4 big myths of Book of Revelation

[uls]

For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles—a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% further away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision “just happened”? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design? It’s no small wonder that the Psalmist alludes to God as the grand designer when he declared: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other” (Psalm 19:1, 6).

typical argument of believers. they only look at the present... a tiny snapshot of time... and they go "WOW! the earth is at a perfect distance from the sun... not too hot, not too cold. God put the earth at the right distance from the sun so we could exist THERE IS A GOD!"

what the earth is today the result of billions years of random chance

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQBzdcFkB7w[/ame]

and people think evolution has stopped

like eto na ang finished product. like lahat ng nakikita natin finished product na. the universe is a finished product. man is a finished product. NOPE

the universe is still evolving. everything is still evolving

[Harangody]

Sino ba si OB? Lagi ko naririnig yan.

[uls]

people just can't seem to accept that the universe has no purpose. that life has no purpose

kailangan may purpose daw. maybe coz if there's no purpose they'll commit suicide nalang

--

kaya inisip ng mga tao may purpose, may designer ang universe kasi inisip nila finished product na ito lahat

God rested on the 7th day diba? tapos na siya mag create. final result na ito. di na magbabago ang universe. di na magbabago ang tao

mali

[CVT]

Hehehe...kulang na lang pagusapan ang middle earth ni OB. Same irrational monologue...

Also why do people, despite BILLION years of random change in the universe, only look at few thousand years and conclude intellegent design?

MODs: paki tingin naman yung quote rule ng board ^^

Oo nga, copy/cut and paste culture...

Wala kasing tambayan e.... :hysterical:

15.5K:boxing1:

[uls]

Sino ba si OB? Lagi ko naririnig yan.

si oldblue (also known by many other names)

siya ay isang matagal na tsikot member

siya po ay naniniwala sa existence ng middle earth

[CoDer]

people just can't seem to accept that the universe has no purpose. that life has no purpose

kailangan may purpose daw. maybe coz if there's no purpose they'll commit suicide nalang

Pwede na kayong tandem ni OB.

[uls]

opposite po kami ni OB

[uls]

when you put the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation story side by side with creation stories of other religions they all have one thing in common -- yan lang ang kaya maisip ng ancient humans trying to explain the origin of the universe


The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths) | LiveScience


pero creative sila no?

[uls]

Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence.

But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism.

so how did humans become the most intelligent species on earth?

Encephalization

Noun

(biology) the amount of brain mass exceeding that related to an animal's total body mass.

humans have the largest brain size in proportion to the size of body

what caused humans to evolve large brains?

oh how convenient... this is very recent

Meat eating behind evolutionary success of humankind, global population spread, study suggests

ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2012) — Carnivory is behind the evolutionary success of humankind. When early humans started to eat meat and eventually hunt, their new, higher-quality diet meant that women could wean their children earlier. Women could then give birth to more children during their reproductive life, which is a possible contribution to the population gradually spreading over the world. The connection between eating meat and a faster weaning process is shown by a research group from Lund University in Sweden, which compared close to 70 mammalian species and found clear patterns.

Learning to hunt was a decisive step in human evolution. Hunting necessitated communication, planning and the use of tools, all of which demanded a larger brain. At the same time, adding meat to the diet made it possible to develop this larger brain.

"This has been known for a long time. However, no one has previously shown the strong connection between meat eating and the duration of breast-feeding, which is a crucial piece of the puzzle in this context. Eating meat enabled the breast-feeding periods and thereby the time between births, to be shortened. This must have had a crucial impact on human evolution," says Elia Psouni of Lund University.

She is a developmental psychologist and has, together with neurophysiologist Martin Garwicz (also in Lund) and evolutionary geneticist Axel Janke (currently in Frankfurt but previously in Lund) published her findings in the journal PLoS ONE.

Among natural fertility societies, the average duration of breast-feeding is 2 years and 4 months. This is not much in relation to the maximum lifespan of our species, around 120 years. It is even less if compared to our closest relatives: female chimpanzees suckle their young for 4-5 years, whereas the maximum lifespan for chimpanzees is only 60 years.

Many researchers have tried to explain the relatively shorter breast-feeding period of humans based on social and behavioral theories of parenting and family size. But the Lund group has now shown that humans are in fact no different than other mammals with respect to the timing of weaning. If you enter brain development and diet composition into the equation, the time when our young stop suckling fits precisely with the pattern in other mammals.

