Welcome to our forum. Feel free to post a message. If you would like to debate me please contact first. Any messages that are not appropriate will be deleted within 24 hours. Thank you!
I'd like to open by congratulating you, Mr. O'donnell, on your fortitude. I've witnessed the hostility displayed towards your blog at cryptozoology.com, and must state that I would not engage in discussion that trades in insults and attacks, either. As a matter of fact, I have ducked out of participation almost entirely at said forum, due primarily to the rampant politicking and bickering occurring there.
That said, I understand the frustration some members must feel when logical and valid counterpoints are cited, and apparently ignored by you. Nevertheless, there is never an excuse for animosity or personal insults in a discussion between - ahem - evolved minds. Such expressed sentiment only serves to undermine the attacker.
You are obviously an intelligent young man, who I feel is a victim of youthful exuberance combined with a dogmatic environment. It is my contention that the average fundamental Christian, being born and cultivated into the faith, would, under similar social circumstances in different cultures, make a fine and devout Muslim, Jew or Hindu.
In fact I feel that the adaptation of a developing personality to it's immediate social pressures is a very base and simplified analogy of the adaptive process known as evolution.
Moving forward, I'd like to state that I believe in a divine force responsible for orchestrating this amazing soup we call a universe. One of those orchestrations may or may not be evolution; I feel it is a valid theory in many aspects, yet does not conclusively explain the sudden appearance of mankind on the scene, nor does it explain the self-awareness we possess, or art for aesthetics's sake, or a myriad other elements that I believe are indicative of intelligent design.
To ascribe our own traits, characteristics - even a personality - to this unmeasurable presence, is simply the height of arrogance. Here's what's funny to me - and many scientists don't realize it in such immediate terms - but the whole advancement of scientific theory is simply the search for our origin. The beginning. Calling it "God", "Yahweh", "Allah" or "The Big Bang" does not encapsulate it or confine it. These are simply labels we use to refer to a concept that we may not even be able to comprehend in more than three dimensional senses.
Website: midwestfighter.com, superstarsmma.com, many others.....
How you found this site: cryptozoology.com
I don't have time write back now, but if you would like to talk to me, just tell me what time you would like to call and I'll give my phone number.
Now, now; I regarded this is as a forum you've created to discuss your views and beliefs; If it's simply an infomercial for propaganda, that's fine, but for integrity's sake you should represent it as such. I could call a hundred ministers and inform as to why I feel they're incorrect, but I have no interest in argument for it's own sake.
The value of a public forum lies in it's availability to withstand scrutiny. I felt that unwavering faith would require but a few sentences to explain it's position, and/or confound the merits of my own.
It's been said that conscience is the eye of God in the heart of Man. May I suggest you let your conscience be your guide.
Website: midwestfighter.com, superstarsmma.com, many others.....
How you found this site: cryptozoology.com
Jenkie said: >In fact I feel that the adaptation of a developing personality to it's immediate social pressures is a very base and simplified analogy of the adaptive process known as evolution.
Sorry, no. Evolution requires differential reproductive success. Social adaptation is just adaptation, and evolution would be a horrible model, even for analogy. The rules are just completely different.
>Moving forward, I'd like to state that I believe in a divine force responsible for orchestrating this amazing soup we call a universe. One of those orchestrations may or may not be evolution; I feel it is a valid theory in many aspects, yet does not conclusively explain the sudden appearance of mankind on the scene...
Mankind did not arrive suddenly on the scene, unless you figure millions of years of Hominina evolution "sudden".
>...nor does it explain the self-awareness we possess
Emergent property of the capability of abstract thought, which is advantageous in survival and reproduction.
>...or art for aesthetics's sake...
An emergent property of self-awareness, as a social construct that is helpful for self-actualization. Similar to one of the reasons religion evolved as a social phenomenon.
>...or a myriad other elements that I believe are indicative of intelligent design.
Really? Like reproductive organs engineered to be linked to waste removal, and in men plumbed through a prostate that inflames over time? Childbirth that killed a huge number of mothers and children? Appendices that kill many more people than they save? And that's just in humans; don't get me started on hyena clitorises.
>Here's what's funny to me - and many scientists don't realize it in such immediate terms - but the whole advancement of scientific theory is simply the search for our origin. The beginning.
Wow, so you have Truth that us mere peons have not grasped, eh? Sorry; I am a scientist, and my work has nothing to do with the beginning. It has to do with how things work now. In fact, the VAST majority of scientists do not work on the origin question, and view it largely as a very interesting but esoteric field.
>Calling it "God", "Yahweh", "Allah" or "The Big Bang" does not encapsulate it or confine it. These are simply labels we use to refer to a concept that we may not even be able to comprehend in more than three dimensional senses.
Your senses (and mine) are four-dimensional. String theory is up to 11 dimensions. If you ever decide to actually study what you are so eager to deride, you'll discover that scientists are not as dumb and limited as you seem to think.
I can at least respect Phillip's convictions, because they are external. There is a book that he thinks must be wholly true. Of course, I think he is wrong and list multiple reasons why, but he has a foundation for his beliefs that is outside of himself. Your metaphysics seem to be based entirely on an inflated idea of your own genius, and the muddled density of the rest of the world.
The first step to education is placing yourself in situations where you do NOT think you are the smartest person in the room.
Wow - I had given up hope of any discourse some weeks ago. As my post was not directed to Mr.
Shygetz, I'm forced to assume he is either the incarnation of boredom or has reached the pinnacle
of argumentative aplomb.
In truth I merely wanted to draw out some dedicated creationists to discuss the merits of blind
faith. However, I have no reserve when it comes to dogmatic scientists, either. That's right, I
mentioned scientific dogma. Ten short years from now, many popular theories will have been
disproven and replaced. As with religious zealots, a scientist's simple conviction has little bearing on truth.
Forgive me for the "horrible model"; there are times when I'm alone in the office, and as a result
of - even if by default - being the smartest person in the room, my head gets a 'lil swollen. Yet
I'm sure you've heard mention of colloquialisms such as "the evolution of thought". If you haven't,
I'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that the english language is wonderfully versatile.
A given word can take on many different connotations based on context and subjective
interpretation. In fact, like it or not, I can truthfully state that our fine language evolves as
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
Did you have a bad day, that you have to take such precarious stands, or are you naturally cranky?
Was I rude? Might I suggest that the perception of condescension is usually rooted in insecurity?
If you'd care to visit dictionary.com, you'll be able to learn all about the terms "base" and
"simplified" as well, and place them into context with my use of the term "analogy", which you seem to have a
rudimentary familiarity with.
The development of a young psyche does undergo an evolution of sorts. It continually births
concepts and causal relations that are destined to be destroyed or re-formed as new data and
environmental reactions validate or repudiate them. Apparently, this evolution slows to a crawl
upon baptism and/or obtaining a degree in the sciences.
If you accept that the earth is at least four billion years old, than a period of several million
years can indeed be seen as sudden. I'm aware of the allowances in evolutionary theory for dormant
periods of development, punctuated by "sudden" rapid change. I'm also aware that the current
scientific community cannot even agree which is the outgroup among the tribes of existing Homininae. You may be quite content to ignore the absence of a convincing transitional species prefacing
Homo Sapiens, but most inquisitive minds, when faced with the vast (and scientifically recognized)
conjecture in current theory, are not.
In short, I find scientific theory to be both fascinating and invaluable, and am intimately aware
of the process, methods and conclusions that form the popular status quo. I have no doubt that
evolution, as defined in biological context, does occur. I maintain that it does not account for
the condition known as human. I am more than a little jealous of various fundamentalists - both
religious and scientific - who are satisfied with their respective pre-packaged explanations. In
this case (as in many others) scientific establishments are clearly arranging evidence to fit the theory(s), rather than the opposite. In your particular instance I have the same objection as I
have towards Phil and his ilk; You're both guilty of accepting different dogmas. How can you not
question the holes?
Neatly defined summaries of concepts such as self-awareness and art are fine for categorization,
but offer little insight into their relevance. Human emotion is an energy every bit as real as
electricity and gravity. Because your limited standards do not posses the capability to measure this
energy, would you turn a blind eye to it's results - limitless changes in our physical universe?
You're unreasonably emotive response to my post may even have far reaching effects. Perhaps it will
inspire an unsuspecting observer to reflect, to pursue further knowledge, perhaps even contribute
to our common pool of wisdom one day, effecting even more physical repercussions.
I can only assume that your argumentative nature was stroked by my quip about scientists searching
for origins. It is funny to me, I apologize. Relate to me your disciplines and areas of study, and
I will inform you of how it corresponds to the problem of Origin. I'm sure if you spend time
reflecting, you'll stumble across the obvious yourself.
I refer to none as "peons", but am content to point out how some aptly illustrate themselves. I
profess no "truth", that is for fundamentalists and egoists. There are far greater minds than my
own at work on problems of both science and spirit, yet the greatest of minds should be measured by
their quest to resolve the two.
Our senses are indeed multi-dimensional, and your argument once again defeats itself. Time is the fourth dimension you refer to, yet I've heard again and again from academia that man cannot conceive the idea of infinity. That is exactly the problem I refer to in my statement. Man's conception of God, Allah, the big bang, etc. is inherently flawed because of this very shortcoming. At least you're familiar with string theory, although based on your multiple futile points,
passionate response, and self-limiting blanket statement of possessing four dimensional senses, you
have a fractured comprehension of it.
And so, in fact, many scientists are as dumb and limited as I seem to think. Even more so, now that you've weighed in to defend them. I'm a great fan of science, and of certain individuals in the field more than others. I study what I can, but do not rest on limited laurels. Take a moment to reflect on all the fallen theorists and their blind adherents of the past, dis-proven as our culture of knowledge and awareness has grown. Now place yourself 100 years in the future, looking back at silly bickering of innacuracies and trivialities. See yourself? There's Waldo!
I'm not surprised that you can respect Phillip's convictions. The difference between you is that
he has one book he blindly follows, while you have many. To put it in terms you can follow, he is the transitional fossil to your explanationus scientificus. Your type is quick to cast aside what
you refer to as "metaphysics", yet never even mumble an apology as precious String Theory begins to suggest similar truths.
I can only hope that you reflect on your final sentence, come full-circle, and decide to educate
yourself. I'm happy to debate many points, but your hostility and closed mind will bear only bitter
fruit, as evidenced by your response and general mindset.
Perhaps one final point; you referenced that the design of our human vessel, and that of the hyena, could be considered flawed; indicating that they can be improved upon.
Not by you, of course, but one day man may be able to manufacture a better wheel! Once again, this strengthens my position. If we can do such a thing, why couldn't another civilization at our instance of emergence?
Intelligent design, my friend. You're next logical question in pursuit of disallowing such an idea would be
"Then who created the creators?".
Aha! Therin lies the mystery. And foward to prominence comes ideas such as string theory, spooky movement, the god particle. The now popular theory that we exist in multiple dimensions simultaneously, each of which can have their own laws and physics. I speak of the evolution of spirit, of which you currently hinder. It is for you to rise up against ridicule and derision, to step outside the boundaries of the safe and the accepted. Should we all be content to swallow what we're fed, breakthroughs would never occur, oh mediocre one.
teh fact evolution + creation conflict is because they have 2 different theories think about it like this:
States Earth was fromed 4.5 Billion years ago when the Sun was formed, millions of years later the first single celled organisms appeared and progressively became more and more complex until the animals we know today and from Earth's other time zones eg Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic and it's gonna stay like that until something happens that forces changes in the creatures that will make them look and behave differently(a good example is swamp lions in africa, they descended from plains lion but are quite happy in swamps as well as in the plains because they developed adaptations that let them live there) until in 2 billion years time the sun explodes and destroys the planet (i'm a evolutionist, just don't think bad of me for being evolutionist and the hacker incident as i call it, i'm really a nice guy)
Creationism-believes that the planet was created 2000 years BC in one week with every animal already on the planet pre-made until the apocalypse comes and destroys everything on the planet
the whole reason these two ideas conflict is because each thinks their ideas are better eg Evolutionism believes to be correct while Creationism believes it to be correct, and they're both got big political and scientific backup to keep the conflict going, but i'm not complaining, most of my friends are religious to some degree and i get along with them quite happily because of one rule we made up in our school that explains it all, however due to the sensitive nature of a certain word i'll edit that word into something a bit more suitable:
DILLIGAD ©(originally DILLIGAF ©)
It means we just don' care because it don't matter really
Arbiter Gruntsmasher ©
anyone caught copyrighting that saying will be fed to the most scariest of pokemon, level 19 Magikarp 1 xp away from levelling up a swarm of about 100,000