jab2 Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Only? Could you point me to the legal restrictions on practicing or promoting scientology in the UK?Or in South Africa, or for that matter the whole Southern African Region? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 w00t! First off, Evolution is atheory, therefore it cannot be "proved. <------- Gotcha. :phones: Then why do people assert they evolution is true, rather than the possibility of evolution, if it cannot be proved? Secondly, why are you asking to "prove" such a thing to a scientologist? As far as I'm concerned, if they believe in the non-sense that I hear, <----Objection, your Majesty. Irrelevance. Scientologists believe that "What is true, is what is true for you" -[The Way To Happiness by L Ron Hubbard]; In Scientology, one can believe what they want, whether it be Evolution or Xenu, the space alien. Therefore, said "non-sense", as you will- is yet to be undefined, as a whole for the entire Scientology populace. Next. then trying to "prove" such athing would be impossible for those nut-jobs Third, you're asking for skulls and locations ect. Such things will do you no good. I would suggest instead of asking for pointless skulls and things that won't help you, that ya study Evolution using the various links and suggestions on this site while also getting more details from a library or authenticated online source.<--- I was under the impression that skulls was Evolution's hit song. If not skulls then what is the foremost leading evidence in the theory of Evolution? DNA? :phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Then why do people assert they evolution is true, rather than the possibility of evolution, if it cannot be proved? Probably because it's a scientific theory, and when you add that descriptor "science" to the front, it takes on an entirely different meaning than when the word "theory" is used in common parlance: Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity. In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. If not skulls then what is the foremost leading evidence in the theory of Evolution? DNA?The foremost leading evidence in the theory of evolution? That's like asking me to give you the name of every human being on the planet earth. Well.... there's Abagale, Alfred, Allen, Anthony, Athena, A... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The D.S. Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Genetics, my dear, I have a strong feeling you haven't done as I asked and researched the topic thoroughly. Go to my recent thread titled Arguing Against Intelligent Design and click on the link to the NOVA video. It explains many things in detail...you be "enlightened" :phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 I am at a loss here - are you saying there is a correlation between the two? <--- Yes. My school (UCLA) frequently conducts experiments, in which they show how easily it is to distort truth on the WWW, with emphasis to one: WIKIPEDIA Anyways. Why start at the link between monkeys and men? Evolution had worked for a few billion years by the time humanity branched off the ape tree. <----- Because I do not care about fish to frogs. I am interested in Evolution vs Intelligent Design. Aren't you? With trillions and trillions of planets, do you rule out extraterrestrial planetary travel as a possibility? :phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Because I do not care about fish to frogs. I am interested in Evolution vs Intelligent Design. Aren't you? Nope.Imho, ID is a reactionary theory based on ill-founded presumptions. With trillions and trillions of planets, do you rule out extraterrestrial planetary travel as a possibility? ET travel *may* be possible, but it would require certain prequalifications.The ET species must be able to withstand high-velocity, sub-luminal speeds for extended periods of time. According to modern physics, such a feat is not possible for the current human race. I believe that humans will never inhabit "space" unless "space evolution" occurs (ie human adaptation to a zero gravity environment). Edit: A DC-8-like aircraft is ill-suited for such an adventure. Douglas DC-8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Just want to note here that quite frankly if one is going to promote ID, that Scientology's approach of making it Extraterrestrial is quite a bit more "scientifically based" and more satisfying than the more traditional "We don't know (mostly because if we say its God then we can't teach it in schools)". Scientology walks an interesting line, having to remain a "religion" for various reasons--speculation about which is beyond the scope of this thread--while quite openly appealing to a logical, non-deistic, scientifically-compatible set of theories about the origin of life on Earth. This fine line makes for an interesting problem about whether the discussion here is one about a Strange Claim or about Theology, and which side of the line it falls on demands completely different approaches. Both approaches have been hinted at above, but the cognitive dissonance that's created between the two is *really* throwing all of you for a loop! I'll also note that except for the level of "development" and "intelligence" there's a lot of similarity between Panspermia (excuse the wiki link! :phones: ) and the claimed activities of Xenu.... I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth, :phones:Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 ET travel *may* be possible, but it would require certain prequalifications.The ET species must be able to withstand high-velocity, sub-luminal speeds for extended periods of time. You don't think travel happened in the big-bang? No one said via spaceship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 Just want to note here that quite frankly if one is going to promote ID, that Scientology's approach of making it Extraterrestrial is quite a bit more "scientifically based" and more satisfying than the more traditional "We don't know (mostly because if we say its God then we can't teach it in schools)". Scientology walks an interesting line, having to remain a "religion" for various reasons--speculation about which is beyond the scope of this thread--while quite openly appealing to a logical, non-deistic, scientifically-compatible set of theories about the origin of life on Earth. This fine line makes for an interesting problem about whether the discussion here is one about a Strange Claim or about Theology, and which side of the line it falls on demands completely different approaches. Both approaches have been hinted at above, but the cognitive dissonance that's created between the two is *really* throwing all of you for a loop! I'll also note that except for the level of "development" and "intelligence" there's a lot of similarity between Panspermia (excuse the wiki link! :QuestionM ) and the claimed activities of Xenu.... I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth, :(Buffy Touche Buffy. The manner in which you have argued against set principles is admirable. Your last bit of your post falls short on me. Are you defending Xenu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 ... Your last bit of your post falls short on me. Are you defending Xenu? :(Heck why not? As Brinnie just said:No one said via spaceship Klaatu Barada Nikto, :QuestionMBuffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 :) i just noticed where buffy is from!isn't pot illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 :) i just noticed where buffy is from!What? You got a problem with Sunnydale? It may have a Hellmouth, but the weather is nice all the time!isn't pot illegal?Yes, but only slightly more illegal that forging prescriptions for Oxycodone... What does any of this have to do with Evolution or Scientology? Sunnydale does have evolving species, but no Church of Scientology.... Well, aside from the fact that most magic shop owners in Sunnydale have the life expectancy of a Spinal Tap drummer, have you ever run a store before? :)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 prove evolution to a scientologist The average thetan level of a species of animal will generally rise over time. As the spirits are freed from the troubles of the animals existence they become bored and usually amuse themselves by initiating change in the physical appearance of the life form they inhabit. To the outside observer this looks like evolution or natural selection when in fact it is the spirits who created the universe trillions of years ago who are directly responsible. I’m sure there’s a science fiction book somewhere that proves this conclusively. -modest PS - People didn’t evolve from monkeys - or even gorillas for that matter. It might be cool if we were more related to monkeys, we might have tails. The split in the hominid tree between modern apes and modern humans happened some 5 to 8 million years ago. We’ve found the skulls (and other bits and pieces) of many of our ancestors that lived between then and now. But, the best evidence of evolution probably isn’t on our family tree. Some better examples are found via dogs, whales, flightless birds, amphibians, etc. Can you name an animal that you think may not be the result of evolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted March 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Can you name an animal that you think may not be the result of evolution? Yes, but not any that i know of.Back to the monkey->man thing: Where might one find said skulls of our ancestors preserved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Yes, but not any that i know of.Back to the monkey->man thing: Where might one find said skulls of our ancestors preserved? The best example of an early hominid with direct modern lineage is Lucy. She's an Australopithecus Afarensis which is a species that lived from 4 until 3 million years ago. Lucy's 3.2 million years old and may well be a great grandmother of yours. She's currently touring the United States on loan from Ethiopia in case you live here and care to take a peek. You'll notice she's not a monkey nor is any ancestor of ours a monkey. There are no monkeys in the Hominidae family tree that we're a part of. So, please, stop saying monkey. If you want to generalize the species that we've evolved from you could say ape, great ape, hominid, primate - but not monkey. Also, I think you've got the misconception that we've evolved from something or some species that's alive today. That's not the case. Any and all species that we're descended from are either extinct or further evolved into a different species by now. We didn't evolve from gorillas. Both humans and gorillas have had 8 million years of evolution since our common ancestor. They are our cousins - not our progenitors. Monkeys are also our cousins but further removed. Bats are cousins of ours very far removed. Do you think dogs evolved from wolves? -modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted March 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 yes im aware that you humans believe the tree branched off several directions... ape man had sex with goat and there were humans. ape man had sex with donkey and there were monkeys. anyway, id like to know where the links are. this lucy thing is fascinating... mildly. but how do we know she was not a physical retard? do we have others to compare too? maybe im a skeptical about one single source being the omnipotent truth, but i'd like to know there are more lucys and how many have been discovered? ps, i have yet to conclude where life evolved from, yet alone dogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 yes im aware that you humans believe the tree branched off several directions... ape man had sex with goat and there were humans. ape man had sex with donkey and there were monkeys. Proving evolution to you is going to be a serious challenge considering how robustly you misunderstand/misrepresent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.