A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
Options
Comments
-
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical. -
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical.
I'm glad you've come to accept that Christianity is irrational. However, I don't think that way about the dhamma.
Its odd that you continue to follow an irrational theory. -
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical.
I'm glad you've come to accept that Christianity is irrational. However, I don't think that way about the dhamma.
Its odd that you continue to follow an irrational theory.
Believing in it is irrational because you cannot prove the existence of ? the belief system within itself however is irrational
believing in dharmma is also not rational you just don't want to admit that -
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical.
I'm glad you've come to accept that Christianity is irrational. However, I don't think that way about the dhamma.
Its odd that you continue to follow an irrational theory.
Believing in it is irrational because you cannot prove the existence of ?
Exactly. The Buddha said to only believe in what you can prove:
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
-
That ^^^ is very rational, IMO
-
That ^^^ is very rational, IMO
Budda said a lot more than that and believing in much of what he said is irrational -
LOL....@^^^^ This ? "bodhi"...........
Why should we follow the teachings of the Buddha rather than those of the Christ, or any other prophet.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.
-
Now, don't go by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' -
In other words, don't believe it and live by it just because I've said it.
-
Bacteria can come together to form larger organisms. Algae and fungi are touted as an example of such an evolution
You really pick the worst eh' hem' "examples" of evolution..............
You are referring to Lichen........
The evolution of lichens and the phylum Ascomycota is complex and not well understood, but because there are fifteen different classes of Ascomycetes, scientists generally believe that different lichens have evolved independently from one another through analogous evolution. Lichenized fungi have continued to evolve, developing differently from those that do not form lichens.
Layman translation: There is no "ancestral tree" for the different classes of Lichen, therefore the evidence actually support the "creation" of the various classes...........
-
In other words, don't believe it and live by it just because I've said it.
You like budda are imperfect therefore the teachings are imperfect. -
Becoming a Buddha is realizing perfection.
You have admitted your theory is irrational already. -
No, i said believing in ? is irrational because you cannot prove it objectively but that the faith within itself is rational.
I also said believing in buddhism is irrational and it is because just like christianity you cannot prove it's central claims to be objective.
@ THE BOLDED in other words realizing perfection in buddhism is subjective
-
@Bodhi it's not worth being polemic or recriminating, skillful means pleighboi.
I wish all of you the best aside from Bambu, you got dharma ? up B. -
Isn't believing in ? central to the faith? Yes, it is. If believing in ? is irrational, the faith itself is also irrational.
The central claim in Buddhist thought is dependent arising which is objective truth. The eightfold path is the way to conduct yourself based off the central idea. -
@Bodhi it's not worth being polemic or recriminating, skillful means pleighboi.
Trueyou got dharma ? up B.
me? -
@Bodhi it's not worth being polemic or recriminating, skillful means pleighboi.
I wish all of you the best aside from Bambu, you got dharma ? up B.
? please.......
I never even had a dialogue with your pie ass.........
The ? does not need or desire your well wishes.............
You mad cause Buddha shot fire and water outta his ass at the same damn time????
-
Isn't believing in ? central to the faith? Yes, it is. If believing in ? is irrational, the faith itself is also irrational.
The central claim in Buddhist thought is dependent arising which is objective truth. The eightfold path is the way to conduct yourself based off the central idea.
believing in ? is not irrational, in fact it's logical and like i keep saying the faith in itself is not irrational, proving ? exists is saying that you know ? to be objectively real which is irrational because you cannot prove his existence or non-existence.
restate the bolded -
I said believing in ? is irrationalbelieving in ? is not irrational
??? -
Stop cutting my statements in half to prove your point that's bitchassness
-
Bambu
-
"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Consensus = a general agreement about something -
-
-
@Bodhi it's not worth being polemic or recriminating, skillful means pleighboi.
I wish all of you the best aside from Bambu, you got dharma ? up B.
? please.......
I never even had a dialogue with your pie ass.........
The ? does not need or desire your well wishes.............
You mad cause Buddha shot fire and water outta his ass at the same damn time????
So many feelings, wikipedia has you punchdrunk. You should find a woman on this board you could harass and take your frustrations out on.
