Is "life" bound to happen?

Hate you? What for? If you think what you just posted is enough for me to hate you, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.

 

Arrrrrgug :willy_nilly:

 

Sorry but it is impossible for me to comment on an issue if you won't tell me what it is.

Is your belief system so fragile that you can't be bothered to say what it is?

 

Skizm,
Creationism vs Evolution is a false dilemma.
It might be convenient for Darwinists to use Creationists as straw men to attack, but if you really are not one of them hoax perpetrators you must admit that Creationism itself being scientifically invalid for claiming religious belief to be substitute for empirical evidence of their theory is in no way justification for Darwinists to do the same and claim their theory has any Scientific basis to it.

If you read my posts you will see plenty where I questioned validity of Theory of Evolution with repeated clarifications of what I consider to be a valid scientific theory (with quotes from dictionaries confirming that I do have comprehension of what the word Theory in connection with Scientific means).

I did even bring as an example a Big Bang theory which, although will probably turn out to be wrong in the long run, is still Scientifically Valid theory for reasons I sited way too many times to repeat again (and NO, reason i consider it to be Scientifically Valid Theory is NOT that Stephen Hawking flew 20 billion years back in time and made DVD recording of the event).

 

Like I said; two different things.

The point is you have no idea what was before the beginning of the universe or whether time existed or not. You continue to make assumptions and say they are not.

I notice that you don't go there very often.

This statement is simply true, seems like you are confusing elements and molecules. I can pretty much guarantee that RNA and DNA molecules don't occur in the belly of a star, never been there so don't know for sure but I believe most scientists would say; ain't no way.
-----------

The old, “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...” a blizzard of words.

 

I am a firm believer in predestination: that is that everything happens for a reason. Not one thing here or there, but EVERYTHING. You will only know life how it happened to you. If you or anyone else are looking for anything more than the experience of life, you will be sorely disappointed. The only thing that is certain is that we will never know for sure, but I myself believe in destiny.

There IS a reason for everything. Take a deep look and maybe you'll find out, some things you have to see for yourself. I cannot convince you.

 

Even though it is false view, yet it is excellent and practically useful philosophy(in philosophy, like in politics and art and unlike in science, lie is acceptable and even desirable as long as it's results are advantageous).

To accept life as predestined gives lots of freedom and happyness.
For instance if you believe it's your destiny to be eaten by a King Kong you can truly relax and enjoy life before you get into that King Kong's stomack, instead of making futile attempts to avoid it.

 

Hey man, I don't think it's wise to call anyone's views false. I cannot tell you that I know for a fact that life is predetermined, I can only give you reasons as to why I believe that. There is order to this here universe, you have to see and experience it yourself to embrace it as your own personal truth.

In essence, we are all the same person living the same day over and over again. It is what you choose to do with each day that shapes where you end up. I mean, you do have to take responsibility for your own actions. But who is to say that it wasn't all planned out from the start? Not you, not I, no one.

 

I said it's false view because i haven't found evidence of it being otherwise and did lots of studying and thinking including on this particular philosophical subject.
It's striking actually when you discover how the entire terrain constantly shifts and changes it's shape and makes what seemed to be pre-destined only yesterday into what becomes utter impossibility today and vice versa.

And NO, you have NO control nor responsibility over force majeure,and it doesn't matter how good swimmer you are if you get hit by tsunami. But there is no such a thing as pre-destination to be hit by tsunami. It's just an accident , a freak of nature that can happen to anyone, including yourself of course.

 

This section is that one concerned with revealing that the western philosophy has come to its Alpha and Omega less given, but more both irrevocable and revealing of Revelation itself.

Modern phenomenology, and further the modern research for subjectifying of Experience has defined the revelation of the use of words as as much the purpose of self-realization as the being in the world of the one talking, writing, and communicating (reducably speaking, art).

Being just oneself is Evolution. Dig?:cheers2:

 

While I don't think I could get behind that idea completely, I certainly think it has merit. We have had a only two-choice battle for awhile (creationism vs evolution).

Much like religious people, there is a degree of "Well since creationism doesn't work then evolution must work!" going on and it happens on both sides. However, while there are crazies on both sides, I do not believe that it takes away from the evidence that does exist for evolution. Mind you, the rational evolutionists aren't evolutionists because they want to shove it in the theologists' collective face, we align ourselves with the idea because it gives us a better understanding of where we came from. It isn't a complete understanding, but it's a better one.

 

"I'm not anything. I have no belief system. what IS, simpy IS.
Maybe there is a god-- But probably not.
In any case, I'll just go right on doubting and seeking, expecting nothing and learning everything."

Someone once said, "Philosophy is the practice of asking questions, once you begin to provide answers for those questions, you enter into the realm of religion."

"A researcher who ultimately concludes that there is a god, reaches that conclusion through knowledge gained.

I didn't start out as a believer and through this kind of research and discussions I have had, is one of the reasons why I reached this conclusion.


