Pope Francis: Big Bang and evolution are real.

[Necrosis]

Let's be clear here....those are your words and that's a connection you're making.  Not once did I mention science or faith.

Again, I asked why others are critical of someone seeking help with alcohol addiction at AA?

Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.

[SF1900]

Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.

Humans cant be simply reduced to brain processes. Treatment should involve multiple different pathways.

People diagnosed with cancer who attend support groups do better than those who don't. Although the first line of defense against cancer is medicine, the social support is crucial and should not come after medical treatment is complete. It should occur at the same time.

[Necrosis]

Not entirely true. Biochemical abnormalities don't force alcohol down one's throat. Certainly may apply to the desire, but the action itself really comes down to nothing BUT willpower.

I disagree, it will work to switch one addiction to the other, but the behaviour is driven by the brain, you are the brain, the fucked up reward processing remains. You simply try to fill it with "healthier" addictions. There is something wrong in the brain.

[Shockwave]

Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.

Not really. Im not addicted to any of my current activities, they come and go in my life as i have time or things change.

I said i tried to replace my addiction with healthier activities, which i did.

The people youre talking about pour their entire life into their new addiction, just like they did with drugs, whether it be AA, or working out, or whatever to get their rush.

My point wasnt that i swap one addiction for another obession, it was that you have to find healthy activities to fill the MASSIVE amount of time that used to be spent finding/funding/doing drugs.

People can and DO decide to put it down all the time, and their brain heals over time. Its getting that initial clean time away from the addicion long enough to develop a normal lifestyle thays difficult.

[The Ugly]

That sucks that you deleted your long post.  I thought it relevant to the topic and extremely insightful.  Hopefully you put it back up.

It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.

[King Shizzo]

It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.

That was a sweet meltdown bro.

[The True Adonis]

It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.

Why and for what?  You were honest and added to the fact that AA was pure shit and is typical of what most people experience.

[The Ugly]

That was a sweet meltdown bro.

It was epic. So glad it wasn't quoted.

[The Ugly]

Why and for what?  You were honest and added to the fact that AA was pure shit and is typical of what most people experience.

You've had it in here for me lately, even though I'd been overwhelmingly agreeing with you on most issues. And I might have gone full retard with my personal biz last night. You'd have crucified my fragile ego, wouldn't recover.

Thinking about this shit just reminded me of the hell I endured at the court-mandated recovery program is all, not really AA. AA might be culty nonsense, which it most certainly was for me, but the folks there weren't horrible people, mostly; just sad, weak, lost souls - rock bottom and all that. I went way too far off topic with my rant.

Thanks, though, for not quoting the post.

[The True Adonis]

You've had it in here for me lately, even though I'd been overwhelmingly agreeing with you on most issues. And I might have gone full retard with my personal biz last night. You'd have crucified my fragile ego, wouldn't recover.

Thinking about this shit just reminded me of the hell I endured at the court-mandated recovery program is all, not really AA. AA might be culty nonsense, which it most certainly was for me, but the folks there weren't horrible people, mostly; just sad, weak, lost souls - rock bottom and all that. I went way too far off topic with my rant.

Thanks, though, for not quoting the post.

I have?  What on earth are you referring to?

[The Ugly]

I have?  What on earth are you referring to?

Nevermind. Nothing important.

[The True Adonis]

Nevermind. Nothing important.

I always liked your posts so I was kind of wondering what you meant is all.

[Ron Harrigan]

Dude.

Please explain. Your analogy doesn't work, friend. Other possible explanations for life, but none for a book. Agree it probably can never be explained definitively, but the 'Gaps' explanation is no explanation.

It is simple really. Without a poster (you), there would not be posts from your account. Likewise, no life would exist without a God. All other explanations have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.

[The Ugly]

It is simple really. Without a poster (you), there would not be posts from your account. Likewise, no life would exist without a God. All other explanations have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.

