Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

For the sake of me not being redundant, at this moment, it doesn't matter what I say or write. If I can't back it up with evidence or prove it in the physical, it never happened. The true facts are experienced. Words are just words so I take no offense to what you said. You would have to be objective and not pass judgement. Until then whatever I say will be along the lines of crazy talk, shaman, tin foil, ufo etc etc. Im willing to accept it, knowing what i know. I do not subscribe to any cult and never will. I was raised a Catholic but was a thiest most of my life. I follow no religion, I simply know the truth.

It does matter what you say or write, all opinions can only serve to better this thread and our understanding of each other. But your sh*t didn't make any sense in the first post breh. With that said, how can we differentiate between what you would consider a spiritual experience and what scientists would claim is a just a chemical reaction in your brain? For example, it's commonly known in voodoo, a priest can make a spell and create a "zombie" (a willless slave so to speak), but now we know it's just a powder that causes the brain to go into some type of stasis, leaving the subject open to mind control. So you don't think as we go on further and further increasing our knowledge, that we will find out most of spiritual and emotional experiences (e.g. love) are just chemical reactions in our mind that have nothing to do with real life? I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but I'm afraid that's our reality breh, whether you choose to continue to live in the Matrix or not is up to you

 

[blackzeus]

@SofaRealDoe would do well in an islamic caliphate breh. "Math is designed to confuse ibn, trust in the words of this pedophile as spoken to him by God"

 

[Broke Wave]

1) Theist implies belief in God. I believe in a Master Designer, not so sure if it's a God, lot of things that don't make sense in the Bible and/or Qu'ran if you assume God is a fair, just, and holy being

2) I don't believe Islam is the largest religion on earth, I think Christianity is (North America/S. America/Western Europe/Eastern Europe is a major population bloc), but no doubt it's big, but no, I'm not religious, and yes, I THINK ISLAM IS THE WORST THING ON THIS PLANET. It's conformist, repressive, violent, and idiotic. There is no good in Islam, sorry breh.

3) Seeing as the Torah is older than the Qu'ran, if I had to go with a more unadulterated viewpoint, I'd go with that one,but I don't really believe in either one to be honest. If God does exist theologically, and he is as smart as we IDers believe he is, the last thing such an intelligent being would do is to ask all of mankind to trust in the words of a few men. Thus the "conscience". But that's me and my opinion though

4) If you promote wakeupnow, you got bigger problems than theism breh

Read the Quran

 

[humble Hermit]

It does matter what you say or write, all opinions can only serve to better this thread and our understanding of each other. But your sh*t didn't make any sense in the first post breh. With that said, how can we differentiate between what you would consider a spiritual experience and what scientists would claim is a just a chemical reaction in your brain? For example, it's commonly known in voodoo, a priest can make a spell and create a "zombie" (a willless slave so to speak), but now we know it's just a powder that causes the brain to go into some type of stasis, leaving the subject open to mind control. So you don't think as we go on further and further increasing our knowledge, that we will find out most of spiritual and emotional experiences (e.g. love) are just chemical reactions in our mind that have nothing to do with real life? I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but I'm afraid that's our reality breh, whether you choose to continue to live in the Matrix or not is up to you

The answer lies in what you wrote " what scientist consider". This is what I mean by true facts are experienced. We can argue semantics and particular forever but once you know something, you know it. Regardless of how much "scientific proof" you find on something something, if I were to reverse the tables and ask you to provide me proof that these don't exist? Don't show me a theory, I want actually 100%. Have you taken or viewed the blueprints that these scientists created and tried it for yourself? I have an answer to your chemical reaction question. It's very deep, not in a spiritual sense, but with numbers and such. There's a reason why some scientist themselves believe in a holographic universe. The coding is practically the same. People fear what they don't understand. Instead of coming at me like I'm a idiot, why don't you take the time to understand friend? Even if I'm wrong, why the hostility? I've been respectful all through the thread but because of what I consider truths, I'm being labeled and judged. I'm sure my friend, if you listen to what I say objectively you will see what I mean. You live in duality. I keep writing and deleting because I'm not sure the coli is ready. With that being said this may be my last post.

