It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

page: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72



hydroponics and aquaculture plus an increase in CO2 to around 600 to 700ppm can create amazing crop all year round.


Yes, thank goodness for those scientific advances in agricultural production.....who knows where we'd be without them....





posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
I always get myself into trouble on this topic Blue_jay, as a esotericist, you probably would't agree with many of my metaphysical views, what we do share though is an enduring belief in God, the importance of kindness and compassion and the will to serve others. In a way we share the same thing with these guys although they can be quite brutal at times.

They feel as if they are helping people to understand their science. I am not anti-science but there are, in my view checks and balances at a morality level that wouldn't allow a religious person to step across certain boundaries of ethics. By that I mean religious based ethics. Atheists can argue the point, and to a large extent I agree with them. that it doesn't make a person any less ethical to not believe in a God.

There is still a limit where say a Christian wouldn't go beyond, I think some of the work in genetics and hybrid breeding on unnatural organisms would be a step too far for a spiritual or religious person, where I think an atheist would have no ethical problem with creating a hybrid creature if it could serve a commercial purpose.



All we can do is throw people the "life savior" if they are drowning in a sea philosophical error started by science, if they choose to push it away and latter drown, at least we tried.


I'm not sure I could take that view really as I don't want to preach my views, I just want to explain that life is a continuum, and 'that knowledge' in itself is very comforting. I don't believe in judgment as in a religious sense because we are all here to learn and grow, and nobody is condemned to hell and damnation in my world view.

God does not make mistakes nor does God ever give up on any of us, simply because we are a part of God, the creator made every single sub atomic particle in the universe so how could we not be a part of the creator.

Beautiful but coarse and savage the Earth could be compared to a ceramic filter that purifies the human spirit that over time, returns us all to the source as pure individual drops of intelligent, sentient and worthy beings. Perfected to perform the task of uplifting and supporting those that follow us. To provide the same help that we receive in our everyday lives and on our incredibly long journey.
2:00am here time to zzzz, peace my friend.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Good scientist vs evil scientist is a false dichotomy.

No discussion will ever be a pleasent experience as long as there is a group that feels they represent the good guys.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Funny every major war can be traced back to religion and beliefs. And science is the one thing that sheds light into this areas by seeking the truth of the world around us. Id say its quite the opposite without science we are condemned to continual war as a species. And we removed the major threat to our existence disease look at the plague. Yes science can be scary anytime a person becomes educated it empowers them. And with that an individual has the capabilities to do great harm but also along those lines great good. Sad that religion feels threatened by the truth for example evolution is a fact we know its happening however science can't prove there isnt a god. And further on that note they shouldn't try it has nothing to do with science that is philosophy.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Questioning the abiogenesis scientific process isn't a lie.


Questioning it is fine. You are saying it is required for evolution, and yes that is a lie. Not an opinion, not a question, a blatantly false statement.


Think of this discussion more as curling,


Great metaphor. Curling isn't a real sport, much like your argument isn't a real argument, so yes, this conversation is exactly like curling. Nomatter how many times the dude in front of your stone sweeps his broom, it will never reach the goal because your methods and understanding of the game are wrong.


edit on 9-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Kenny, the big problem with your post is that you paint science to be a conscious entity.

Science is a method, and is not responsible for how humans use the knowledge gained from it. That is a completely different problem altogether. It's not a flaw in science. It's not a problem with evolution. The issue is humans, their egos, and their thirst for money and power. But again, all science is not like that, in fact the large majority of it is legitimate namely evolutionary science, something you claimed had no benefit at all to society.

Is nuclear fusion evil because the process was used to make the atomic bomb? Of course not. While certain people (governments/corporations) have abused scientific knowledge, others have put it to good use, IE nuclear energy, which is based on a natural process that happens inside the sun and has revolutionized our power grid capabilities. Instead of attacking the scientific method itself and generalizing it big time with exaggerated claims, attack those that corrupt it. Attack the people who abuse the knowledge and weaponize it. That isn't the fault of science. I think you should focus on the real problem instead of scapegoating science.

I can't remember who said it (Maybe Neil Tyson DeGrasse philosophizing), but in order for us to graduate from this type of society to a space colonizing type society, we must first possess weapons that could destroy the earth with the single press of a button. If we possess such weapons and demonstrate that we won't use them, then we are ready. If we blow ourselves up, then the planet resets and we fail as a species. The problem is that you already think we have failed, when we are still in the developmental stage.

