can't risk the survival of this planet for the sake of one species.
Helen Benson: What are you saying?
Klaatu: If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives. There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life...
Helen Benson: You can't do this.
Klaatu: ...this one can't be allowed to perish.
Helen Benson: We can change. We can still turn things around.
Klaatu: We've watched, we've waited and hoped that you *would* change.
Helen Benson: Please...
Klaatu: It's reached the tipping point. We have to act.
Helen Benson: Please...
Klaatu: We'll undo the damage you've done and give the Earth a chance to begin again.
Helen Benson: Don't do this. Please, we can change. We can change.
Klaatu: The decision is made. The process has begun.
Helen Benson: Oh God.

[Wienerhole]

Zaxtor, on 15 January 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

Klaatu: If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives. There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life...

Language is tricky.

Here is what I hear.

"There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life LIKE US."

This is a selfish action. Earth is just a resource necessary to their type of survival.

What if Earth wants to spend time with simpler ways of living? Who has the right to tell Earth what sort of life it will support and when it must support said life?

What if Earth created an inverted lowest tolerable version of itself that was virtually impossible but not actually impossible to mate with, in an effort to discern the form of life most in tune with what it seeks moving forward?

Just because someone has access to a lot of perspectives you've never heard of and is willing to share them doesn't mean they aren't trying to exploit you for their survival.

[Zaxtor]

CharlesT, on 15 January 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Language is tricky.

Here is what I hear.

"There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life LIKE US."

This is a selfish action. Earth is just a resource necessary to their type of survival.

What if Earth wants to spend time with simpler ways of living? Who has the right to tell Earth what sort of life it will support and when it must support said life?

What if Earth created an inverted lowest tolerable version of itself that was virtually impossible but not actually impossible to mate with, in an effort to discern the form of life most in tune with what it seeks moving forward?

Just because someone has access to a lot of perspectives you've never heard of and is willing to share them doesn't mean they aren't trying to exploit you for their survival.

When he says complex life they mean something more than 1 or a few cells lifeform.
He means something complicated like animals. us and others.

Not a 1 or >2 cell microorganism.

[Wienerhole]

Zaxtor, on 15 January 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

When he says complex life they mean something more than 1 or a few cells lifeform.
He means something complicated like animals. us and others.

Not a 1 or >2 cell microorganism.

We hear what we need to hear to feel motivation to advocate and act for our survival.

[Hank]

Forge, on 15 January 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

is this some kind of compelling reasoning that puts religion in its place? Good thing it's apparently not common knowledge that most major universities, libraries, museums, science labs, and astronomical observatories are funded by religious organizations. One might start thinking that the education system and scientific observations might be skewed.

Not sure what you are saying. The origin of life is not known. What is the difference if you preach a given concept in a University or a Church? All expect to be believed and try to be believable.

As for the financing, universities and libraries carry more subjects than just bio-genesis. Science Labs are also used also for applied sciences. Astronomical Observatories are important also to those seeking God. Why would someone with a given faith not support them?

[MrBlackCat]

CharlesT, on 15 January 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

<snip>
"There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life LIKE US."

This is a selfish action. Earth is just a resource necessary to their type of survival.

What if Earth wants to spend time with simpler ways of living? Who has the right to tell Earth what sort of life it will support and when it must support said life?

What if Earth created an inverted lowest tolerable version of itself that was virtually impossible but not actually impossible to mate with, in an effort to discern the form of life most in tune with what it seeks moving forward?
<snip>

What if Earth created us because it wanted to die... who the hell are these suckas' to intervene? I say take Klaatu out right there!
I want the right to choose.

MrBlackCat

[Forge]

Hank, on 15 January 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

The origin of life is not known. What is the difference if you preach a given concept in a University or a Church? All expect to be believed and try to be believable.