 

[blackzeus]

The answer lies in what you wrote " what scientist consider". This is what I mean by true facts are experienced. We can argue semantics and particular forever but once you know something, you know it. Regardless of how much "scientific proof" you find on something something, if I were to reverse the tables and ask you to provide me proof that these don't exist? Don't show me a theory, I want actually 100%. Have you taken or viewed the blueprints that these scientists created and tried it for yourself? I have an answer to your chemical reaction question. It's very deep, not in a spiritual sense, but with numbers and such. There's a reason why some scientist themselves believe in a holographic universe. The coding is practically the same. People fear what they don't understand. Instead of coming at me like I'm a idiot, why don't you take the time to understand friend? Even if I'm wrong, why the hostility? I've been respectful all through the thread but because of what I consider truths, I'm being labeled and judged. I'm sure my friend, if you listen to what I say objectively you will see what I mean. You live in duality. I keep writing and deleting because I'm not sure the coli is ready. With that being said this may be my last post.

1) I completely understand how a near-death experience could cause you to believe in a higher power, believe me, I've been in at least 3 of those where the odds of survival where about the same as evolution being true With that said, like 50 said "Thank God they missed you, now go grab your pistol", meaning that while you can appreciate the possibility of a Higher Power looking over you, at the same time yo have to deal with reality

2) Laws of mechanics are 100%. Kirschoff's laws of circuit theory are 100%, Laws of math are 100%. The periodic table is 100% accurate (meaning there's no element on there that doesn't exist), if you're using a laptop, while we can't prove quantum physics 100%, the theories are relatively accurate and relatively possible to apply. We can't prove ALL of science, but we can prove the vast majority to be true. Can't say the same for religion. You're making it sound like science is magic breh

3) What's the answer to my chemical reaction question? Do seratonin, and adrenaline not exist?

4) I apologize for the hostility, your input is welcome

5) What duality do I live in?

6) Do you understand what is a holographic universe?

 

[blackzeus]

Read the Quran

I've read the vast majority of it, what's your point ibn?

 

[gho3st]

How so?




1) If you can't calculate what a billion bactera half lives come out to based on the information I presented, you probably shouldn't be asking the question

2) I don't need to be a live a billion HUMAN years to witness evolution in a billion BACTERIA HALF-LIVES (bacteria years)

3) Replicate what factors? Heat? Volcanic ash? C'mon breh, you're better than this. EVOLUTION IS A CONTINUAL PROCESS. So there should ALWAYS be evolution going on, ESPECIALLY IN A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. And let's assume for a second you're correct, that you need some specific conditions for prokaryotes to evolve () why am I the one that needs to replicate something that is statistically impossible in the first place? Shouldn't the evoutionists are claiming something statistically impossible to be true be the ones required prove it? And what significant environmental factors caused apes to involve into humans in less than 500,000 human years?

4) I'm not an evolutionist, I am not claiming evolution via common descent, so therefore, until I can confirm that, I CAN dismiss evolution. The burden of proof is not on me to prove evolution is true, what kind of argument is that breh?

why am I the one that needs to replicate something that is statistically impossible in the first place?

because you are the one using sht logic to disprove sht. You want to reduce geological eras into a 150 years. what kinda shyt is that?

as far as significant environmental factors..are you saying time and environment aren't important?

 

[blackzeus]

because you are the one using sht logic to disprove sht. You want to reduce geological eras into a 150 years. what kinda shyt is that?

as far as significant environmental factors..are you saying time and environment aren't important?

1) So what exactly are you trying to say, unless there's magical primordial ooze evolution can't occur? Geez, I thought natural selection and allele mutations were behind evolution, not some magical green slime, I wonder if it was the same green slime that turned apes into humans.

2) Environment factors into what traits dominate. But in over a million bacteria half lives there should be enough variation so that one genetic mutation occurs, assuming of course evolution is real

3) What is the sh*t logic I am using? Questioning how in the f*ck a trillion eukaryotes can evolve symbiotically when one prokaryote can't evolve on its own?

Breh, up to date the only true evolution (e.g. seedless fruit for example) is by genetic manipulation, or artificial selection as @Mission249 mentioned, which ironically is yet again ID In logic, I only have to find one false instance to prove your whole statement false, that's how it works, but that again, I get the impression you guys aren't really about math, but more about primordial magic, Gandolf azz nikkaz

 

[gho3st]

1) So what exactly are you trying to say, unless there's magical primordial ooze evolution can't occur? Geez, I thought natural selection and allele mutations were behind evolution, not some magical green slime, I wonder if it was the same green slime that turned apes into humans.