Basically regardless of faith, we are still learning how the world / universe works. Science won't destroy humanity, humanity will destroy humanity. Science is only a method and can't be held responsible for how it is used. Most of science is legitimate scientists that work in the field learning how things work and doing research. Yes there is research that is funded by corporations and governments, but that isn't a problem with science, it's a perceived problem with governments and capitalism.


Lets slam a few of these together and see what happens “boom”, lets make matter so small that it can pass between the blood brain barrier and see if we can make some useful “sludge”


This is what I mean by ridiculous generalizations. If that's really how you view science, then something is very wrong. Every little thing we learn adds up. Your attitude toward science is atrocious and far removed from reality. What if the hadron collider (I believe that's what you are referring to by slam a few of these together) helps us take the next big step in space travel and pushes our society to spread throughout the galaxy? You trivialize it because you don't really understand it. You view it all in generalizations and extreme statements based on paranoia, rather than a stepping stone into the future.


there is a direct correlation between our technological advancement and our diminishing freedom surrendered to corporate controlled governments.


There is? Can you please reference that information for me? Do you forget what society was like before technology and science? Here's a hint. If you publicly speak out against a king, ruler or the society's god of choice, you get publicly decapitated (at best). You want to talk about human rights? Maybe you forget the days when there were virtually NONE and folks were tortured simply for speaking their mind. Heck just 60 years back a good amount of minorities could not even vote here. Yeah, the government can monitor more things we do now, but society overall in scientifically developed countries is miles better than it ever has been in our known history on the planet. More people have rights than ever before. It's the under developed countries where the majority of problems in the world exist(not blaming them).


Science is smart right, save us from the next ELE right. The odds are that science will create the next extinction of our species, all because a naive public believes that science has somehow become omniscient.


Fear tactics and nothing more. Nobody thinks science is omniscient except people that attack it. Science is not smart. Science is a method. Once again, you personify it to suit your agenda and don't even mention that HUMANS who misuse technology are the problem, not science. Science doesn't have a moral compass. Blaming it for everything wrong, while pretending it hasn't contributed on a massive scale or our health, society and longevity only shows that you are greatly deceived.


I don’t believe atheists are bad or irresponsible or any different to any body else, but I feel that because as a trait, it appears that most atheists will not accept anything that is intangible, and yet they watch TV's picking up signals they can't see, or talk on phones that are detached from the physical. why can't they accept there is much more than can't be detected with the physical senses that are not artefacts of technology.


First off, you are only talking about SOME atheists, not all of them. Second, what does watching TV and using cell phones have to do with atheism? People understand how cell phones and TVs work. Atheists don't automatically believe that nothing else exists beyond what we can physically see and prove in science. You are talking about materialism or naturalism. Why can't religious people accept that their beliefs are beliefs and not the absolute truth? Again, I know many spiritual atheists, they have beliefs, just not in god. Stop pigeonholing atheists to one general set of beliefs. The only thing you know about atheists is that they do not believe in a god. Ask an atheist what they DO believe rather than assuming it based on ONE THING they do not believe in.


Once you fully understand that even the physical world is just a collection of signals received by our brains and interpreted by our consciousness, the concept shouldn’t be so hard to understand.


I understand it, I just do not believe it to be true. There's a difference. You say our body is rooted in the physical reality, but the mind is actually part of the body and controls feelings, emotions, logic, creativity etc, so there's no reason to assume it's anything beyond physical. I'm not ruling it out or anything, just saying.


As long as the academic mind rejects the subjective non tangible, the longer it will take before he can access the truth of reality.


Again, a good amount of academics do believe in god, spirituality, etc, so there's no reason to think they are not capable. They don't reject it, they ignore it when doing science because science relies on not making assumptions. Sorry but that's the way it is. Basically you are saying, "My view is truth. Science is bad and will lead to our own destruction. Society needs to realize my view is true by believing it blindly." You gotta have more than that.


What do you think Oppenheimer thought they where going to do with an atomic bomb, cook a BBQ?

You've never heard of nuclear energy?
edit on 9-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Hello Superfrog, nice to meet you.

