New religion: Palynkaism

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh, and can we have one study done in an Islamic country to see if they too get the benefits?

I notice that he only surveyed Christian Europeans as he doesn't say much about Mosques and synagogues.

On looking through your quote again I see that it is not in fact a comparison of religious people verses atheist but rather religious people verses theists who do not go to Church a whole lot.

i read somewhere that only 2% of the poulation of the Uk attend church. why is that the case? was it this 2% that Mr. Clarke surveyed? have you ever been to church lately? I could not tell you what it is like, the hypocrisy of the whole affair is simply to much to stomach. go to Glasgow cathedral, place is nothing but a monument to the dead that died fighting wars! who rung the bells that accompanied that lost generation to war? who blessed the war effort? who has been the handmaiden of kings and despots since time began?

Originally posted by zozozozo
Hell Yes!

the fact that we cannot let life (grass) create itself is because of the lack of time we have.

This has Nothing to do with weather science is based on facts or not.

We know alot about grass, how it grows, what it needs to grow, water pathways, what molecules inside the grass look like, how photosynthesis works etc.
all Fact Fact Facts we ...[text shortened]... anks to science.

What does religion tell us about grass?
God created it, the cow eats it....

look dude no one is saying that science has not done some wonderful things, do i need to know how it works in order to enjoy it? yes it may lend itself to my understanding of the thing, but it does not say how it got to be there in the first place, thus you are confusing observable facts with scientific postulation. i asked Mr.Andrew Hamilton an exceptionally patient and learned man, for an observable example of the theory of evolution, you know, the whole life from non life, ameoba to fish, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, bird to mammal, mammal to human fairytale that they teach in biology classes as if it is a fact, the best he could give me, was the peppered moth! that's right, a flippin peppered moth! yes it became darker, yes it changed its colour and adapted to its environment, but it remained a moth, it did not suddenly change into a tiger moth, or a leopard or an elephant. so please enough of your postulation and scientific dogma parading if they are facts, they are nothing of the sort. if you want to believe it then that's fine, im not buying it, and until you provide a species that has migrated into another species, i see no reason why i should buy it. All hail the God of science!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look dude no one is saying that science has not done some wonderful things, do i need to know how it works in order to enjoy it? yes it may lend itself to my understanding of the thing, but it does not say how it got to be there in the first place, thus you are confusing observable facts with scientific postulation. i asked Mr.Andrew Hamilton an ex rated into another species, i see no reason why i should buy it. All hail the God of science!

im not saying the theory of evolution is a fact, its not.
Its a very likely theory tho, there are all sorts of clues and facts that support the theory.

"reptile to bird, bird to mammal,"
I think its reptile to bird and reptile to mammal.

"the best he could give me, was the peppered moth! that's right, a flippin peppered moth!"
it wasnt even a salted moth?🙁
ofcourse he couldnt give u a better example, no example can be observable for us because we simply dont live millions and millions of years.

"and until you provide a species that has migrated into another species, i see no reason why i should buy it."
During a human life? quite impossible.
Not during human life:
Lets take one of Darwins studys as an example since it is the year of Darwin after all;
He went with the voyage on the HMS Beagle (started in december 1831, Darwin was 22 years old). At this voyage they spent some time on the Galápos Islands were Darwin observed finches.
The Galápos Islands have a total of 14 species of closely related finches, some are only on a single island. There are seed eaters, insect eaters and even tool-using insect eaters.
How very likely and logical (im not saying fact) is it that these finches all originated from one common finch ancestor species?
How very unlikely and unlogical is it that these finches have nothing with eachother in common?
What do you believe? that 'god' or some other super power created all these finches seperatly?

Originally posted by zozozozo
im not saying the theory of evolution is a fact, its not.
Its a very likely theory tho, there are all sorts of clues and facts that support the theory.

"[b]reptile to bird, bird to mammal,"
I think its reptile to bird and reptile to mammal.