This is the type of mathematical model that Elia Psouni and her colleagues have built. They entered data on close to 70 mammalian species of various types into the model -- data on brain size and diet. Species for which at least 20 per cent of the energy content of their diet comes from meat were categorised as carnivores. The model shows that the young of all species cease to suckle when their brains have reached a particular stage of development on the path from conception to full brain-size. Carnivores, due to their high quality diet, can wean earlier than herbivores and omnivores.

The model also shows that humans do not differ from other carnivores with respect to timing of weaning. All carnivorous species, from small animals such as ferrets and raccoons to large ones like panthers, killer whales and humans, have a relatively short breast-feeding period. The difference between us and the great apes, which has puzzled previous researchers, seems to depend merely on the fact that as a species we are carnivores, whereas gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees are herbivores or omnivores.

A few years ago, the Lund group published an acclaimed study on the point at which the young of various animals start to walk. Here too, similar patterns were discovered between mammalian species that diverged in evolution millions of years ago. A particular stage in brain development seems quite simply to be the time to start to walk, independently of whether you are a hedgehog, a ferret or a human being.

"That humans seem to be so similar to other animals can of course be taken as provocative. We like to think that culture makes us different as a species. But when it comes to breast-feeding and weaning, no social or cultural explanations are needed; for our species as a whole it is a question of simple biology. Social and cultural factors surely influence the variation between humans," says Elia Psouni.

She is careful to emphasize that their results concern human evolution. The research is about how carnivory can have contributed to the human species' spreading on earth and says nothing about what we should or should not eat today in order to have a good diet.

i don't know about other people but i find scientific explanations far more interesting than religious explanations

[Harangody]

Hollow Earth or LOTR's Middle Earth?

[uls]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf_OWun4Y04]Did Cooking Make Us Human ? (BBC Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]

[Harangody]

Baka yung mga vegetarians maging primitive.

[uls]

humans did not evolve from apes contrary to what those who don't understand evolution keep saying

humans and apes have a common ancestor

humans evolved separately



along the way we developed bigger brains coz our ancestors ate food denser in nutrients

Harangody:

Baka yung mga vegetarians maging primitive.

from the article i posted:

The difference between us and the great apes, which has puzzled previous researchers, seems to depend merely on the fact that as a species we are carnivores, whereas gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees are herbivores or omnivores.

[Monseratto]

people just can't seem to accept that the universe has no purpose. that life has no purpose

kailangan may purpose daw. maybe coz if there's no purpose they'll commit suicide nalang

--

kaya inisip ng mga tao may purpose, may designer ang universe kasi inisip nila finished product na ito lahat

God rested on the 7th day diba? tapos na siya mag create. final result na ito. di na magbabago ang universe. di na magbabago ang tao

mali

Randomness is bliss, you'll never know if you'll die from cancer or be crushed by a falling piano....

[ghosthunter]

Posting Articles (e.g. copy and paste material)

For posting an article in the forums, always include:

• Title
• Author (if available)
• Date and Time (e.g. news articles)
• and most importantly: the SOURCE (web address)

Quote the entire article by using the Quote command:

Usage: [quote]Article[/quote]
Example Usage: [quote]The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.[/quote]
Example Output:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Click for vBCode command list


Posts/Threads created not in compliance with this will be DELETED, with or without notification and will be issued an infraction.


Again, please take time to read the Tsikot Rules and Regulations.

[ghosthunter]

Randomness is bliss, you'll never know if you'll die from cancer or be crushed by a falling piano....

...or die from a random stroke in your brain or simply live long enough to reach a hundred years old without getting sick for a day.

[tomboy]

Sorry nalimutan ko ko lagyan ng quote and unquote.

Meron talaga tayo Diyos. Dito sa tsikot meron moderator na nagbibigay ng infraction pag may nagkamali or hindi nakasunod sa rules. So meron tayo concept ng order. God is order. Oh di ba!

[uls]

new article

Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds - latimes.com

By Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
April 26, 2012, 9:05 p.m.

Scientists have revealed one of the reasons why some folks are less religious than others: They think more analytically, rather than going with their gut. And thinking analytically can cause religious belief to wane — for skeptics and true believers alike.

The study, published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, indicates that belief may be a more malleable feature of the human psyche than those of strong faith may think.

The cognitive origins of belief — and disbelief — traditionally haven't been explored with academic rigor, said lead author Will Gervais, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

"There's been a long-standing intellectual tradition of treating science as one thing and religion as separate, and never the twain shall meet," he said. But in recent years, he added, there has been a push "to understand religion and why our species has the capacity for religion."

According to one theory of human thinking, the brain processes information using two systems. The first relies on mental shortcuts by using intuitive responses — a gut instinct, if you will — to quickly arrive at a conclusion. The other employs deliberative analysis, which uses reason to arrive at a conclusion.

