if real life begins with being rotten i dont want to live. :>>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by LHX
Printable View
if real life begins with being rotten i dont want to live. :>>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by LHX
Peace and respect, Koolish
I can only offer my definition of the truth, as revealed to me by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Please understand I am by no means attempting to argue with the originator of this thread. Rather I am only trying to offer food for thought from my humble perspective.
Explaining truths in so-called scientific terms, as many on the leading edge in the scientific community are discovering is arduous at best, as modern-day science is really nothing more than a secular, pagan religion in and of itself; it has its own preist class (scientists), its own creation theory (the "Big Bang"), as well as its own "houses of worship" (laboratories). This is not at all to say that the sciences have no place in the modern-day world, as it is science that allows us a greater understanding and appreciation of both nature's microcosm and macrocosm, as well as God's truly awesome and infinitely-complex design for all things in this multiverse.
Speaking solely for self, my point of contention lies in the fact that science has also been used to perpetrate and reinforce lies throughout history, thusly tainting its inherent authenticity. Moreover, any scientist emerging with undeniable evidence to the contrary of what is generally believed to be accepted as fact within the scientific community is at best met with relentless scepticism or attempts to be discredited (excommunication). Prime examples of this can be found in history, such as Kepler's explaining celestial mechanics or even Martin Luther's sparking the Protestant Reformation.
Conversely, science has throughout time been used to bolster false beliefs, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, despite the fact that the scientific community of his time bitterly rejected his theory, as they recognized it was nothing more than a figment of his imagination, backed by his arbitrary gathering of evidence. For if humans and primates do in fact share a common ancestor, how did they manage to "luck up" and force themselves (and nature) to evolve? To state plainly: Darwin's theory was used to deny, discredit and disown irrefutable and tangible proof of the Asiatic man's contributions and foundations to global civilization, which nowadays in this country is paraded and masqueraded as "intelligent design."
This being said, his Holiness the Dalai Lama teaches that authentic truth is that which can withstand 360 degrees of objective and subjective scrutiny, examination from each and every angle, and pass the test. This is known in philsophical terms as the center (of an argument) being able to hold.
I look forward to anyone building and adding on to this thread.
One Love, One Blood, One God. Peace.
Untrue. Anyone can follow the scientific method. It requires no study, special knowledge or special skills. Its simply a method of study. Also, anyone can second guess a scientist. There are various ways to do so. You can simply replicate the experiment and check their results or you can propose a new theory and do your own experiments. Not so with any priest class.Quote:
it has its own preist class (scientists)
This is true, yet the implication is false. Big Bang Theory is not a static theory. It can be second guessed. The second something better comes along, scientist will abandon it. Is this so with the religious? If I show a god to be a sham, will people stop following it?Quote:
its own creation theory (the "Big Bang")
Untrue. Worship is basically rverence by those holding a set of beliefs. A labratory is used for testing beliefs. Completely opposite functions. The religious equivalent would be jumping from cliffs to show the power of God would save them. Needless to say, testing God is not done.Quote:
as well as its own "houses of worship" (laboratories)
Prove the belief is false.Quote:
Conversely, science has throughout time been used to bolster false beliefs, such as Darwin's theory of evolution
So? What others believed AT THE TIME, is irrelevant. Its not that time anymore.Quote:
despite the fact that the scientific community of his time bitterly rejected his theory, as they recognized it was nothing more than a figment of his imagination, backed by his arbitrary gathering of evidence
They didn't. They forced niether themselves nor nature to do anything. Thats not what the theory of evolution says, nor is it what natural selection says. You just made that up. Much like a good part of your post.Quote:
For if humans and primates do in fact share a common ancestor, how did they manage to "luck up" and force themselves (and nature) to evolve?
How? As far as i know, his theory had nothing to do with civilization.Quote:
Darwin's theory was used to deny, discredit and disown irrefutable and tangible proof of the Asiatic man's contributions and foundations to global civilization, which nowadays in this country is paraded and masqueraded as "intelligent design."
lol if god placed man here in his image, why did he bother with dinosaurs first? evolution is evident in all animals, why did the wooly mammoth die out after the ice age? how many elephants are covered in a woolen coat?
why do humans looks differnt to the neandrathuls we came from?
we adapt and evolve in a changing environment
humans are still evolving, but slowly, we grow bigger as we eating more.....the average man is definately taller than 100 years ago
evolution is a natural thing, most animals go through it...humans just think of themselves of overly high regard
after all we are just animals anyway
its not evolution
its always been about genetic engineering
through overt(medicines/tv/science) or covert means(drugs in food and water that fuck with our minds)
selection of the species is so far from evolution its a ajoke
evolution has never happened.
what do u think the metaphor means in the jacob/yakuub story?
peace
But how come in over 2000 years only shit changed on you humans is height and skin colour?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
its because we dont live in forests and caves anymore. back then only the "best", the strongest humans survived but nowdays you wont be eaten by a bear if you cant run fast or climb a tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Man
we have changed more than skin color and height
rofl
But how come in over 2000 years only shit changed on you humans is height and skin colour?Quote:
Originally Posted by belfalo
By that I mean, why have no evolved to a point where we have wings, 2 nobs, transparent skin etc? lol.
U must be a funny lookin murfucker then shang tsung.Quote:
Originally Posted by soul controller
we became todays humans because only the smartest cavemen have survived. now the advanced medical science and our society stopped the evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Man
if we had to go back to the caves and some animals ate everyone who couldnt jump high enough, we'd be able to jump 5x higher than todays men in a few 100 or 1000 years. or we could even fly(lol).
Im no askin you how we got to todays humans for fuck sake. Im askin why has evolution stopped dead? There is no evolution. Knowledge leads to better nutrition and diet. Better nutrition and diet leads to growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by belfalo
and thats what im talking about. evolution stopped because the weak ones dont die anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Man
So even if weak 1s died back then, who evolved? The strong 1s right? If we all strong as you put it, why no evolution? See my point. This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by belfalo
the evolution isnt dead at all. its slower now but it still exists. we may need thousands of years to go through changes but the evolution still works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Man