"the best he could give me, was the peppered moth! that's right, a flippin peppered moth!"
it was you believe? that 'god' or some other super power created all these finches seperatly?[/b]

no example can be observable for us because we simply dont live millions and millions of years.

yes yes, how very interesting and remarkably convenient. therefore if you admit, as you do, that its not a fact, will you also conclude that its an article of faith and science is nothing more than a religious belief!

i once was watching a tv program about whaling in Newfoundland Canada, the man was collecting little samples from whales for analysis. he stated, with a straight face, about 60 million years ago (you must admire the accuracy) whales came from the sea, evolved on dry land and then returned to the sea. flip sake i thought, do other persons also give this type of incredulous statement credence, and the answers my friend is yes! in the name of the God of Science!

no one is denying that there is variation within a species, thus you have big dogs and little dogs, short dogs and long dogs etc etc but they remain dogs, they do not become lions, do they?

P.S. you have still yet to provide an example of one species migrating into another.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no example can be observable for us because we simply dont live millions and millions of years.

yes yes, how very interesting and remarkably convenient. therefore if you admit, as you do, that its not a fact, will you also conclude that its an article of faith and science is nothing more than a religious belief!

i once was watching a tv progr ...[text shortened]... do they?

P.S. you have still yet to provide an example of one species migrating into another.

"will you also conclude that its an article of faith and science is nothing more than a religious belief!"
No! lol
First off, in this case we should speak about the theory of evolution, not science, science is BIG.
Secondly i dont think the theory of evolution fits the meaning of the word religion:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I dont think its the same bcoz evolution is based on facts, and religion is based on hot air🙂

"about 60 million years ago (you must admire the accuracy)"
ofcourse not exactly 60 million years, but possibly around it. Its incredible how they can calculate how old a piece of dirt is (scientificly calculate; facts).

"whales came from the sea, evolved on dry land and then returned to the sea."
this is true, tho when they came from the sea u shouldnt say they were whales already, bcoz they where not. Everything came from the sea, i quote you: "fish to amphibian".
You might ask why we think the ancestor of the whale was first on land, then in the sea. The answer is the homologous structures of the bones of the whale.
"The pattern of limb bones called pentadactyl limb is an example of homologous structures (Fig. 5a). It is found in all classes of tetrapods (i.e. from amphibians to mammals). It can even be traced back to the fins of certain fossil fishes from which the first amphibians are thought to have evolved."
"In the whale, the forelimbs become flippers for steering and maintaining equilibrium during swimming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Homologous_structures_and_divergent_.28adaptive.29_evolution

"P.S. you have still yet to provide an example of one species migrating into another."
How about ape -> human?
http://softwarecreation.org/images/2008/human-evolution.gif

P.S. you still have to answer my question: "What do you believe? that 'god' or some other super power created all these finches seperatly?"
you may switch "these finches" with: "spiecies".

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]will you also conclude that its an article of faith and science is nothing more than a religious belief!"
No! lol
First off, in this case we should speak about the theory of evolution, not science, science is BIG.
Secondly i dont think the theory of evolution fits the meaning of the word religion:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, se finches seperatly?"
you may switch "these finches" with: "spiecies".[/b]

no no no my friend, not quite so fast, is not the theory of evolution a part of your belief system? have you not put your trust and faith in 'realities', not yet beheld or at the very least, not demonstrated. you yourself have found no evidence that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans. yet you believe it. is it not astonishing? it is to me! and this is only the start, yes it is quite clear and self evident that belief in science is a religion like any other, you may accept its tenets, i do not, no siree.

as to your other 'evidence', i have heard these stated so many times that i grow weary of it! believe what you will, but as i have said before, these are postulations, not facts, and the evidence is quite scant, to say the least! its your belief system not mine! look at these statements, are thought to, may have, its estimated that, seems to suggest that, all terms applied to evolutionary hypothesis or should i say fairy tale!

once upon a time there was an organic pre-biotic soup, then little red riding amino acid were formed because the atmosphere was a reducing one otherwise they could not have formed, how convenient thought little red riding amino acid, that bad old oxygen will surely eat me up if i try to make friends, plus that bad old ultra violet light is not good for me! anyhow despite this they managed to make friends and get themselves in the correct sequence and form proteins, the very basic building block of life, then on a swim one day they managed to form themselves into simple cells, then they managed to reproduce, then they managed ........ then science destroyed us all and the little red riding amino acid was no more, and they all died happily ever after!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no no no my friend, not quite so fast, is not the theory of evolution a part of your belief system?

Let it be said that the theory of evolution is of little practical use in everyday life. For many people folk metaphysics might be more helpful, questions of truth aside. Of course that's what social Darwinism represents: the conversion of theory into folk metaphysics. People just can't do without it. Have you seen the South Park episode with Richard Dawkins and the murderous furry creatures? Nailed it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no no no my friend, not quite so fast, is not the theory of evolution a part of your belief system? have you not put your trust and faith in 'realities', not yet beheld or at the very least, not demonstrated. you yourself have found no evidence that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans. yet you ...[text shortened]... all and the little red riding amino acid was no more, and they all died happily ever after!

"is not the theory of evolution a part of your belief system? have you not put your trust and faith in 'realities', not yet beheld or at the very least, not demonstrated. you yourself have found no evidence that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans. yet you believe it."
belief system? i dont think i have one.
I myself have not found any evidence no, that doesnt mean i cant use evidence or studys other ppl found and filed well.
reptiles -> birds
reptiles -> mammals!

"look at these statements, are thought to, may have, its estimated that, seems to suggest that, all terms applied to evolutionary hypothesis or should i say fairy tale!"
yes, these terms have to be used because because the theory of evolution is not a proven thing.
Tho it is also far from a fairy tale. Not just some made-up thing but inteligent, logical reasoning based on facts.

What is this story you typed? is that what you believe?
I suggest we end this discussion because i have the feeling its leading nowhere anymore.
Unless you will, finaly, answer my question.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let it be said that the theory of evolution is of little practical use in everyday life.

The full theory maybe, but things like natural selection are very useful. More people really need to understand that taking too many antibiotics etc when it is not necessary to do so is just asking for trouble - ie the bacteria will evolve resistance.
The same applies to all those products that claim to give you a sterile environment by killing just about everything (a product called Detol comes to mind).

Originally posted by twhitehead
The full theory maybe, but things like natural selection are very useful. More people really need to understand that taking too many antibiotics etc when it is not necessary to do so is just asking for trouble - ie the bacteria will evolve resistance.
The same applies to all those products that claim to give you a sterile environment by killing just about everything (a product called Detol comes to mind).

There you have a good practical benefit of science, irrespective of the merits of evolutionary theory, although the irony that this problem developed from older science can't be lost on you.

Applied folk metaphysics also has practical benefits, irrespective of the merits of theological theory, although it doesn't work for everyone.

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]is not the theory of evolution a part of your belief system? have you not put your trust and faith in 'realities', not yet beheld or at the very least, not demonstrated. you yourself have found no evidence that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans. yet you believe it."
belief system? i dont t ...[text shortened]... ave the feeling its leading nowhere anymore.
Unless you will, finaly, answer my question.[/b]

i am a theist, i have come to accept and believe in the merits of theocracy, all things having been considered. if you ask do i give credence to creation theory or irreducible complexity or intelligent design, then all i can say is that one must examine them for their inherent merits or otherwise and make an evaluation with the mind. My mentor and friend, black beetle, an atheist by the way, has taught me this is the correct approach and i am slowly coming to realize the value of it. i suggest you may also benefit from this approach! regards robbie.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let it be said that the theory of evolution is of little practical use in everyday life. For many people folk metaphysics might be more helpful, questions of truth aside. Of course that's what social Darwinism represents: the conversion of theory into folk metaphysics. People just can't do without it. Have you seen the South Park episode with Richard Dawkins and the murderous furry creatures? Nailed it.

lol, i will try to check it out, but oh how i wish i was more educated!