Hi,

nice to meet you as well. Sorry for my little interruption in this topic, but just wanted to point to what I see as utopia, and don't get me wrong, I would love for you to be correct, but knowing our history as well our capabilities, I doubt we will see end of poverty or hunger.



originally posted by: kennyb72
I can't see why the world cannot produce enough food to provide for its current relatively low population using relatively low technology and keeping in harmony with the planet. All that is required is the will to achieve it.

You almost make it sound like people purposely decided to be hungry or live in country that is poor. Sure, scarce of food is not only reason we still have hunger and sure we probably produce already enough food, but keep in mind that population at this rate will just go up, and we will need more and more resources.


originally posted by: kennyb72
As it stand now the world food supply is controlled by large corporations. There is a tendency for some humans to try to control entire populations by taking control of a nations essentials such as food, water, housing etc corporations buy up arable land and intensely farm using every trick they can muster to lower costs and keep prices and profits as high as possible.

And what is alternative? Don't forget, 80-some richest people have more money then more then half of rest of humans. How do you address inequality??


originally posted by: kennyb72
The trend for the last 20 yrs or so has been globalisation, an attempt to homogenise labour costs and also to price fix to pressure alternative supplies and methods out of the market to force monopolies.

We have been told and sold globalisation as/is a good thing. However I would like to start a new movement call localisation where resources are used to turn non food productive areas into self sustaining low impact food production zones. Town sized area, spotted across each country within easy access to most people.

Easy for me or possibly you to produce your own garden, but again, millions that don't have access to clean water, yet you expect them to grow their own food...


originally posted by: kennyb72
The goal ultimately to reduce the need to ship or transport food over great distances reducing the need for complex preservation techniques or the over use of packaging. Bearing in mind that these food production areas only need to serve the local community scale of production would not need broad-acre production and most growing could be conducted in poly-tunnels or carbon fibre greenhouses as a closed system to preserve water.

Sounds great... I already buy local as much as possible... but some foods just don't grow in this environment...


originally posted by: kennyb72
hydroponics and aquaculture plus an increase in CO2 to around 600 to 700ppm can create amazing crop all year round. arable areas fed by ocean desalination powered by solar and piped in a broad grid with tributaries to trickle feed water to the growing areas, Temperature control using solar or wind for refrigerated air.

Non of these systems would require overly large solar farms or wind farms because scale would be relatively low. The key to success for such a project would be efficiency in both method and management. There a huge areas of the planets land mass that is desert. Science if it pulled it's finger out has the capability to re-terra form, reclaim and tame those areas. I think all the technology and technical know how already exists to pull of a project like that all that is required is the will and the resources.

Do you know that this was actually tried in Egypt?
www.npr.org...



originally posted by: kennyb72
How much does the world spend on its defence budget each year again,
How many unemployed people do we have in the world.
The 1,000,000 dollar question is will it make a profit, probably not because the money would remain in the community and not paid out to shareholders Will it feed the world, in my view without a doubt. Would there be people who would be unhappy about it ??????????

Same goes to farmers, who would loose their profits if we all produce what we eat...



originally posted by: kennyb72
You mean move forward as in self annihilation because that is a very strong possibility.

It would be interesting to be a cockroach on the wall of an archeological dig in the year 3 million and one or listen in on an anthropological team of some future civilisation, trying to make sense of an ancient people that seemed to be thriving, suddenly disappeared off the face of the Earth, discover the Georgia Guidestones with a final message.

We the people of the Earth having never achieved the goal of becoming a type 1 civilisation finally gave up the ghost and destroyed ourselves through bad management, bad attitude, bad behaviour, and really really bad Karma. While they marvel at the architectural genius of the Egyptian civilisation that must have come much later because of their enduring knowledge of astronomy their metaphysical knowledge and creative arts.



Very interesting opinion, let's look at this following way... Not sure if you've read '2001: A Space Odyssey' by Sir Arthur C. Clarke'? At very beginning, when one of our ancestors discovers how to use weapon and defend himself and claim resource (water), what if he decided not to use this advance, because the same weapon can (and it was) used for thousands of years in wars and conflicts all around the world? Was he better off with or without deadly weapon? Would we be where we are if we did not try, discover and learn?? Sure, we fall and hurt our self more then once, but we are young (compared to universe and our planet) and we are still learning...

Again, in some utopian world, we would feed hungry, help them feed them self, education would be available to all and poverty would not be issue... but we are far away from that... maybe in galaxy, far, far away...



Following was not meant for me, but I find something interesting in following quote...


originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
There is still a limit where say a Christian wouldn't go beyond, I think some of the work in genetics and hybrid breeding on unnatural organisms would be a step too far for a spiritual or religious person, where I think an atheist would have no ethical problem with creating a hybrid creature if it could serve a commercial purpose.


Let's either use 'Christians' or even better, let's use 'religious people', who in your opinion would not create genetically new hybrids, while mad atheist would not worry about it.

First of all, we humans evolve as well our live stock, so we are creating hybrids all along through our history by applying selective breeding, so today we have so many different dogs, cows, cats... and even mules (who are nothing but hybrid), brought to you by no other than mad atheists scientist throughout our history... Right?!


Do you see where we are going with this?

edit on 9-4-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Its kinda like the "good Christian" vs the "Evil Christian" dichotomy. It misses the fecking point, its the humans not the professions and philisophical stancces that are those moral terms "good" and "evil". Of course admitting this would mean they had to acknowledge that, so it shall not happen here



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Good scientist vs evil scientist is a false dichotomy.
No discussion will ever be a pleasent experience as long as there is a group that feels they represent the good guys.

Hello againd daskakik, well, the words you have used either side of the 'V' only change with the words Good and Evil and by anybodies definition that would be a dichotomy.

As far as feeling like a good guy, I think I am! I am quite certain that you are one too. I have no reason to believe otherwise, therefore, I don't quite understand why you think we couldn't have a pleasant conversation.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Hi dragonridr, not sure if your post was directed at me, so forgive me if I have intruded in any way.



Funny every major war can be traced back to religion and beliefs. And science is the one thing that sheds light into this areas by seeking the truth of the world around us. Id say its quite the opposite without science we are condemned to continual war as a species. And we removed the major threat to our existence disease look at the plague.


Firstly, I need to point out that I am not a religious person, but to be fair I thought I would present a different view to to you assertion.

I keep hearing that every major war is due to religion but that simply isn't true is it? in fact apart from the crusades and the odd sectarian conflict (quite often between the same religion) The vast majority of wars are fought over land, resources, geopolitical manoeuvring, petulance very occasionally ideology, and generally all the things that neighbours who can't get on fight about. People in positions of power propagandising it's people into hating another group of people and using nationalism, fear and pride to mobilise it's population to kill each other. It is all down to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs isn't it. If you can keep people in a state of fear and insecurity at the bottom of the pyramid, people can never self actualise at which point most folk would just tell their leaders to pull their heads in or get lost.

Quite pathetic really, we humans seem to be so easily manipulated.

Another issue I have, is the presumption that a group of individuals, who we collectively refer to as scientists, have achieved the feat of alleviating disease and eradicating it from the face of the earth. I, on the other hand credit that accomplishment to engineers and plumbers. For bringing clean water to a grubby world. The vast majority of plagues where examples of 'perfect storms' of unhygienic conditions and population crowding. Diseases have dropped markedly since the plumbification of the planet (if it's not a word it should be!) The ability to stay clean and eat nutritiously has played a large roll in reducing outbreaks of disease. They still charge way too much money though, plumbers that is!



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

gah WAY off topic but ....

Yeah blaming religion for every war is overly simplistic. For example blaming WW1 on religion is a huge jump of the shark, that was a very complex series of unfortunate events anyway, but religion? NAH

I am not quite sure where you are getting the idea that scientists have "alleviated disease". We've removed for all intents and purposes a single one (Small Pox, I still have the scars from the vaccine I got as a kid, I needed it twice as the first batch did not work).

I do not get your dislike of scienists as a general group. Individual ones? Sure I work with them, and there as many doche bags in thate profession as any other. But you seem to have a large amount of hate towards them.

Back on topic. You get tarred with the religious brush as you tend to be on the side of the creationists in these threads. I am not sure if you are an Intellegent Design proponent, wanting to argue with the scientists, or something else?

See this thread is an example of the problem. It was created by someone who has an agenda (Creationism) in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, but picking on what he (?) perceives as the "weak link", that being Abiogenesis. I am really unclear why that poster insists they need to be linked. But ok, I am not a telepath ...



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Hello againd daskakik, well, the words you have used either side of the 'V' only change with the words Good and Evil and by anybodies definition that would be a dichotomy.

That is what makes it a "false dichotomy".


As far as feeling like a good guy, I think I am! I am quite certain that you are one too. I have no reason to believe otherwise, therefore, I don't quite understand why you think we couldn't have a pleasant conversation.

I didn't mean a "good person".

For those who think in terms of us vs them, there are "good guys" and "bad guys", much like the graphic in your post. Someone who feels he is part of one group must also feel that he is fighting against the other group, of course just about eveyone thinks his group is "the good guys".



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: dragonridr
Hi dragonridr, not sure if your post was directed at me, so forgive me if I have intruded in any way.



Funny every major war can be traced back to religion and beliefs. And science is the one thing that sheds light into this areas by seeking the truth of the world around us. Id say its quite the opposite without science we are condemned to continual war as a species. And we removed the major threat to our existence disease look at the plague.


Firstly, I need to point out that I am not a religious person, but to be fair I thought I would present a different view to to you assertion.

I keep hearing that every major war is due to religion but that simply isn't true is it? in fact apart from the crusades and the odd sectarian conflict (quite often between the same religion) The vast majority of wars are fought over land, resources, geopolitical manoeuvring, petulance very occasionally ideology, and generally all the things that neighbours who can't get on fight about. People in positions of power propagandising it's people into hating another group of people and using nationalism, fear and pride to mobilise it's population to kill each other. It is all down to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs isn't it. If you can keep people in a state of fear and insecurity at the bottom of the pyramid, people can never self actualise at which point most folk would just tell their leaders to pull their heads in or get lost.

Quite pathetic really, we humans seem to be so easily manipulated.

Another issue I have, is the presumption that a group of individuals, who we collectively refer to as scientists, have achieved the feat of alleviating disease and eradicating it from the face of the earth. I, on the other hand credit that accomplishment to engineers and plumbers. For bringing clean water to a grubby world. The vast majority of plagues where examples of 'perfect storms' of unhygienic conditions and population crowding. Diseases have dropped markedly since the plumbification of the planet (if it's not a word it should be!) The ability to stay clean and eat nutritiously has played a large roll in reducing outbreaks of disease. They still charge way too much money though, plumbers that is!



Wars are fought over ideals not territory. Usually religion or as I stated earlier Idology. a warlord may start a skirmish to take over a neighbor but countries are different. Countries it's citizens need a reason to fight usually god and country.

As far as modern medicine in places were 5 hey have access to modern medicine many diseaeses have been irradicated. In the US for example we no longer worry about smallpox or rubella or even anthrax. This wasn't plumbers this was vaccines and you can thank Edward Jenners and I may be wrong but I doubt he did plumbing.
edit on 4/9/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Which is a very interesting stance. One which shows the difference in the way certain people think. I feel monotheism causes this very black and white thinking, while polytheism is all about the shades of colors. Similarly science is never 100% sure it will happen or will not happen (well beyond things like "you will eventually die, and on earth gravity pulls down), which means we frame things in the passive voice a lot


Then you enter areas like abiogenesis, where honestly we need access to a Tardis to understand it with any accuracy or precision. Hell we can guess, back in the 1990s when I was doing my PhD, we were obliged to do a research topic outside of our thesis area, to "broaden our interests" and "set us up for life in the real world" or something. I picked proteogenic/abiogenic theories in the chemical sense. It was .... messy. Interesting but very very messy. Why? Well you know I am sure, but for the rest who do not. We have no idea, there are virtually no clues. For example, why are certain "molecules of life" such as sugars and amino acids only really one chirality (handedness ... Google it if its a problem word), we do not know, there are some good guesses, but it is that way. Whats worse in many ways is the other "hand" is toxic to us in many cases. I know IDers say "aliens". But thats not proof of them either. its a mystery. One I try to keep up with.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: daskakik

Which is a very interesting stance. One which shows the difference in the way certain people think. I feel monotheism causes this very black and white thinking, while polytheism is all about the shades of colors. Similarly science is never 100% sure it will happen or will not happen (well beyond things like "you will eventually die, and on earth gravity pulls down), which means we frame things in the passive voice a lot


Then you enter areas like abiogenesis, where honestly we need access to a Tardis to understand it with any accuracy or precision. Hell we can guess, back in the 1990s when I was doing my PhD, we were obliged to do a research topic outside of our thesis area, to "broaden our interests" and "set us up for life in the real world" or something. I picked proteogenic/abiogenic theories in the chemical sense. It was .... messy. Interesting but very very messy. Why? Well you know I am sure, but for the rest who do not. We have no idea, there are virtually no clues. For example, why are certain "molecules of life" such as sugars and amino acids only really one chirality (handedness ... Google it if its a problem word), we do not know, there are some good guesses, but it is that way. Whats worse in many ways is the other "hand" is toxic to us in many cases. I know IDers say "aliens". But thats not proof of them either. its a mystery. One I try to keep up with.