2) Environment factors into what traits dominate. But in over a million bacteria half lives there should be enough variation so that one genetic mutation occurs, assuming of course evolution is real

3) What is the sh*t logic I am using? Questioning how in the f*ck a trillion eukaryotes can evolve symbiotically when one prokaryote can't evolve on its own?

Breh, up to date the only true evolution (e.g. seedless fruit for example) is by genetic manipulation, or artificial selection as @Mission249 mentioned, which ironically is yet again ID In logic, I only have to find one false instance to prove your whole statement false, that's how it works, but that again, I get the impression you guys aren't really about math, but more about primordial magic, Gandolf azz nikkaz

Again bruh, Can you live through geological eras to witness (non)evolution for you to dismiss it. Or can you accelerate time in a controlled area while placing said organisms in the same environment they were then for you to disprove that evolution is bullsht. Thats all I'm asking? before you go on about not being to do the impossible, you are the one who brought false equivalents like 150 years which is a significantly short time.

 

[blackzeus]

Again bruh, Can you live through geological eras to witness (non)evolution for you to dismiss it. Or can you accelerate time in a controlled area while placing said organisms in the same environment they were then for you to disprove that evolution is bullsht. Thats all I'm asking? before you go on about not being to do the impossible, you are the one who brought false equivalents like 150 years which is a significantly short time.

150 years yes, for human evolution, we're talking about bacteria half lives, reading is fundamental breh

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp

Exponential Growth

Under ideal conditions, a population of bacteria doubles with every generation. Generation times can be less than 30 minutes for E. coli, which is found in the human gut, to 20 hours for the bacteria that cause tuberculosis. Even under normal conditions many infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites can produce populations of billions or trillions within 24 hours.

If a bacterium divides every half hour, how many bacteria are there...

• At two hours (4 generations)?
• At four hours (8 generations)?
• At eight hours (16 generations)?
• What if they continued reproducing for 24 hours (48 generations)?

....

The Answers

• 2 hrs = 16 bacteria

• 4 hrs = 256 bacteria

• 8 hrs = 65,536 bacteria

• 24 hrs = 281, 474, 976,710, 656 bacteria

There's 48 generations in 24 hours, 281 trillion bacterium, so how many generations would that be in one year breh? So you're saying they could go through a million generations in one year, have not one mutation, and this would not be contrary at all to the evolutionary process? So again, unless there's magical primordial ooze, there's no evolution?

http://io9.com/345728/geneticists-discover-a-way-to-extend-lifespans-to-800-years

There is now a way to extend the lifespan of organisms so that humans could conceivably live to be 800 years old. In an amazing development, scientists at the University of Southern California have announced that they've extended the lifespan of yeast bacteria tenfold — and the recipe they used to do it might easily translate into humans. It involves tinkering with two genes, and cutting down your calorie intake. Tests have already started on people in Ecuador.

According to an announcement from PLoS Genetics:

Researchers have created baker's yeast capable of living to 800 in yeast years without apparent side effects. The basic but important discovery, achieved through a combination of dietary and genetic changes, brings scientists closer to controlling the survival and health of the unit of all living systems: the cell. "We're setting the foundation for reprogramming healthy life," says study leader Valter Longo of the University of Southern California.



Longo's group put baker's yeast on a calorie-restricted diet and knocked out two genes - RAS2 and SCH9 - that promote aging in yeast and cancer in humans.
We got a 10-fold life span extension that is, I think, the longest one that has ever been achieved in any organism," Longo says. Normal yeast organisms live about a week.



"I would say 10-fold is pretty significant," says Anna McCormick, chief of the genetics and cell biology branch at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Longo's program officer. The NIA funds such research in the hope of extending healthy life span in humans through the development of drugs that mimic the life-prolonging techniques used by Longo and others, McCormick adds.



Baker's yeast is one of the most studied and best understood organisms at the molecular and genetic level. Remarkably, in light of its simplicity, yeast has led to the discovery of some of the most important genes and pathways regulating aging and disease in mice and other mammals.

Longo's group next plans to further investigate life span extension in mice. The group is already studying a human population in Ecuador with mutations analogous to those described in yeast.



"People with two copies of the mutations have very small stature and other defects," Longo says. "We are now identifying the relatives with only one copy of the mutation, who are apparently normal. We hope that they will show a reduced incidence of diseases and an extended life span."



Longo cautions that, as in the Ecuador case, longevity mutations tend to come with severe growth deficits and other health problems. Finding drugs to extend the human life span without side effects will not be easy.

So you're saying that it's ok for scientists to use bacterium half lives as a parallel comparison to human lives with the exception of questioning evolution?

 

[gho3st]

150 years yes, for human evolution, we're talking about bacteria half lives, reading is fundamental breh

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp



There's 48 generations in 24 hours, 281 trillion bacterium, so how many generations would that be in one year breh? So you're saying they could go through a million generations in one year, have not one mutation, and this would not be contrary at all to the evolutionary process? So again, unless there's magical primordial ooze, there's no evolution?

http://io9.com/345728/geneticists-discover-a-way-to-extend-lifespans-to-800-years



So you're saying that it's ok for scientists to use bacterium half lives as a parallel comparison to human lives with the exception of questioning evolution?

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp
thats the article you come up with to support your argument against evolution?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VKc-_CvF9wo

how about page 1 on the same article you posted?

 

[blackzeus]

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp
thats the article you come up with to support your argument against evolution?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VKc-_CvF9wo

how about page 1 on the same article you posted?

Did it evolve into something that wasn't E.coli? You were saying my methods were illogical no? I was showing that scientists have been using the bacteria half life/human years parallel for decades, yet you called it illogical and erroneous until you found an article that you felt proved your opinion Yes, between you and I, I'm the intellectual fraud

 

[blackzeus]

dude, 150 years is no more than like 4-5 human generations.

Thats nothing.

Bacteria have way less shyt going on.

E Coli replicates every 20 minutes.

Don't be this fukking stupid.

Yeah. Dude got the completely wrong education.

because you are the one using sht logic to disprove sht. You want to reduce geological eras into a 150 years. what kinda shyt is that?

as far as significant environmental factors..are you saying time and environment aren't important?

http://lbc.msu.edu/evo-ed/pages/Ecoli/index.html

In 1988, Dr. Richard Lenski started the Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), when he founded 12 populations of E. coli from a single clone. Every day 1% of each population is transferred to a flask containing a fresh volume of a nutrient broth containing a small amount of glucose for the bacteria to use as food. Each day the populations go through about 6.67 generations, and the twelve have each evolved for more than 60,000 generations over the course of the experiment so far. Samples of each population are frozen every 500 generations, meaning that Dr. Lenski has a complete frozen fossil record of the evolution of each population from which he can revive bacteria at any time to study their evolution.

The nutrient broth also contains a large amount of citrate, which is included to help the bacteria take up the iron they need to grow. This citrate could be a second food source for the bacteria, but one of the defining characteristics of E. coli as a species is its inability to grow on citrate when oxygen is present. However, after ~31,000 bacterial generations, one of the populations evolved the capacity to do just that. The evolution of this trait, called Cit+, is exceptionally rare. Indeed, spontaneous evolution of a Cit+ E. coli was reported only once in the entire 20th century!

You guys are right, I'm the one who needs education

 

[gho3st]

Did it evolve into something that wasn't E.coli? You were saying my methods were illogical no? I was showing that scientists have been using the bacteria half life/human years parallel for decades, yet you called it illogical and erroneous until you found an article that you felt proved your opinion Yes, between you and I, I'm the intellectual fraud

where did i say it proved my opinion?

If it evolve this much in such a "short" time. Can you control time and replicate geological eras to see whether it would not mutate into something "different"?? You cant and thats the whole point


31,000 generations is around 13 years... are you saying 12 years is equivalent to a billion?

 

[blackzeus]

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp
thats the article you come up with to support your argument against evolution?
http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VKc-_CvF9wo

how about page 1 on the same article you posted?

where did i say it proved my opinion?

If it evolve this much in such a "short" time. Can you control time and replicate geological eras to see whether it would not mutate into something "different"?? You cant and thats the whole point

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhib_infectious/rapid_evolution_02.jsp
thats the article you come up with to support your argument against evolution?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VKc-_CvF9wo

how about page 1 on the same article you posted?

im·ply
imˈplī/
verb
verb: imply; 3rd person present: implies; past tense: implied; past participle: implied; gerund or present participle: implying
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
"the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge"
synonyms: insinuate, suggest, hint (at), intimate, say indirectly, indicate, give someone to understand, convey the impression, signal
"are you implying he is mad?"
(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence.