Evolution? How?

spendius wrote:

FA wrote-

Quote:
Hey...maybe it is for the best. The universe may become safer if the homo sapiens group and this particular rock annihilates itself before becoming a danger to the greater universe.

I think you might be overestimating our potential Frank.

Good point!

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That was for Frank, to let him know what will happen if we ever reach the point at which we threaten the rest of the cosmos . . .

I got that. Twisted Evil

One of my favorite lines of trivia, by the way.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

LW you ever worked with vector graphic lighting?

No, that's a computer graphic application.

I've worked in aircraft control lighting and ambient lighting as an R&D engineer.

0 Replies

Newton, BTW, had a "roommate" for over 20 years and did not have anything to do with woman.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

RexRed wrote:
LW you ever worked with vector graphic lighting?

No, that's a computer graphic application.

I've worked in aircraft control lighting and ambient lighting as an R&D engineer.

http://www.e-frontier.com/go/poser_hpl

http://bryce.daz3d.com/55index.php

http://www.autodesk.de/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5659302

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=6871843&siteID=123112

http://caligari.com/Products/trueSpace/tS7/brochure/intro.asp

0 Replies

I hope you don't think any of that impresses me.

If you have-

Quote:

aircraft control lighting and ambient lighting

somebody has to work at it. So it was you. So?

Are you out to present yourself in the best possible light.

Not very humble is it Rex?

Isn't a Godly person supposed to be humble?

0 Replies

Godlessness leads to self worship.

0 Replies

God worship IS self-worship, because the self believes in an imaginary friend that doesn't exist, and lets this imaginary friend control their lives If that isn't SELF-WORSHIP, I don't know what is.

0 Replies

The point was Rex that your reference to your job was a bit self praising-

Quote:

I've worked in aircraft control lighting and ambient lighting as an R&D engineer.

Makes you sound a cut above the trash man who might be more important than a lighting engineer.Or a care assistant. Like you're a big dude or something and we don't even know if it is true or what real use the job has.

So your-

Quote:

Godlessness leads to self worship.

Not only doesn't answer the point but is meaningless and irrelevant and compounds your earlier error.

You are a proven self-worshipper from your own posts and thus, by your own stated principle, not very Godly when push comes to shove.

You're full of mush man.

Quote:

Science is the greatest threat to the cosmos.

That's a perfect example.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

God worship IS self-worship, because the self believes in an imaginary friend that doesn't exist, and lets this imaginary friend control their lives If that isn't SELF-WORSHIP, I don't know what is.

Self worship is self worship... (I am a God syndrome) God worship requires preferring a higher power over the worship and admonition of the self. God worship often requires the leaving behind of ones own perceptions and obtaining a perception that is not driven by human nature but spiritual nature.

So you disagree with Freud's the id the ego and the super ego?

Are you saying there is no super ego, or that it is perfectly acceptable to insert the ego into the place of the superego?

Why don't you just try and rewrite psychology... You have rewritten biblical history so why not psychology?

All of this evidently of selfishness and pure human ego and pride to force fit your own godless self imposed ignorance.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The point was Rex that your reference to your job was a bit self praising-

Quote:
I've worked in aircraft control lighting and ambient lighting as an R&D engineer.

Makes you sound a cut above the trash man who might be more important than a lighting engineer.Or a care assistant. Like you're a big dude or something and we don't even know if it is true or what real use the job has.

So your-

Quote:
Godlessness leads to self worship.

Not only doesn't answer the point but is meaningless and irrelevant and compounds your earlier error.

You are a proven self-worshipper from your own posts and thus, by your own stated principle, not very Godly when push comes to shove.

You're full of mush man.

Quote:
Science is the greatest threat to the cosmos.

That's a perfect example.

You can see things that I say through what ever misconceptions you impose.

I did not respond directly to LW's comment because I found them totally abstract. You on the other hand are just baiting me to go ballistic on LW's comments.

If I were to go "ballistic" on his comments wouldn't that show of "passion" only prove that I am insecure about who I am an my own education?

If LW wants to imply that I am all braggy then he will only miss out on further discussions. I will discuss my own work with ray tracing CPU art and vector geometry with people who do not make accusations as to my intentions.

The simplicity of the matter was, when I heard LW worked with lighting I said I do too and showed by a few links how in particular I do.

I thought it would give us some common ground to discuss shop...

Though the attitude I received back shows that LW is sporting the chip on his shoulder.

I don't feel it necessary to defend my motivations from wild speculation and rank flagrant insult.

0 Replies

It doesn't take much Rex to get you stuttering and blustering assertions around does it?

There was no insult. I'm surprised you should think so.

God worship is self worship. c.i. was right about that.

There is a feeling of awe and wonder in the face of a "something". Defining that "something" is suffused with pride.

The less said about Freud the better.

Psychology has no object to study. If it found the object there would be no need to study it. Ego, id and superego are shadows and ghosts.

Why would I try to rewrite psychology?

And I'm not aware of even thinking about rewriting biblical history. What a ridiculous idea. The Bible is a collection of writings, often beautiful, seeking to express a soul image of the various times it was written and is authentic by definition.Which times and which factions are involved is a matter for biblical scholars. It gives us a knowledge of certain types of men in certain places. Not all men and not all places.

0 Replies

I submit, Rex, that never has it been demonstrated the human attribute termed "worship" be anything other than a purely human construct, an emotional as opposed to rational activity. I submit strong evidence ties "worship" to humankind's apparently instinctual tendency toward seeking order, establishing, recognizing, and accepting authority. Nothing more, really, than a sophisticated manifestation of the social cooperation instinct which mandates the formation insect colonies and animal packs, in the end. What once humankind accomplished in the name of gods, with thanks and awe directed thereto, latterly is accomplished, far more effectively, and in terms of advancement of the species, far more beneficially, through education and the rule of law. That life evolved, continues to evolve, humankind right along with it, is indisputable. That religionists frantically oppose the demonstrated state of affairs at once reveals that religionists are aware of reality and at the same time recognize that they and their propostion are not exempt from evolution's sole and inescapable mandate; adapt or perish. There are but, and ever have been, those two alternatives; that's the way life works. Unique among critters, at least apparently so, humans can understand this, and can make a conscious decision to select and attempt to effect a choice between the two. Failure to adapt is not a survival option ... has relgion made its choice? Who knows - however, it seems clear some religionists have chosen to not adapt. To whom should fall credit for the inevitable consequence of that choice?

0 Replies

Rex, I don't have to rewrite history; but you sure do! Show us any evidence that your imaginary friend ever existed - now or in the past. Evidence we can all agree is substantiated by observation.

You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's called circular logic.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Rex, I don't have to rewrite history; but you sure do! Show us any evidence that your imaginary friend ever existed - now or in the past. Evidence we can all agree is substantiated by observation.

You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's called circular logic.

So should I use "your (or anyone else's) opinion" to support the Bible or study the Bible to understand what it means.

2Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Comment:

You are just simply wrong.

Now, should we look up the words (private interpretation) in a dictionary or look them up in the Bible where the words have been used before to understand the passage?

It seems you have gone the dictionary route...

But when you look the words up in the Bible THEY DEFINE THEMSELVES...

It is no wonder why you reject the Bible and God... You have PRIVATELY INTERPRETED the Bible to fit YOUR OWN private Godless religion.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Rex, I don't have to rewrite history; but you sure do! Show us any evidence that your imaginary friend ever existed - now or in the past. Evidence we can all agree is substantiated by observation.

You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's called circular logic.

So should I use "your (or anyone else's) opinion" to support the Bible or study the Bible to understand what it means.

2Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Comment:

You are just simply wrong.

Now, should we look up the words (private interpretation) in a dictionary or look them up in the Bible where the words have been used before to understand the passage?

It seems you have gone the dictionary route...

But when you look the words up in the Bible THEY DEFINE THEMSELVES...

It is no wonder why you reject the Bible and God... You have PRIVATELY INTERPRETED the Bible to fit YOUR OWN private Godless religion.

Since you are back up this silly alley, Rex...I'll give you another shot at it.

Take a look at this quote from the Bible again...and do not interpret it. The words, as you pointed out, define themselves.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

So what are the words saying? What is being taught here? What does your god think about homosexual activity?

C'mon, Rex.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I submit, Rex, that never has it been demonstrated the human attribute termed "worship" be anything other than a purely human construct, an emotional as opposed to rational activity. I submit strong evidence ties "worship" to humankind's apparently instinctual tendency toward seeking order, establishing, recognizing, and accepting authority. Nothing more, really, than a sophisticated manifestation of the social cooperation instinct which mandates the formation insect colonies and animal packs, in the end. What once humankind accomplished in the name of gods, with thanks and awe directed thereto, latterly is accomplished, far more effectively, and in terms of advancement of the species, far more beneficially, through education and the rule of law. That life evolved, continues to evolve, humankind right along with it, is indisputable. That religionists frantically oppose the demonstrated state of affairs at once reveals that religionists are aware of reality and at the same time recognize that they and their propostion are not exempt from evolution's sole and inescapable mandate; adapt or perish. There are but, and ever have been, those two alternatives; that's the way life works. Unique among critters, at least apparently so, humans can understand this, and can make a conscious decision to select and attempt to effect a choice between the two. Failure to adapt is not a survival option ... has relgion made its choice? Who knows - however, it seems clear some religionists have chosen to not adapt. To whom should fall credit for the inevitable consequence of that choice?

So Jesus was never raised from the dead? Magdalene and the countless people who witnessed him in his resurrected NEW body were liars?

The evidence is on the earth but you cannot make spiritually blind men understand heavenly matters without spirit and creation from God.

Acts 4:33
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 15:8
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Titus 1:13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Hebrews 2:4
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Comment:
The witness of the spirit is there but it takes meekness to receive...

James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls

0 Replies

You are being obtuse Frank.

When that was written they forfeited their lives for being caught dropping a golf ball down their pants when they were lost in the rough. The disapproval of the majority was enough on its own as also was the disapproval of authority.

You can't equate punishments then with those now. That a majority disapproves of male homosexuality is I think still true today. Thus,if we had the same attitude towards punishment as they did, one presumes we would put them to death.

They also probably gave them warnings as they do now in Saudi for this and adultery. It was persistant defying of authority that was the real offence. 3 strikes and you're out maybe.

So-do you object to the majority dispproving of male homosexuality. It isn't that long that it has been legal.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You are being obtuse Frank.

When that was written they forfeited their lives for being caught dropping a golf ball down their pants when they were lost in the rough. The disapproval of the majority was enough on its own as also was the disapproval of authority.

You can't equate punishments then with those now. That a majority disapproves of male homosexuality is I think still true today. Thus,if we had the same attitude towards punishment as they did, one presumes we would put them to death.

They also probably gave them warnings as they do now in Saudi for this and adultery. It was persistant defying of authority that was the real offence. 3 strikes and you're out maybe.

So-do you object to the majority dispproving of male homosexuality. It isn't that long that it has been legal.

Wake up...or lay off the beer, Spendi.

Rex is asserting that the Bible is the literal word of his god...and he claims it should not be interpreted...but used exactly as written.

So I am challenging him.

0 Replies

"The majority dissapproval of male homosexuality" is born out of plain old ignorance.

What causes more harm to humans? Homosexuality or religious' wars?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know