Evolution vs. Creation

[Cybele]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...
Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male
The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.

interesting, I've seen women represent their church as a reverend or whatever they call them

[KittenKoder]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
So you think there is something psychologically wrong with me based on my opinions I have stated here and my linguistic pattern, right? I call that creativity. I play the game of Life. But unlike you, I tend to be drawn to something larger than life. And life becomes great when you look at it that way. It opens up a whole new perspective.
Your sexuality is not the issue, it's your perspective.

You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.

[KittenKoder]

Mother Mary wrote:

<quoted text>Freak? Aint pretending fun MS100? The internet sucks!!!!!!

Embrace the internet, it is our connection to the world, we have never had such before, and it's awesome. ;)

I recall getting less than 10% of all information, and most of that was filtered heavily by the news. This is the best era to live.

[Cybele]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.

I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol

There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)

[Cybele]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

FREE SERVANT wrote:

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.

I think I might be a metaphorical Wildcat. lol

[KittenKoder]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol
There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)

Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.

[Cybele]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.

Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.

[timn17]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
From what I understand...I believe the Quantum field might be outside natural laws.

Don't think so.

[timn17]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree. Someone takes a PCP to achieve a desired emotional or mental state. But because drugs can be toxic, it produces an undesirable side-effect just like any prescription drugs. Trauma doesn't trigger the same chemical response in the brain that drugs or alcohol do. Trauma actually is opposite of the effects of what drugs do to your brain. Trauma produces a negative effect such as pain or fear but because it triggers chemicals in the brain, the fight-or-flight response, it produces a good desired effect such as peace or positive sensation after reacting or responding to a crisis, it's why in NDE people actually survive death.

No.

[Cybele]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
I already have-time and time again, and that hasn't changed an iota.
I find the type of work being done at CERN, amazing.

Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol

[Cybele]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>No.

Do you have an explanation?

[timn17]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text> Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Shared cellular memory could be the reason.

Cellular memory isn't really a thing.

[timn17]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have an explanation?

There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something." If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?

And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol

Is what because (Science has named what has eluded them since time began) the God particle?

Was there something you were trying to ask?

Again, try the CERN web, certainly they can explain their life's work, should one ask them a coherent question anyway.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text> If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?

Theoretically, according to still in process hypothesis being studied in comparisons of say justgenetics, in it's parts of the whole of basic evolutionary tenets, Yes, it could be quite "different", due to a little, relatively new phenotype phenomenon dubbed "phenotypic plasticity".

Which is why SOME us have ascribed to the notion, for quite some time(since the first thought existed on the subject anyway) that Science itself would be limited in it's endeavors of exact complete recreation, of anything.

MMMmmmm (NOT) frog legs. lol.

[KittenKoder]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.

Are you just skimming for keywords now? Here, let me copy that line again:

An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not.

I am denying you assertions on the grounds that you lack evidence, you are making the assertions, therefore it is me denying your assertions. Now you are just projecting again, it's like a roller-coaster with you.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
but the fact of the matter is that science doesn't give two hoots about theism or atheism.

Another "well stated".

Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.

It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).

[xxxooxxx]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Another "well stated".
Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.
It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).

Sagan didn't seem to think so...

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."

[TheIndependentMa jority]

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?

It appears that even in accordance to some of his own quotes, that statement would prove detrimental, in thinking Einstien was "hatefilled" like that. Seems the man had better things to do in life.

"God is subtle, but not malicious;" (Einstien).

[xxxooxxx]

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?

What do you believe?