Fuck you. Seriously though, your crusade against religion is sickening. I've held my "tongue" for way too long. You take every chance you get to bash somebody's religion. You're especially hard on Christians. What the fuck is wrong with you? You always voice your opinion, so why you always gotta bash somebody else's religous view? You have a problem with intolerance, yet you're the most intolerant person on the siccness. I cant wait to see your smug, self-righteous, "i am never wrong" reply. hypocrite.
Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
Fuck you. Seriously though, your crusade against religion is sickening. I've held my "tongue" for way too long. You take every chance you get to bash somebody's religion. You're especially hard on Christians. What the fuck is wrong with you? You always voice your opinion, so why you always gotta bash somebody else's religous view? You have a problem with intolerance, yet you're the most intolerant person on the siccness. I cant wait to see your smug, self-righteous, "i am never wrong" reply. hypocrite.
Why do we take every opportunity to bash religion? Because of all the stupid shit that keeps pouring out of your mouths. Sure, this board in part exists for people to share information and to enlighten each other, or just have general discussions on a range of non hip-hop related topics, but one of the main reasons for this forum is to voice our opinions.
Religious people have their opinions, as do we, the only difference is that you christian nuts keep making up bull-shit or quoting some passage from the bible, quaran or whatever other religious text happens to support your views and then expect us educated people to see your point of view.
The reason we feel the need to "bash somebody else's religous view" is because not a shred of evidence exists to support that view. When a thread is started regarding a scientific matter and then someone jumps in and claims that all the physical evidence which scientists have accumulated is obsolete because 'clearly God made it, the bible says so', then that person is a royal fuck-wit. As such, I believe that sharing my opion of that person is valid.
With regards to your anticipation of 2-0-Sixx's sarcastic "I am never wrong" reply - sure, we're all wrong sometimes, but tell me which argument has more merit:
Religious person: The transition from water to land didn't happen because I read a book called the bible and it said so. According to this text, God created all things and this simply can't be wrong. God is almighty, God is infallable, etc etc etc.
Scientist: I have observed the evidence, applying logic and deduction, witnessing several fossils of life forms which were preserved during the segway marking the transition of water to land animals and have concluded, based upon this irrefutable evidence and my own reasoning, that this transition did indeed happen.
If you have a brain, I know which argument you will support. Yeah, cmon - reply with your own self-righteous brainwashed religious argument - I don't give a damn what you say because we all know that it's the purest form of bull-shit.
Religious people have their opinions, as do we, the only difference is that you christian nuts keep making up bull-shit or quoting some passage from the bible, quaran or whatever other religious text happens to support your views and then expect us educated people to see your point of view.
The reason we feel the need to "bash somebody else's religous view" is because not a shred of evidence exists to support that view. When a thread is started regarding a scientific matter and then someone jumps in and claims that all the physical evidence which scientists have accumulated is obsolete because 'clearly God made it, the bible says so', then that person is a royal fuck-wit. As such, I believe that sharing my opion of that person is valid.
With regards to your anticipation of 2-0-Sixx's sarcastic "I am never wrong" reply - sure, we're all wrong sometimes, but tell me which argument has more merit:
Religious person: The transition from water to land didn't happen because I read a book called the bible and it said so. According to this text, God created all things and this simply can't be wrong. God is almighty, God is infallable, etc etc etc.
Scientist: I have observed the evidence, applying logic and deduction, witnessing several fossils of life forms which were preserved during the segway marking the transition of water to land animals and have concluded, based upon this irrefutable evidence and my own reasoning, that this transition did indeed happen.
If you have a brain, I know which argument you will support. Yeah, cmon - reply with your own self-righteous brainwashed religious argument - I don't give a damn what you say because we all know that it's the purest form of bull-shit.
I GO BY THE ODDz OF SCIENCE, THERE WAS A "BIG BANG" AND SOMETHING CAME OUT OF NOTHING AND THAT WE ALL STARTED FROM ONE SINGLE CELL, AND THE ODDz FOR THIS TO HAPPEN ALL OVER THIS VAST AND UNENDING UNIVERSE ARE 1 IN 100,000,000,000. FOR ME ITz TO FAR FETCHED TO BELIEVE, AND DESPITE THE FACT ALL THESE YEARS THERE IS NO TRUE HARD EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, JUST "MISSING LINKz" WITH NO "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz IN THE MIDDLE. DARWIN SAID (ON HIS DEATH BED) HE MADE UP EVOLUTION AND IT WAS ALL A LIE, SO WHY DO PEOPLE CRUSADE OVER IT? THE ODDz BETTER SUPPORT THAT THERE IS A GOD, AND JESUS WALKED THE EARTH, "THAN FISH WALKING FROM WATER"
hutch u say u a scientist, and a scientist OBSERVES stuff rite?? Go out and find ur self a fossil, ur own transitional link. Im not hating on u, but u also read and believe, what you think is really reasonable might not be in accordance with someone else right. If ur really a scientist...my apologies. I witnessed how cell like spheres formed from monomers, and the idea of natural selection governing the existence of first cells but i still hold on to my religion really tight.
About the fish, it was a meat eater right, at the time meat was not on land. The fish came out of the water for what, lil excursions? If it laid its eggs on land, that would be a reason why it survived better, but that hasn't been prooven yet. And i dont think theyll find any evidence for that.
About the fish, it was a meat eater right, at the time meat was not on land. The fish came out of the water for what, lil excursions? If it laid its eggs on land, that would be a reason why it survived better, but that hasn't been prooven yet. And i dont think theyll find any evidence for that.
Oh...wow...i cant believe it...after reading this, this is so plain to me! i can see the truth now! i have all the answers!
as if religion provides more "answers" than science. what i dont understand is how religion has come to have so much power over things like science...like we should just not be studying and trying to find a real answer.
the point is, if u want to believe your religion, u have the tools to do so, literature, verbal communication, a house of worship, all for your own learning about religion, but when it comes to things outside of religion, people have the leverage to debunk it.
not EVERYONE is satisfied with religion to answer their thinking.
Well the Quotes are from the Quran have stated this, and the Quran dates back to 1400 years ago. Now lets look at science, when did science exactly come to this conclusion?
You got it twisted because i was not trying to discredit the original article because infact i hold the same views because thats what the Quran has said, and science has partially confirmed.
I dont think you understood my post, its all good, i have nothing else to say.
You got it twisted because i was not trying to discredit the original article because infact i hold the same views because thats what the Quran has said, and science has partially confirmed.
I dont think you understood my post, its all good, i have nothing else to say.
lmao - go out and find myself a fossil. I do often read and believe, yes. But what I read and choose to believe is based on physical evidence. That fossil exists - numerous people have seen it and have agreed that it is genuine. You're suggesting that, because I read this article describing a creature which was fossilised during the transition from water to land that I have no more right to suggest that this is correct than you reading and extracting information from the bible? That argument is null and void, regardless of how conclusive Home-E believes it to be.
I recently read an article relating to my field of science. I'm doing a literature review for kinases and their effects on drought tolerance in wheat, and one of the papers found evidence that the effects of a certain kinase increased the transpiration efficiency of wheat by an average of 72%. Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them because it was written? They have laboratory books backing up their claim - hard evidence. Not only that, but they have recorded every method that they performed, allowing any other scientist to repeat their experiment and either confirm or refute their findings.
In comparison, reading the bible achieves nothing. There is no evidence that any of it actually happened, no-one alive who was there, nothing to support any part of its contents. It cannot be repeated, cannot be challenged by science (which religious people cosider to be attest to it's truth) and cannot be confirmed or refuted (atleast to the extent that would result in christians renouncing their faith). Therfore, when it comes to reality, the bible and quran and whatever other religious text you want to include, has no meaning whatsoever. It is merely an exercise in history.
I recently read an article relating to my field of science. I'm doing a literature review for kinases and their effects on drought tolerance in wheat, and one of the papers found evidence that the effects of a certain kinase increased the transpiration efficiency of wheat by an average of 72%. Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them because it was written? They have laboratory books backing up their claim - hard evidence. Not only that, but they have recorded every method that they performed, allowing any other scientist to repeat their experiment and either confirm or refute their findings.
In comparison, reading the bible achieves nothing. There is no evidence that any of it actually happened, no-one alive who was there, nothing to support any part of its contents. It cannot be repeated, cannot be challenged by science (which religious people cosider to be attest to it's truth) and cannot be confirmed or refuted (atleast to the extent that would result in christians renouncing their faith). Therfore, when it comes to reality, the bible and quran and whatever other religious text you want to include, has no meaning whatsoever. It is merely an exercise in history.
LMFAO
Sure, when it comes to the bible and quran teaching people to do good, suggesting how that can be achieved and threatening punishments for those who fail to do so, they have both been extremely valuable in shaping peoples actions. Perhaps all of the rubbish thrown into these texts regarding angels and the existence of an irrefutable, all-knowing God or Allah were presented as metaphors intended to give these concepts of good and evil a face which can be recognised instead of merely the idea of good and evil. Somehow though, I believe the authors portrayed these little fairy-tales as literal events having occured some time in the past - atleast thats what the majority of religious followers believe.
Yes, I take back that 'no meaning whatsoever' because obviously it is we (the people of Earth) as a whole who decides how significant any information or idea is and, as I suggested to before, these concepts have for the most part (not including the numerous wars started because of them) helped create a better world. Regardless, I see them as an old version of Aesops fables. Besides, according to the Quran I have no soul (ooooh, a non-believer!!!) so when speaking on it I must use the valid statement "I gives a fuck".
And they (sometimes) say: "There is nothing except our life on this earth, and never shall we be raised up again." If thou couldst but see when they are confronted with their Lord! He will say: "Is not this the truth?" They will say: "Yea, by our Lord!" He will say: "Taste ye then the penalty, because ye rejected Faith." ..... We know indeed that what they say certainly grieves you, but surely they do not call you a liar; but the unjust deny the communications of Allah..... And (as for) those who reject Our communications, chastisement shall afflict them because they transgressed.
Believe in him or your fucked? I don't take kindly to threats
Sure, when it comes to the bible and quran teaching people to do good, suggesting how that can be achieved and threatening punishments for those who fail to do so, they have both been extremely valuable in shaping peoples actions. Perhaps all of the rubbish thrown into these texts regarding angels and the existence of an irrefutable, all-knowing God or Allah were presented as metaphors intended to give these concepts of good and evil a face which can be recognised instead of merely the idea of good and evil. Somehow though, I believe the authors portrayed these little fairy-tales as literal events having occured some time in the past - atleast thats what the majority of religious followers believe.
Yes, I take back that 'no meaning whatsoever' because obviously it is we (the people of Earth) as a whole who decides how significant any information or idea is and, as I suggested to before, these concepts have for the most part (not including the numerous wars started because of them) helped create a better world. Regardless, I see them as an old version of Aesops fables. Besides, according to the Quran I have no soul (ooooh, a non-believer!!!) so when speaking on it I must use the valid statement "I gives a fuck".
And they (sometimes) say: "There is nothing except our life on this earth, and never shall we be raised up again." If thou couldst but see when they are confronted with their Lord! He will say: "Is not this the truth?" They will say: "Yea, by our Lord!" He will say: "Taste ye then the penalty, because ye rejected Faith." ..... We know indeed that what they say certainly grieves you, but surely they do not call you a liar; but the unjust deny the communications of Allah..... And (as for) those who reject Our communications, chastisement shall afflict them because they transgressed.
Believe in him or your fucked? I don't take kindly to threats
and who are you not to take kindly to threats? are you going to do something about it?
You and me are weak humans with limited capabilities, a mosquito that weighs not 1/1000's of our body weight and hundreds of times smaller than us can kill us, if a mosquito can kill you, what can God, the creater do to you. But then you dont believe in God and thats your choice, but dont go around talking down on other religions, because people take that to the heart. You can say all this stuff on this message board but the fact of the matter is you are seeing things in a 2 dimension. Once you step out and see people face to face reality settles in and you wont ever speak like that to any believer wether it be a christian, jew or muslim. So keep it real, you aussie gangsta,you.
You and me are weak humans with limited capabilities, a mosquito that weighs not 1/1000's of our body weight and hundreds of times smaller than us can kill us, if a mosquito can kill you, what can God, the creater do to you. But then you dont believe in God and thats your choice, but dont go around talking down on other religions, because people take that to the heart. You can say all this stuff on this message board but the fact of the matter is you are seeing things in a 2 dimension. Once you step out and see people face to face reality settles in and you wont ever speak like that to any believer wether it be a christian, jew or muslim. So keep it real, you aussie gangsta,you.
As I already stated, it would be better for you if you did not speak of the Quran. You are very obviously ignorant about it, with the way you lump it together with the Bible like the two are interchangeable. They are not, and do not even approach such a thing.
I notice you left science out ENTIRELY of this last rant of yours. Why is that? Is it because you are unable to find scientific flaws within it? Don't worry. You aren't alone. Unfortunately, you won't ever be right either.
I notice you left science out ENTIRELY of this last rant of yours. Why is that? Is it because you are unable to find scientific flaws within it? Don't worry. You aren't alone. Unfortunately, you won't ever be right either.
That is true - I am very comfortable telling religious people that I am an athiest, and I do often question their faith (not in an abusive manner), but 95% of them don't literaly believe that God created the Earth and every organism on it or that he has done most of the things attributed to Him - they too see these as metaphors, even though they believe in God 'Himself'. For most of them it has to do with what follows death - their day of judgement - whether they'll go to heaven or hell. Just this thought makes them treat people better and respect others more, attributed to the fact that they obviously don't want to end up in hell
You're right with the Quran too - I have only read small parts of it, and I lump it together with the bible only in the sense that it is an old text written by followers of a God which tells people that they must believe or else they will be punished. What I have read though mainly tells of the punishments non-believers will receive, their ignorance, the fact that the have no soul and that they'll beg Allah for forgiveness when their day of judgement comes. My inability to find scientific flaws in the Quran stems from the fact that it cannot be judged by science - that does not mean that it is above science, but simply that everything (that I've read atleast) that is said within it's pages is untestable.
Again I must apologise for beating down on religion as much as I do - if you want to believe, then by all means believe. I just find it rather strange that people place so much faith into something which to me seems so improbable. Perhaps you truly do believe in a God, or maybe it just makes you feel better inside (whether it adds another dimension to your life, making it more full or whether your fear of death is diminished by the thought of you coming back next life or going to such a wonderful place as heaven). I don't know - do what you do, I just don't think religion has a place in (most) scientific discussions.
You're right with the Quran too - I have only read small parts of it, and I lump it together with the bible only in the sense that it is an old text written by followers of a God which tells people that they must believe or else they will be punished. What I have read though mainly tells of the punishments non-believers will receive, their ignorance, the fact that the have no soul and that they'll beg Allah for forgiveness when their day of judgement comes. My inability to find scientific flaws in the Quran stems from the fact that it cannot be judged by science - that does not mean that it is above science, but simply that everything (that I've read atleast) that is said within it's pages is untestable.
Again I must apologise for beating down on religion as much as I do - if you want to believe, then by all means believe. I just find it rather strange that people place so much faith into something which to me seems so improbable. Perhaps you truly do believe in a God, or maybe it just makes you feel better inside (whether it adds another dimension to your life, making it more full or whether your fear of death is diminished by the thought of you coming back next life or going to such a wonderful place as heaven). I don't know - do what you do, I just don't think religion has a place in (most) scientific discussions.
Maybe they should start a religion forum? Or don't you think there would be enough people to sustain it? Just general discussion on interpretation of religious scripture, the fulfillment of predictions etc. - I promise to stay out of it for the most part, and when I do post I'll leave my analytical mind at the door and focus more on the actual religious aspect of the discussion.