"a Believer starts with the conclusion and tends to rationalize justifacations. Just as Scientist sometimes do."

Fair enough, and you are right to some extent, just like entirely because many are rational believers.


"Apes are just relatively close in the ancestrial tree."

Well, we are close to them and share many of their traits. But you are right, I said that as a kinda jab. I always disliked how people said that we are just monkeys. Not that it offends me. It is just simply untrue. That's like saying apes and the Bonobo are the same animal; they each have their own unique sets of behaviors - But you can't deny that we possess a brain that is prone to errors.

"I disagree totally. Knowledge can be prove relatively true."

Yes, relatively true. Just as a cook creates a new recipe and isn't quite sure why it tastes as it does; through research he still gained that new receipe. That doesn't prove that we completely understand the mechanisms behind how an atom bomb worked otherwise we wouldn't need to test to see how devastating they can be, and sometimes it turns out to be more or less devastating than we calculated it to be. Science is the best tool that we have, but it is still only a tool, abeit a very useful one.


"All statements without evidence are equal. Three little pigs, god, Santa Claus, it doesn't matter."

Well, you'll probably know which old saying I'll use for that one. An absence of evidence doesn't prove the... yadda yadda yadda. But clumping those three examples together while only one of which is described as a spiritual entity that is outside what we know the universe to be that is a self-aware creator or sustainer of reality. You are being a bit dishonest there.

Anyway, thanks for the respectful reply

 

Although I do agree in putting hard evidence ahead of other forms of knowledge I do not accept the idea that knowledge gained through our own experience is worthless just because it can't be measured or tested.
Even scientists use hunches, intuition and guesses to explain phenomena.

Therefore, I would not agree with the statement that santa claus=god=three little pigs. This of course is dependant on assumption that God can be experienced.

 

All statements, with or without evidence are equal.
They are equal in their capacity to inform your experience. There are no idle or hidden thoughts.
You are being a bit naive there.

 

All poster know your fear and surrender.

 

As simply as possible:

the Uniiverse is bound to produce life.

Now state yours-- but you won't.

 

"Like I said; two different things."

Re-read. The same thing. Just more specific in one case. You're deliberately mis-stating. yopu've lost the point/

"The point is you have no idea what was before the beginning of the universe or whether time existed or not. You continue to make assumptions and say they are not."

Before the begining, as explian by others as well as me, is an illogical statement. if you insist upon it, you reveal your fanatiscm.

"This statement is simply true, seems like you are confusing elements and molecules. I can pretty much guarantee that RNA and DNA molecules don't occur in the belly of a star, never been there so don't know for sure but I believe most scientists would say; ain't no way."

I mis- stated due to something more important coming along and cutting me short. I apologise. I meant Atoms, and I intended to expound...
But it seems useless.
You fear to state you r case, you address no isssues directly, and you're clearly a republican!

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...” a blizzard of words."
The spin of the faithfully ignorant.

There is One Universe. It Produced Life. Only and ignorant fool will argue that point. Or a christian who is embarassed by his god.
------
I don't have time for foolishness with bible thumpers or meglomanical trolls anymore.
if you're resonable, see you in the Possible God thread. Leave your bible elsewhere.

 

I have no ground to surrender since i didn't make any claim as to origins of species or mechanism responsible for their evolution.

You may type all letters and words you wish but just because you do so doesn't mean it is so.

 

What in the world? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

In case you hadn't noticed that "issue" is the whole premise of this thread. From the very beginning I've said that people like you state "the Universe is bound to produce life" as a fact, to "prove" Evolution; when "the Universe is bound to produce life" is an assumption and not a fact.

What more do you want me to do to address the "Issue"? I've already started this thread about it and have said any number of times that the "Issue" is that "the Universe is bound to produce life" is an assumption and not a fact. Just what did you have in mind?

 

Evolution means "change in response to environment.".
This means if there is some sort of change in response to an environment, it can be called evolution. So weather patterns can be called evolutionary but that doesn't lead one to think that mankind evolved from weather patterns.

Bio-evolution means "Biological change in response to environment"
Here this is talking about Bio responses to environment and my putting on a coat when it's cold outside could be called Bio-evolution but that doesn't mean that leads to "Evolution".

As I've pointed out, I'm talking about before the beginning of the Universe. If you are talking about before the beginning of everything, such a thing does not exist. But if we are talking just about the beginning of the Universe, that is not an illogical statement, because something could exist before this universe.

Thanks for the correction but I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the actual issue.

Ooooh, I'm cut to the Quick.

Really, then why the Multi-Universe theory?

Here we go again, back to stating a assumption as fact.

Ooooh that crushing name calling, that you think "proves" your point. The old, if you don't believe like me you're an ignorant fool, so I don't have to prove my points.
------

Is pointing out that "it's bound to happen" is an assumption and not a fact, really so crushing to you and your beliefs that you have to run off.