A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second

[bambu]

Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."

Bambu quoting mining fails again.

"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."

 

[zombie]

You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.

No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.

That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.

Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.

Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.

Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.

Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a God.

I can never tell you why god created the universe the way he did,

But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.

That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.

Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.

If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.

I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.

Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.

No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.

That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.

Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.

Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.

Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.

Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a God.

I can never tell you why god created the universe the way he did,

But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.

That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.

Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.

If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.

I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.

Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.

There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your God create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.

 

[Bodhi]

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 God; 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.

 

[zombie]

You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.

No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.

That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.

Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.

Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.

Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.

Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a God.

I can never tell you why god created the universe the way he did,

But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.

That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.

Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.

If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.

I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.

Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.

There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your God create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.

We have differing understanding of what perfection is, what you describe as nirvana to me is not perfection, The aim is not to struggle the aim is to overcome but you cannot get that feeling unless you struggle, i liked struggling i just loved overcoming more

we are made in god image god is a creator we have to create the world we live in, It's the only way to really love what we make. I don't get what you are trying to say with the bolded.

 

[zombie]

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 God; 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.

 

[Bodhi]

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 God; 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.

 

[zombie]

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 God; 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 god the belief system within itself however is irrational

believing in dharmma is also not rational you just don't want to admit that

 

[Bodhi]

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 God; 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 god

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.

 

[Bodhi]

That ^^^ is very rational, IMO

 

[zombie]

That ^^^ is very rational, IMO

Budda said a lot more than that and believing in much of what he said is irrational

 

[bambu]

LOL....@^^^^ This nigga "bodhi"...........

Why should we follow the teachings of the Buddha rather than those of the Christ, or any other prophet.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

 

[Bodhi]

That ^^^ is very rational, IMO

Budda said a lot more than that

Now, don't go by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

 

[Bodhi]

In other words, don't believe it and live by it just because I've said it.

 

[bambu]

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...........

 

[zombie]

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.

 

[Bodhi]

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.

 

[zombie]

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 god 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

 

[(Nope)]

@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 fucked up B.

 

[Bodhi]

Isn't believing in God central to the faith? Yes, it is. If believing in god 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.