Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

It can be argued that this theory is just as fairytaleish as the other.

http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/video? ... n-us_msnhp

[/b]

MSN, and all subsidiaries of NBC (General Electric) are merely a division of The Department of Government Propoganda, and can not EVER be trusted for the truth.

ABC, CBS, and CNN are also in the tank, but not actually being paid for with our tax dollars like NBC (G.E.)

So I didn't watch....

What was their premise?

Well the whole video is prefaced with the words,
improbable, contrary to the laws of physics and luck
the only thing they left out was, completely impossible.


that's as good as any star trek episode.

To close your mind even to what you dont believe lessons your ability to
find the truth and the untrue.

but hey think how much they spent on graphics
so people will believe it.!

KLUGMO wrote:It can be argued that this theory is just as fairytaleish as the other.

http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/video? ... n-us_msnhp

[/b]

There is a scientific explanation of the beginnings of life, which seem very plausible to those who understand the physics of the universe. .

The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

But here is some food for thought... There is a prevailing assumption that we live on the same planet, described in bibles and other books.
There is also the assumption that such a world , as described in those books, would operate under the same physics that we are accustomed to in our present lives.

What if this planet were truly just a testing ground, developed in a chain of evolutionary physical events, to validate the human plane of existence. (What if this life is a simulator, preparing us for the real deal later? )

Those that want to play will play, those who dont, simply wont. ( Life for the living life and death for the non-living) . I would say that we have a choice to pick from one of these two and well have no right to complain about the consequences of our choice.

PaperDog wrote:

KLUGMO wrote:It can be argued that this theory is just as fairytaleish as the other.

http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/video? ... n-us_msnhp

[/b]

There is a scientific explanation of the beginnings of life, which seem very plausible to those who understand the physics of the universe. .

The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

But here is some food for thought... There is a prevailing assumption that we live on the same planet, described in bibles and other books.
There is also the assumption that such a world , as described in those books, would operate under the same physics that we are accustomed to in our present lives.

What if this planet were truly just a testing ground, developed in a chain of evolutionary physical events, to validate the human plane of existence. (What if this life is a simulator, preparing us for the real deal later? )

Those that want to play will play, those who dont, simply wont. ( Life for the living life and death for the non-living) . I would say that we have a choice to pick from one of these two and well have no right to complain about the consequences of our choice.

no offense, but there is enough holes in that idea to strain 100lbs of spaghetti

JCP61 wrote:

PaperDog wrote:

KLUGMO wrote:It can be argued that this theory is just as fairytaleish as the other.

http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/video? ... n-us_msnhp

[/b]

There is a scientific explanation of the beginnings of life, which seem very plausible to those who understand the physics of the universe. .

The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

But here is some food for thought... There is a prevailing assumption that we live on the same planet, described in bibles and other books.
There is also the assumption that such a world , as described in those books, would operate under the same physics that we are accustomed to in our present lives.

What if this planet were truly just a testing ground, developed in a chain of evolutionary physical events, to validate the human plane of existence. (What if this life is a simulator, preparing us for the real deal later? )

Those that want to play will play, those who dont, simply wont. ( Life for the living life and death for the non-living) . I would say that we have a choice to pick from one of these two and well have no right to complain about the consequences of our choice.

no offense, but there is enough holes in that idea to strain 100lbs of spaghetti

No Offense taken...

But you do realize, I didn't offer a theory.. I offered a hypothesis ) replete with a stirring postulate ... (Not Pasta-ulate

Pray Tell, lets start with the first strand of spaghetti, and tell us whats wrong with the hypothesis ...

well I said "idea" not theory.
but lets not get distracted.

you used the word testing ground.
test for what? if this isn't actually life, then how do I know I based my choice on the right thing?

what here is valid enough to base a choice on?
shrimp cocktail, a good Saint-Émilion?
or maybe being burned to death on a house fire.

then something about eliminating the right to complain.

where would the dead go to complain?
who would they complain to?
if people shouldn't bother complaining in the 1st place why go to all this trouble to keep them from doing so?

this just a low pass over the idea mind you.

PaperDog wrote:The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

That argument has been over for decades.
Creationists just refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented to them.

That's not an argument.

It's living in denial.

Mike Nobody wrote:

PaperDog wrote:The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

That argument has been over for decades.
Creationists just refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented to them.

That's not an argument.

It's living in denial.

I'm a creationist...But I also see the merit of science. I can see evidence on both sides. Is your biased feeling against creationists bordering on a prejudiced view point about the issue?

The argument may be over for you and me perhaps...But all the world- class scholars are still after an answer.

PaperDog wrote:

Mike Nobody wrote:

PaperDog wrote:The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

That argument has been over for decades.
Creationists just refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented to them.

That's not an argument.

It's living in denial.

I'm a creationist...But I also see the merit of science. I can see evidence on both sides. Is your biased feeling against creationists bordering on a prejudiced view point about the issue?

The argument may be over for you and me perhaps...But all the world- class scholars are still after an answer.

I don't know what "world-class" scholars you're referring to.
Pat Robertson?
But, the scientific community accepts evolutionary theory as concretely as gravitational theory.
You believe in gravity, don't you?

Yes.
I have a bias.
I prefer the truth over what just sounds good.
Creationism is on par with flat-earthers.
Believe it or not, some people refuse to believe that Earth is round (well, sorta egg-shaped).
I was watching a muslim in the Middle East on TV actually arguing this with a scientist on some Arab TV program.
Amazing.

Mike Nobody wrote:

PaperDog wrote:The argument between Evolution and creationism will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

That argument has been over for decades.
Creationists just refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented to them.

That's not an argument.

It's living in denial.

sorry must have missed your evidence.

I hope you're not referring to that video.

I Think you mean that I refuse to accept your scientific speculation.

Evolutionists, explain how the behaviour of Lemmings fits in with the idea of adapting and evolving to survive.
Creationists, explain Lemmings.

JCP61 wrote:well I said "idea" not theory.
but lets not get distracted.

you used the word testing ground.
test for what? if this isn't actually life, then how do I know I based my choice on the right thing?

You base your choices on guidance, provided by some perceived authority, which in turn sets the benchmark. FOr example, the 10 commandments...The teachings of Christ, etc. If you choose not to murder another person, you chose, based on guidance, PLUS ultimately on what your conscious directs you toward. Your subsequent action is the function of free will.


I don't subscribe to the notion that life is 'a 'proving ' ground. We have been given salvation freely, without the need to qualify it, Nothing to prove to anybody...

But how about a 'testing ground', that allows us to make mistakes, learn, rectify and prepare ourselves with a valuable orientation toward a better, perfect life. I am told that only perfection can enter into the realm of a perfect heaven. But, We aren't perfect, nor can we become perfect (while here on Earth) Therefore, how can we possibly enter such a realm of perfection, and yet, be told we are saved?

(Even winning the lottery requires some responsible followup...) In our choices here, right or wrong, we are in constant preparation for the big payoff, later

then something about eliminating the right to complain. where would the dead go to complain? who would they complain to? if people shouldn't bother complaining in the 1st place why go to all this trouble to keep them from doing so?

I dunno... if you won the lottery, how much complaining could you really do ?