Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Like Tree17Likes
Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy

god patrical

in the

Cannabis Cafe

forums; Originally Posted by Justin00 You were mistaken, yeah some of the fanatics had a problem with it, but that seems ...
  1. #31
    Ursus marijanus Mr. Ganja cannabineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Location
    Rednekistan
    Posts
    31,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin00 View Post
    You were mistaken, yeah some of the fanatics had a problem with it, but that seems to be the only religious people you guys know about. I guess its just like atheists, the only ones who rant on and on about it for days are the loonies. All the normal people religious or not just go on about there life not slamming it the face of everyone they meet, like you are doing.

    back on topic.


    - Evolution -

    The Bible says:

    Genesis 1:
    1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
    11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
    16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Genesis 2:
    1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
    2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

    sorry about the bad translation, I grabbed the quote from the web.

    Now I don't know about you but that doesn't get very specific IMO. And it certainly in no way that I can see says that the method used was not evolution. Evolution sounds like a perfectly reasonable method to me, hell even the order Darwin purposed evolution most likely occurred in falls very close.

    I don't understand why it would make you mad that I both accept God's hand at work in the world but in no way deny the practicality or necessity of science in understanding the form, function, and reasoning of the physical world in which we live.

    another interesting note is that the light from the closest star to Earth to ever go supernavo, would have reached the earth sometime very close to the accepted birth of christ, and would have been very viable in the east sky from the most of the Middle East.

    now yeah i know that doesn't prove or disprove anything, events like that are almost always surrounded with myths and legends, but science says hello! =)
    I see two things here that inspire me to comment, despite your making me wade through the bolded shouting.

    1) You began by mentioning "confirmation" of religious (principles? events?) using science. Your above argument can be distilled down to the words "does not contradict". That isn't close to "confirm". Confirmation requires affirmation, not mere failure to contradict.

    2) Why do you posit that I am or got mad? I have zero issues with believers. My issues generally are twofold: a) when someone tries to use science to explain religion, and vice versa. I hew to Gould's concept of "nonoverlapping magisteria", basically "live and let live".
    b) When someone evangelizes/proselytizes for any doctrine, religious or otherwise. I am not accusing you of this, in case that was not clear.

    But i believe you've neglected to support your original claim of confirmation. I was fascinated by that and would have liked to have a germane discussion. Oh well. cn
    "My god ... it's full of stars!" - David Bowman
    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Are you suggesting my goal in debate should be to lose?
    neerGreen 2: Soilless grow
    Quote Originally Posted by Moldy View Post
    I swear to god that I'm an atheist.

  2. #32
    Ursus marijanus Mr. Ganja cannabineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Location
    Rednekistan
    Posts
    31,375

    Default

    Addendum. Yes, the antiscience evangelicals are the ones of whom I think. I find it telling however that the more staid established denominations and churches do not expend the recommended effort to censure their more passionate juniors. I suspect it is because they cannot. If you approach Christian doctrine as a logic puzzle, you're led to either reject the calls to militancy (which is doctrinally unsound ... Bible scholarship is an all-or-nothing proposition) or implement them. My experience and opinion. cn
    "My god ... it's full of stars!" - David Bowman
    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Are you suggesting my goal in debate should be to lose?
    neerGreen 2: Soilless grow
    Quote Originally Posted by Moldy View Post
    I swear to god that I'm an atheist.

  3. #33
    Veteran Smoker Mr. Ganja
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Posts
    1,843

    Default


  4. #34
    Mr.Ganja Mr. Ganja Dislexicmidget2021's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Location
    WEED
    Posts
    2,509
    Journal Entries
    4

    Default

    God using evolution as his tool for creation?Trying Giving the big guy a more logical makeover ?,well not to sound dooshy,but its paradoxial in its form.It self contradicts because evolution is a proven theory and can continualy be sustained in scientific method.God is not proven to be real,he is an occuring Image inside the mind of those who choose to believe,yet that belief dosent make that image universaly apparent to a consistently provable method in reality.How can something that is naturaly unfounded yet believed, utilize the theory of evolution to create?Im not going to attempt swaying you from what u want to think or believe but,it simply dosent stay in consistency with the model of existence.
    Simplicity of character is the natural result of profound thinking -fortune cookie

  5. #35
    Mr.Ganja Mr. Ganja Doer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Location
    in the Now
    Posts
    4,839
    Journal Entries
    167

    Default

    Evloution's begining is not described in the scientific method of the Theory. And poor Darwin never said it did. That is more of the Press War on Religion, seems to me.

