so fuck the police?

notoriousxander said:

i belive in big bang realeted science and genetic evolution, and darwinism

Click to expand...

For me 'Belief' is a loaded word. ... I say, This is how I understand the world to be ........

I do not believe, I do not know.

Edit:
Obviously the word 'Belief' is part of my syntax. Its just not pertinent to these types of questions for me.

Anyways its 6.am I work at Midday so Im off

haha ... Bailiwick

believe, to accept, i do not except the ideaof any deities of any sort, promises and threats considerd

Just re-read my 'rhymes' from last night ... LOL ... fucking terrible. Cringe city.

Sorry All

notoriousxander said:

i belive in big bang realeted science and genetic evolution, and darwinism

Click to expand...

notoriousxander said:

believe, to accept, i do not except the ideaof any deities of any sort, promises and threats considerd

Click to expand...

I don't know what Big Bang related science means, as far as I know this remains a scientific work in progress and incomplete at best. To believe in it sounds premature to me. Concepts like 'Inflation' have yet to be understood or proven.

Re Darwinism, If by Darwinism you mean Natural Selection, I would say that its how I (we) understand the method in which information is passed on from parents to off-spring. ... I would never say I believed in Darwinism, he himself knew his ideas were incomplete.... DNA wasnt even discovered in his lifetime.
btw ... Darwin agonized on publishing his work 'On the origin of species' because of his theological 'beliefs'.

either way , I see these as functions of our Universe, They are the starting point from which 'I' ponder the bigger existential questions. I can't say I believe in them, why should I? because a handful for humans who say they understand the Math told me too. ..... I just don't know.

From Wiki
Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[SUP][1][/SUP] was an English astronomer and mathematician noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him out of ridicule for the main rival of his own theory.[SUP][2][/SUP]

i said big bang related science in reference to the science related to the origins to the start of the universe and eventually the makings of our planet as opposed to beliefs that any deity created anything.

and yes by Darwinism i meant natural selection as the process of the strong surviving and passing on favorable traits through genetics and DNA, rather than every creature all being created at once in the beginning and never changing, (which honestly was disproved by the first fossil found that showed evolution of any species) because after all if one creature evolved most religions are wrong because they claim they created every creature as is, and man as an image of himself as is the case of Christianity.

Darwin of course felt conflicted being raised and taught as a christian, like most scientist this is the case, even presently, regardless of what they discover even if it disproves the basis of the religion they follow, after all it is hard to go against what your parents told you all your life and raised you to believe, and not to mention that society was probably the least excepting society of any idea that wasn't god and Jesus and Christianity,

no science back then was based on dna, and you cant expect it to be, the technology wasn't created yet, that does not mean the fossils found back then are to be disregarded. does it? nay lol

if i recall correctly he did agonize it, not because his theological beliefs but because after it was published alot of his peers and colleges would shun the idea and him and would not accept anything he did ever and everything he work hard to discover would have been disregardful as he would have been labeled something like a person who belittles the church or whatever.

but what i find 'funny' is that Christians explain gods creation as he always existed but pretty much the same thing the universe always existed they dont except

which makes more sense? lol

notoriousxander said:

i said big bang related science in reference to the science related to the origins to the start of the universe and eventually the makings of our planet as opposed to beliefs that any deity created anything.

Click to expand...

Ok. Its just when you said you believed in Big Bang Science it threw me, since its so unknowable atm. ....... also, Creationism is not the opposite of the big bang science, its just another theory.

and yes by Darwinism i meant natural selection as the process of the strong surviving and passing on favorable traits through genetics and DNA, rather than every creature all being created at once in the beginning and never changing, (which honestly was disproved by the first fossil found that showed evolution of any species) because after all if one creature evolved most religions are wrong because they claim they created every creature as is, and man as an image of himself as is the case of Christianity.

Click to expand...

In Natural Selection unfavourable traits are passed along too.

Darwin of course felt conflicted being raised and taught as a christian, like most scientist this is the case, even presently, regardless of what they discover even if it disproves the basis of the religion they follow, after all it is hard to go against what your parents told you all your life and raised you to believe, and not to mention that society was probably the least excepting society of any idea that wasn't god and Jesus and Christianity,
no science back then was based on dna, and you cant expect it to be, the technology wasn't created yet, that does not mean the fossils found back then are to be disregarded. does it? nay lol

Click to expand...

I don't expect Scientists pre 1950 to know about DNA ... and this is my point. Rather than subscribe to an 'ism' as you seemed to when stating your belief in Darwinism, I prefer to see my knowledge as an ever changing continuum of ideas. I make no claim as to their truth.

if i recall correctly he did agonize it, not because his theological beliefs but because after it was published alot of his peers and colleges would shun the idea and him and would not accept anything he did ever and everything he work hard to discover would have been disregardful as he would have been labeled something like a person who belittles the church or whatever.

Click to expand...

I read that it was his relationship with his wife who was particularly devout. I think he published after she died but I'm not positive.

notoriousxander said:

but what i find 'funny' is that Christians explain gods creation as he always existed but pretty much the same thing the universe always existed they dont except

Click to expand...

Some Christians may believe what you said others do not. Many Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have contributed to the very ideas which you say you 'believe' in.

With respect to the old testament view on the creation of everything ..... I don't know.

Moebius said:

Ok. Its just when you said you believed in Big Bang Science it threw me, since its so unknowable atm. ....... also, Creationism is not the opposite of the big bang science, its just another theory.

Click to expand...

No; they're diametrically opposed. Creation "Science" cheapens the word "science" because the basic premise, "question everything", has been papered over.

In Natural Selection unfavourable traits are passed along too.



I don't expect Scientists pre 1950 to know about DNA ... and this is my point. Rather than subscribe to an 'ism' as you seemed to when stating your belief in Darwinism, I prefer to see my knowledge as an ever changing continuum of ideas. I make no claim as to their truth.

Click to expand...

DNA was discovered in 1869 and isolated in 1878.

I read that it was his relationship with his wife who was particularly devout. I think he published after she died but I'm not positive.

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

DNA was discovered in 1869 and isolated in 1878.

Click to expand...

I knew i shoulda checked.

cannabineer said:

No; they're diametrically opposed. Creation "Science" cheapens the word "science" because the basic premise, "question everything", has been papered over.
DNA was discovered in 1869 and isolated in 1878.

Click to expand...

I was trying to remember what I meant when I said they are not opposites or opposed.

I see them as 'opposed' or 'opposite' in as much as any two different ideas searching for truth are opposed. ... I don't see how the difference is diametric.

One idea says 'let there be light' the other states that In a fraction of a second the universe exploded into existence.

One says it took 7 days the other 7 seconds*. ... the old book does say something about the earth,sea, etc stars being created in this time but its not so far of a stretch to say it really meant all matter. .... Anyways, Einstein taught us Time is relative to the observer, so I dunno ....

Since, Matter cannot be destroyed or re-created after the initial universal event, I see similarities and difference more than opposites. There are other similarities too. Both are likely wrong.

Well this turned into something kinda interesting from the original topic...

I see as a diametric opposite to the idea of creation or evolution, the idea that we do not even exist.

Moebius said:

I see as a diametric opposite to the idea of creation or evolution, the idea that we do not even exist.

Click to expand...

So you meditate allot...

kinetic said:

So you meditate allot...

Click to expand...

I try to meditate but the voices in my head keep telling me KILL KILL KILL. ... just kidding.

I don't meditate but being a chronic depressive I have found myself staring at blank walls before. Does that count?

Moebius said:

I don't meditate but being a chronic depressive I have found myself staring at blank walls before. Does that count?

Click to expand...

Almost. Hows the ganja for the depression? It can be a slippery slope as I'm sure you know...

Years ago someone taught me a buddhist chant.

Nam myoho renge kyo ... its chanted repeatedly in a kind of rhythm that reverberates through your body. Its soothing but I have no patience to practice regularly.

Moebius said:

Years ago someone taught be a buddhist chant.

Nam myoho renge kyo ... its chanted repeatedly in a kind of rhythm that reverberates through your body. Its soothing but I have no patience to practice regularly.

Click to expand...

Kyo conveys the concept that all things in the universe are a manifestation of the Mystic Law.