You're simply trolling. Because life exists there has to be a creator is just poor logic. And modern science has done anything but debunked other explanations; they overwhelmingly accept them; evolution, for instance, is accepted by and large as fact (as "theory" to a scientist is pretty much the same thing), Even many Christians are warming to the reality of evolution. Of course, science still working on the original source of life, and they may never fully understand it, but your God of the Gaps is an incredibly weak and lazy explanation. If anything, science has come much closer to debunking the need for a creator.

Do you have any idea the percentage of scientists who are atheists? Very high. And the more specialized the science, meaning biologists, physicists, etc. (the higher ups), that percentage gets pretty damn close to 100. Again, horrible analogy, but I'm not here to specifically undermine your faith. Just be honest is all.

[Ron Harrigan]

Because life exists there has to be a creator is just poor logic.

How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

[Necrosis]

How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Abiogenesis was proven with the urey miller experiment. was it how life started on earth? nope, but is shows life can form from basic building blocks. You are out to lunch if you think anything has been debunked lol. You are clearly MCWAY. You have his bullshit approach with spontaneous generation, a long dead concept, along with his bullshit authority argument. I mean a third possibility is that life always existed in the universe? what about reality being a figment of your imagination? what about life being a simulation? are these not possible?


so the only options are a long dead concept not held by many people, that has no bearing on biology today as we know it OR a all powerful sky daddy that goes around creating things which we cannot see, touch or have a shred of evidence for.

Simple minds man.

[The Ugly]

How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

If life requires life in order to exist, mustn't we also conclude, then, that the creator Himself was also created? And His creator, too, ad infinitum? I'm assuming the creationists' reasoning is that God is eternal and therefore requires no creator. If we can accept this possibility, then, and this is my own (possibly naive) proposition: Why, too, can't life, in its most simple carbon-based form - along with the universe - likewise be eternal?

And I'm not discounting the Big Bang, either (which I believe is still the accepted theory by the physicist community), only suggesting an eternal Bang/Crunch cycle which may never be observable or fully understood by the human brain. Yet it still attempts to explain, logically, the origins of time, space, and life without inserting a 'throw in the towel' God Gap conclusion.

I'll fully admit I'm in over my head toying with ideas about the universe on a quantum level and/or the grandest scale of cosmic study, where the astrophysicists hypothesize; but I believe your assertions about abiogenesis (new to my vocabulary) have been reconsidered more recently, just not in language or mathematics I find accessible.

Lastly, your quote by Dr. Wald, although I'll grant he said it, flies in the face of how science and scientists work(s). They are obligated to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. If the facts suggested a creator, this is the direction they would undoubtedly pursue, as true discovery is what ultimately gets you published and secures grants. The fact that they haven't, and don't, leads me to believe your post contains discrepancies I'm unprepared to challenge.

More personally, if you are as convinced as your post suggests, have you selected a particular God or gods to whom we owe our existence? And if so, how did you arrive at your decision?

Thanks for being civil, btw.

[Natural Man]

everything, everybody dies. Some just die faster than others cause they are weaker. If we dont find any answer to the question WHY, it s simply because there s none. Science killed god, now we re developing  substitutes. Family and god, nations disapear, it s the reign of the individual, the egocentric animal. We will produce more and more monsters and increase the odds one s going to kill everyone else.

[The True Adonis]

everything, everybody dies. Some just die faster than others cause they are weaker. If we dont find any answer to the question WHY, it s simply because there s none. Science killed god, now we re developing  substitutes. Family and god, nations disapear, it s the reign of the individual, the egocentric animal. We will produce more and more monsters and increase the odds one s going to kill everyone else.

Actually not.  Violence has dramatically decreased.  Today we are living in the most peaceful era ever.  You should definitely watch this.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Actually not.  Violence has dramatically decreased.  Today we are living in the most peaceful era ever.  You should definitely watch this.

I guess you are discounting the millions in africa who've died from disease and violence in the last few years?

[The True Adonis]

I guess you are discounting the millions in africa who've died from disease and violence in the last few years?

He covers that.

[Ron Harrigan]

Abiogenesis was proven with the urey miller experiment. was it how life started on earth? nope, but is shows life can form from basic building blocks. You are out to lunch if you think anything has been debunked lol. You are clearly MCWAY. You have his bullshit approach with spontaneous generation, a long dead concept, along with his bullshit authority argument. I mean a third possibility is that life always existed in the universe? what about reality being a figment of your imagination? what about life being a simulation? are these not possible?


so the only options are a long dead concept not held by many people, that has no bearing on biology today as we know it OR a all powerful sky daddy that goes around creating things which we cannot see, touch or have a shred of evidence for.

Simple minds man.

Actually, Miller and Urey only managed to drive yet more nails into the coffin of evolutionary theory by further shattering the myth of abiogenesis. These articles should prove helpful.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037

[Necrosis]

Actually, Miller and Urey only managed to drive yet more nails into the coffin of evolutionary theory by further shattering the myth of abiogenesis. These articles should prove helpful.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037

Ah no they didn't they showed that there is nothing special about life, that the raw materials can produce lifes essential building blocks. It doesn't matter that the climate wasn't correct for earth, the fact that they DID it is the point.

Nice christian websites for science bro, definitely going to read what those guys are saying.

Nice try MCWAY.

[Ron Harrigan]

If life requires life in order to exist, mustn't we also conclude, then, that the creator Himself was also created? And His creator, too, ad infinitum? I'm assuming the creationists' reasoning is that God is eternal and therefore requires no creator. If we can accept this possibility, then, and this is my own (possibly naive) proposition: Why, too, can't life, in its most simple carbon-based form - along with the universe - likewise be eternal?

And I'm not discounting the Big Bang, either (which I believe is still the accepted theory by the physicist community), only suggesting an eternal Bang/Crunch cycle which may never be observable or fully understood by the human brain. Yet it still attempts to explain, logically, the origins of time, space, and life without inserting a 'throw in the towel' God Gap conclusion.

I'll fully admit I'm in over my head toying with ideas about the universe on a quantum level and/or the grandest scale of cosmic study, where the astrophysicists hypothesize; but I believe your assertions about abiogenesis (new to my vocabulary) have been reconsidered more recently, just not in language or mathematics I find accessible.

Lastly, your quote by Dr. Wald, although I'll grant he said it, flies in the face of how science and scientists work(s). They are obligated to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. If the facts suggested a creator, this is the direction they would undoubtedly pursue, as true discovery is what ultimately gets you published and secures grants. The fact that they haven't, and don't, leads me to believe your post contains discrepancies I'm unprepared to challenge.

More personally, if you are as convinced as your post suggests, have you selected a particular God or gods to whom we owe our existence? And if so, how did you arrive at your decision?

Thanks for being civil, btw.

We know, from science, that the universe had a beginning. Life (God's being) is eternal but physical life is not. So as your computer has to have a manufacturer, even so does the world's biology necessitate a Maker. It is illogical to assert that the cars you see on the road always existed or that your father had no parents or that the universe is infinitely old. Do you know why this is so? Things that came into existence must of course have a cause (just as Getbig posters like yourself are needed in order for there to be posts on Getbig) but the eternal Creator was always already there and thus nothing could have brought about His existence. If you understood the Wald quote I gave you, you should see why it is that many scientists set aside truth, in favour of their atheistic leanings and dogmas. These then are no scientists but charlatans.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56

[Necrosis]

We know, from science, that the universe had a beginning. Life (God's being) is eternal but physical life is not. So as your computer has to have a manufacturer, even so does the world's biology necessitate a Maker. It is illogical to assert that the cars you see on the road always existed or that your father had no parents or that the universe is infinitely old. Do you know why this is so? Things that came into existence must of course have a cause (just as Getbig posters like yourself are needed in order for there to be posts on Getbig) but the eternal Creator was always already there and thus nothing could have brought about His existence. If you understood the Wald quote I gave you, you should see why it is that many scientists set aside truth, in favour of their atheistic leanings and dogmas. These then are no scientists but charlatans.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA