TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- creationism vs evolution
Pages (10): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

Re: creationism vs evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit but isnt it hilarious?

no, it just makes me angry

quote:

Originally posted by ******** you arn't trying hard enough. - until you teleport before me and give me that answer I'm just not gonna believe you are really putting an effort into my advice.

no, i said there was no answer because you explained yourself by saying we need to look deep down and find the answer ourselves.
it's funny how when humans can't explain something they just let the explanation become, "it was God/a miracle/etc."

quote:

Originally posted by ******** KNOWLEDGE |= (does not) equate ability. It is more a feeling than evidence. Unless you can feel me, it does little good to either of us in terms of identification. Its actually more before a feeling - that is creation. If you can't sense that in gnosis it is hard to really explain what is in the box. You have to feel what is in the box to really understand.

now we've come down to feelings.. awesome.

okay, so our existence is explained by our spiritual connection-- which we can sense through things like staring into a box,-- which lets us know that there IS a God that must have created our universe.

quote:

Originally posted by yukii okay, so our existence is explained by our spiritual connection-- which we can sense through things like staring into a box,-- which lets us know that there IS a God that must have created our universe.

exactly.

You are now a level 3 warlock. congratulations.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi exactly. You are now a level 3 warlock. congratulations.

lol, im so proud of myself for coming up with such a shitty explanation about how the universe was created.

I fucking love this thread so much.

I graduated from a Christian private school. Thoroughly enjoyed having to watch a Kent Hovind series of creationist videos and taking tests on why evolution was wrong. Sad thing was, at the time, I believed it, because I didn't know any better.

lol ******** is a creationist.. GEE FUN

and he's back = FUNX10.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit lol ******** is a creationist.. GEE FUN

Was Kent Hovind found guilty of leaving the floater backstage?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Because it is here. Where the hell you think it came from?

String vibrations in the 10th dimension? i don't really know. To me as in science "I don't know" is a more acceptible answer than "I know without reason".

I actually do have a vague belief in a deity of sorts, based admittedly on a couple of shaky arbitrary beliefs.. But in almost all situations in life my ultimate stance is that reason always trumps belief.

quote:

My reality is created so my first origin point must be created. I won't get overly complex but I am 100% confident reality is created.

Good for you. At least you don't pretend that your beliefs are somehow part of the scientific discourse.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** ORIGIN. ---- I'm not 100% sure how to explain this in English. See this box [] concentrate on it - stare deeply at the box and you will hopefully get the answer.

I concentrated, and my feelings tell me that there is no creator and that the universe has always been here in some form or another.


Now, are my feelings deceiving me, because they do not guide me to the same conclusion as yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I still think there's room for a God-like being to have started everything in motion. But the idea that the earth is a mere 10000 years old and all that bollocks? I can't believe I was brought up believing that shite. If religious nutbars want to argue in favour of creationism, they really have to stop with their ridiculous questions like "Why haven't we SEEN a humape?" They really have to hunker down, do some ACTUAL research (No, "I read the Bible" doesn't count as research), and accept some of the logical fallacies that fill the book they so deeply believe in. Part of the problem, I believe, is that a large number of fundamentalists haven't even read the Bible themselves, but rather, look up the passages they are told about by others, and ignore the obvious metaphorical context.

Amen (sic)

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J In an interview today, Richard Dawkins claimed that 40% of Americans think the world is less than 6,000 years old. I hope that statistic is false.

It's approximately correct, if you change that to 10,000 years. According to an old Nat Geo article that is no longer online:

quote:

Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us. Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god. The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

The funny thing is back in teh day they did take it literally word for word. The bible (like any other holy book) was written as a law book to keep order, sanity and civility towards the masses. It gave explanation to the unexplainable at the time and moral guidance. If you think about it, every culture had a religion at some point, starting from the assyrians, the egyptians the natives, the australian aboriginese etc. It all started with time to think and ponder and drawings on cave walls. Do we thus neglect all the teachings that religion has show us because they are outdated? Absolutely not. These teachings basically comprise the methods and laws of civility and how to behave. We can obviously build on these teachings instead of move backwards and try to make literal sense of the writings.
At the time it was logical to think that the world was created on the spot, and with humans being the only intelligent beings at the time, it would also make sense that everything revolved around us (neanderthal existed alongside man and became extinct around 25,000 years ago). People didnt dig to find dinosaurs so they were obviously counted out of the picture. Anywyas there is tons more i can touch on but i just want to give some sort of brief synopsis.

Yea but that is essentially the problem Nrg2Nfinit. The fact that even after all these years and the knowledge that we have now, those people still act and behave like cavemen when it comes to religion.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Not your feelings - before your feelings. People can feel all sorts of things, it is not that you have the feelings it is what spurs them. It is like a sense before your feeling. Part of the issue of feelings if you are empathic - they arn't really your feelings they are latent energy which you are sensing. How you feel can be a direct effect of the point of reference of your sense of the energy field. It depends how you sense it but where it is at is what directs the point of sense. That is your consciousness. It is something that can be perceived, and it is a gate. Your feelings arn't deceiving you feelings aren't truth or lies, they are communication. There is only truth in the world if you look from the right direction, likewise there is only lies if your mind rejects them. There is no "real" basis to reality other than the one you believe or the one that is created for you. Much like science is a creation - reality is a creation - however so real that our humanistic senses readily interact. Scientifically it is weird because it is energy field interactions. The physics of things can be very weird if you think about how the physics actually work. Like the stuff we see is a reflection and the stuff energy interactions. We hear a lattice that we are physically connected with through energy matter interactions. We see by energy relay - and we interact by field variance. We smell by matter energy entering our bodies, likewise taste. Essentially out humanistic senses are no so much what is in the world.. but what has entered us or is on the edge of our energy field. We are essentially our point of reference - the real world is completely unique to individual perspective. However internally - we have the ability to will occurrence by creating it within our consciousness - in this same way either we are stimulus response or capable of introducing thought energy into our focal field. Not only this but much like we can direct our physical energy we can also direct our other senses to objects to create artifacts of our own thought. I think that the way of psychic or magik is like that - however for most this just isn't required because a technological way of thinking is sufficient for the needs. But there is so much more when you can look at art or hold your thoughts in an artifact - even if it is as simple as writing a mnemonic device. This is not wholely based on cultural indoctrination, but I firmly beleive there to be a natural law of sorts to projection of energy to create imbeded sentiment in reality. Back to creationism - even science has a foundation - there gets to a point where the foundation is what is accepted. While I'm not a bible creationist per se, I am a universalist - that there is a perspective of truth to all things. Perhaps a bit more like the grand architect in masonic tradition - more so I am someone who has a beleif in all religion in the way that it is a tradition that teaches and instructs.. for me reality is "created" not was created. There is no real time other than what exists in memory or beleif. Now is forever.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** The argument

You're using Eiffel fucking 65 to back up your arguments?

quote:

Originally posted by idoru You're using Eiffel fucking 65 to back up your arguments?

Damn, I missed ********. Great to have you back!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Not your feelings - before your feelings. People can feel all sorts of things, it is not that you have the feelings it is what spurs them. It is like a sense before your feeling. Part of the issue of feelings if you are empathic - they arn't really your feelings they are latent energy which you are sensing. How you feel can be a direct effect of the point of reference of your sense of the energy field. It depends how you sense it but where it is at is what directs the point of sense. That is your consciousness. It is something that can be perceived, and it is a gate. Your feelings arn't deceiving you feelings aren't truth or lies, they are communication. There is only truth in the world if you look from the right direction, likewise there is only lies if your mind rejects them. There is no "real" basis to reality other than the one you believe or the one that is created for you. Much like science is a creation - reality is a creation - however so real that our humanistic senses readily interact. Scientifically it is weird because it is energy field interactions. The physics of things can be very weird if you think about how the physics actually work. Like the stuff we see is a reflection and the stuff energy interactions. We hear a lattice that we are physically connected with through energy matter interactions. We see by energy relay - and we interact by field variance. We smell by matter energy entering our bodies, likewise taste. Essentially out humanistic senses are no so much what is in the world.. but what has entered us or is on the edge of our energy field. We are essentially our point of reference - the real world is completely unique to individual perspective. However internally - we have the ability to will occurrence by creating it within our consciousness - in this same way either we are stimulus response or capable of introducing thought energy into our focal field. Not only this but much like we can direct our physical energy we can also direct our other senses to objects to create artifacts of our own thought. I think that the way of psychic or magik is like that - however for most this just isn't required because a technological way of thinking is sufficient for the needs. But there is so much more when you can look at art or hold your thoughts in an artifact - even if it is as simple as writing a mnemonic device. This is not wholely based on cultural indoctrination, but I firmly beleive there to be a natural law of sorts to projection of energy to create imbeded sentiment in reality. Back to creationism - even science has a foundation - there gets to a point where the foundation is what is accepted. While I'm not a bible creationist per se, I am a universalist - that there is a perspective of truth to all things. Perhaps a bit more like the grand architect in masonic tradition - more so I am someone who has a beleif in all religion in the way that it is a tradition that teaches and instructs.. for me reality is "created" not was created. There is no real time other than what exists in memory or beleif. Now is forever.

That was actually quite painful to read, about on the same level as sticking a fork in the eye i believe. But since belief means little im going to go now and do that experiment. See you later (or not as the case may be, in science the result must be repetable and ive only got so many eyes available)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles It's approximately correct, if you change that to 10,000 years. According to an old Nat Geo article that is no longer online:

As much as I would like to laugh at more stupid Americans here, I have to admit that those phone polls are usually biased. Rarely are the questions truly impartial and the results are often skewed.

Unless the format was 'how old do you think the Earth is?' and the respondents could answer in any way they wished, I doubt that the results are accurate.

Also, as you yanks are so apt to point out, certain sections of your country are more religious and/or stupid than others, meaning that if this phone poll was conducted in such an area, the results would again be misleading.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.