I read a book were man went back in time to see how it started and turns out going back provided the DNA to start the process. So we created ourselves kind of ironic huh.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That's is very similar to an episode of Tom Bakers ruin in Dr Who, where his fight with an octopus headed alien (who for some reason was having multiple copies of the Mona Lisa painted too .... um its been years, don't ask for more of the plot it was the late 70s or early 80s) caused a space ship to explode, which then caused the radiation needed to "kick start" the process. Strangely at the time, one theory was there was some event that kick started it all, and well the BBC always loved "educating with the Doctor.

But the point remains the only way to know for sure, is to observe, and hopefully not screw up and wipe out everything



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

True, belonging to certain groups predisposes someone to think/act this way. I am also guilty of doing that at times.

I was taking part in a thread about food stamps (in the US) and I started pointing out some things, someone brought up the point that the Constitution doesn't say anything about food stamps. We went back and forth but in the end I was told that I backed Federal Govt based welfare. I had become, in that persons mind, part of the "other group".

This was odd since I had already reminded him, because we have run into each other many times here at ATS, that I wasn't even american and even if I was I wouldn't care one way or the other. I was just throwing out some facts.

It isn't just theists/athesist, just about any group seems to have an opposing side. If one doesn't exist naturally then one is made to fit. What you say about scientists framing things in a passive voice might be true, although some scientists can be overbearing, some will never hear it that way. Even the humble "we don't have the answer to that" or "what we have so far is..." is replied to in an aggressive fashion. I think this thread is an example of that.


edit on 9-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I've seen a number of constitution based arguments over the years, when I lived in the USA, as someone unable to vote (I have yet to pass the prerequisite residency time period), it was always a discussion I kept out of. Simply because I was in no place to be able to alter it, or support it. I always cringe and laugh when someone whips out a "you communist" at someone, or a you fascist. Where it is really "you use those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean" kind of situation.

Anyhow

Strangely the constitution does not talk about a number of things, similarly I am pretty sure there are no old holy texts that state "tho shalt not evolve, or talk of evolution. Least you spend eternity having to listen to Beiber" .

It seems to be the default stance of the creationist camp, that if you support evolution you are an atheist. Which is very myopic. It ignores that the early father of evolution, held back his publications, due in part to religious worries, and also wanting to make sure it was correct. Darwin published and got mobbed by the religious fundamentalists. None of which actually got it was not blasphemy, they just did not like the idea of being related to apes



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yes, most constitutions are very thin publications. They lay things out in very general terms and the details are worked on as needed. For example The US constitution has a general welfare clause. It doesn't meantion any specifics, no food stamps, EBT cards, not even bread lines but, according to the Supreme Court, it does give the federal government of the US power to put those types of programs into effect and of course it gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution. Legit all the way around.

Science also has something similar in the scientific method and peer review. Neither the political nor the scientific model satisfy everyone but they are what we have to work with.

If I may be so bold, the problem with religious views, and I say this in regards to every individuals' search for the truth but really directed to those of the Abrahamic religions, is that the answer is "provided" without any "proof". Both words are in quotes because even if the truth is somewhere in those old texts, it isn't really given in detail. Genesis, for example, explains creation without really "explaining" anything. We have people who may accept that as truth yet they demand so much more proof from those who propose an alternative explanation.

So, you have both scientists and non-scientists looking at the partial answers saying we are not there yet, this needs more work, while others just can't accept that, but they don't seem to have a problem accepting the bibles "and it was so" as perfectly good explanation.
edit on 10-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The problem always returns to in all these human endeavors. Humans are involved
In the end that is what screws it over


Also part of the problem with modern religions is they are "revealed religions" where you read a book, listen to your priest, and then you have "all the answers". At least with the Mystery religions you had to think a little. Those were wacky as hell however, and well in many ways a modern example is Scientology, and I don't advocate that to any one.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join