Both systems are useful and can run in parallel, the theory goes. But when called upon, analytic thinking can override intuition.

Studies suggest that religious beliefs are rooted in this intuitive processing, Gervais said. So, he wondered, would thinking analytically undermine religious belief as it overrides intuitive thought?

To find out, his research team had college students perform three thinking tasks, each with an intuitive (incorrect) answer and an analytic (correct) answer.

For example, students were asked this question: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, "In my life I feel the presence of the Divine," and "I just don't understand religion." Students who answered the three questions correctly — and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills — were more likely to score lower on the belief scales.

To tease out whether analytic thinking was actually causing belief to decrease, the researchers performed a series of additional experiments.

First, students were randomly assigned to look at images of Auguste Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker," or of the ancient Greek statue of a discus thrower, "Discobolus." Those who viewed "The Thinker" were prompted to think more analytically and expressed less belief in God — they scored an average of 41.42 on a 100-point scale, compared with an average of 61.55 for the group that viewed the discus thrower, according to the study.

Two additional experiments used word games rather than images. In one case, participants were asked to arrange a series of words into a sentence. Some were given neutral words and others were presented with trigger words such as "think," "reason" and "analyze" to prime them to think more analytically. And indeed, those who got the "thinking" words expressed less religiosity on a 10-to-70 scale: They ranked themselves at 34.39, on average, while those in the control group averaged 40.16.

In the final experiment, students in the control group read text in a clear, legible font, while those in the other group were forced to squint at a font that was hard to read, a chore that has been shown to trigger analytic thinking. Sure enough, those who read the less legible font rated their belief in supernatural agents at 10.40 on a 3-to-21 scale, compared with 12.16 for those who read the clear font.

So does this mean that religious faith can be undermined with just a little extra mental effort? Not really, said Nicholas Epley, a social psychologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study. But it does show that belief isn't set in stone, but can respond to a person's context.

"There's an illusion that our brains are more static than they actually are," he said. "We have fundamental beliefs and values that we hold, and those things seem sticky, constant. But it's easier to get movement on something fundamental."

As for whether this should alarm the layperson, Epley shrugged. "Even deeply religious people will point out they have had moments of doubt," he said.

[pop3corn]

Hehehe...kulang na lang pagusapan ang middle earth ni OB. Same irrational monologue...

Also why do people, despite BILLION years of random change in the universe, only look at few thousand years and conclude intellegent design?

MODs: paki tingin naman yung quote rule ng board ^^

and why do people believe in astronomers/scientists who determine the age of anything/everything around the universe by just looking at the telescope. yun lang ang lamang ng scientist sa'tin lol

and what about math & computations, how sure are we that the math we have now can explain the universe. even Kumon math that is taught to kids are being considered obsolete na din. even math needs evolving.

math is always dependent on variables. pano ka makaka-input ng variables on studying the entire universe if you're just staying here on earth? imho, i'm not a science expert pero I do believe this is a legitimate question.

A President can never a president if he sits all day-long blogging/surfing in the computer. He needs to get out, to become a people person, mingle etc. by doing so, that'll input some variable to his psyche in order for him to become an effective leader.

what does an astronomer do besides sitting all day long computing and observing? hey, I have computed this theory about Saturn's physics based on data on the last Voyager mission. how do I verify? ay teka wala pang nimbento spaceship na makakpunta sa saturn, ok na'to tatanggapin na ng masang earth ang computations ko, kelangan i-vouch ng mga kapwa ko astronomer / scientists na may credibility.

people like to attack Church People and Politicians and Famous people bec. these organizations are somehow perceived as corruptible / deceitful. how sure are we that the scientific community is not doing the same?

[Monseratto]

and why do people believe in astronomers/scientists who determine the age of anything/everything around the universe by just looking at the telescope. yun lang ang lamang ng scientist sa'tin lol

and what about math & computations, how sure are we that the math we have now can explain the universe. even Kumon math that is taught to kids are being considered obsolete na din. even math needs evolving.

math is always dependent on variables. pano ka makaka-input ng variables on studying the entire universe if you're just staying here on earth? imho, i'm not a science expert pero I do believe this is a legitimate question.


what does an astronomer do besides sitting all day long computing and observing? hey, I have computed this theory about Saturn's physics based on data on the last Voyager mission. how do I verify? ay teka wala pang nimbento spaceship na makakpunta sa saturn, ok na'to tatanggapin na ng masang earth ang computations ko, kelangan i-vouch ng mga kapwa ko astronomer / scientists na may credibility.

I never knew that the Kumon math can actually put a man on the moon...