    We can't say why we breath next or why we didn't. Something is there and then it's gone. Only the meat is left. What animates the meat? We still don't know.

    So, until they spark some bio-soup into self-aggregation and reproduction; until they can give us 5 more minutes to tell the police what happened, etc, there are still big unknowns. There is nothing to suggest science is even close to these answers.

    It doesn't have to be attibuted to a hidden hand of Providence, but, there is no way to say. Science cannot and does not disprove or prove Diety.
    Last edited by Doer; 07-16-2012 at 02:52 PM.
    Justin00 likes this.
    "If we must die, we die defending our rights." Sitting Bull, Shaman of Lakota Sioux http://www.rollitup.org/blogs/353494-doer.htm

  6. #36
    Super Stoner Mr. Ganja Harrekin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    8,870

    Default

    The Higgs Boson walked into a Church and the priest said "You can't come in here". To this the Higgs Boson replied "but without me, there can be no mass".

    Thats about as related as the Higgs Boson is to "God".

    Its called the "God particle" because for years it was almost impossible to prove or disprove, that's it.
    mindphuk, Justin00, gioua and 2 others like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Gromore
    If I could be permitted a more abrasive moment, I believe it is in my best interests to get information regarding marijuana from people who don't know what the inside of an altar boy feels like.

  7. #37
    Mr.Ganja Mr. Ganja Doer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Location
    in the Now
    Posts
    4,839
    Journal Entries
    167

    Default

    No Mass. That's funny. Who knows if this tidbit is true? Leon called it Goddamn?

    http://wrd.mydigitalfc.com/2012/god-...cle-all-around

    The phrase God particle, coined by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman, is used by laymen, not physicists, more as an explanation for how the wonders of the subatomic universe work than how it all started. The original intended name, was actually, ‘Goddamn particle’.

    Though an impenetrable concept to many, the Higgs boson has until now been just that a concept intended to explain a riddle: How subatomic particles, such as electrons and protons, had mass. The answer came in a theory first proposed by physicist Peter Higgs and others in 1964. It envisioned an energy field where particles interact with a key particle, the Higgs boson.

    The idea is that other particles attract Higgs boson and the more they attract, the bigger their mass will be. Some liken the effect to a ubiquitous Higgs snowfield that affects other particles travelling through it, depending on whether they are wearing, metaphorically speaking, snowshoes or just shoes.
    Last edited by Doer; 07-16-2012 at 07:35 PM.
    "If we must die, we die defending our rights." Sitting Bull, Shaman of Lakota Sioux http://www.rollitup.org/blogs/353494-doer.htm

  8. #38
    Super Stoner Mr. Ganja Harrekin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    8,870

    Default

    Good article till she went all Theist on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Gromore
    If I could be permitted a more abrasive moment, I believe it is in my best interests to get information regarding marijuana from people who don't know what the inside of an altar boy feels like.

  9. #39
    Mr.Ganja Mr. Ganja Doer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Location
    in the Now
    Posts
    4,839
    Journal Entries
    167

    Default

    Hindu? No, but you can.
    "If we must die, we die defending our rights." Sitting Bull, Shaman of Lakota Sioux http://www.rollitup.org/blogs/353494-doer.htm

  10. #40
    Ganja Smoker Pot Head ctwalrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Posts
    318

    Default

    oh my why are you all talking about religion...
    first off STOP calling it the god particle
    its the higgs boson

    second! its not the higgs boson..

    did none of you watch the press confrence ? this is the biggest discovery in science since.... ever!

    a boson is a particle which gives scale to other particles.. mass, volume, etc..
    before now we had no proof of why or how atoms or particles are the size shape and weight they are..

    this is HUGE!!! the boson particles (and there are several, theoretically) gave size to the universe.. responsible for the big bang...

    do some reading it is very complex.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •