Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You are describing a hypothesis, you make an observation and hypothesize an outcome based on your observation and then test for a result. The result then determines the next step. Maybe your hypothesis is evidenced, maybe it isn't, you conclude based on the results. 

I explained the same thing to him recently,  I hope it sinks in now. 

[MauriOra]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

So, a baseless claim on your part then? Ok.

cormac

No.. Thats YOUR words ..

Ok..

Mo..xx

[Kismit]

Just now, MauriOra said:

...

What's your findings ex pat .?

Mo.. xx

I love New zealand I love the way all New Zealanders embrace the culture of the Maori with passion. I love the way the towns are full of Polynesian celebrations, that the very culture of New Zealand and all of it's people is the pride and capabilty of this small Island nation. And when I say Island nation I mean it's part in being a piece of the other small island nations and the way it consideres places like Tonga and Samoa like cousins and part of it's culture. But I dislike immensly the fact that Europeans are not as openly accepted in this Whanau. After 200 years my children allthough born here are still viewed by some as the invading nation.  This not accepting all New Zealanders as part of the Whanau has made parts of the country very sick.

 

[MauriOra]

Just now, psyche101 said:

I explained the same thing to him recently,  I hope it sinks in now. 

It might ..

Maybe you aren't saying enough words

Psychedelic.

Mo.xx

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

No.. Thats YOUR words ..

Ok..

Mo..xx

I can, and have before, backed mine with actual evidence the only thing you’ve provided recently is snarkiness and a “because I said so” perspective which is pretty much nothing. 

cormac

Edited February 21, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[MauriOra]

Just now, Kismit said:

I love New zealand I love the way all New Zealanders embrace the culture of the Maori with passion. I love the way the towns are full of Polynesian celebrations, that the very culture of New Zealand and all of it's people is the pride and capabilty of this small Island nation. And when I say Island nation I mean it's part in being a piece of the other small island nations and the way it consideres places like Tonga and Samoa like cousins and part of it's culture. But I dislike immensly the fact that Europeans are not as openly accepted in this Whanau. After 200 years my children allthough born here are still viewed by some as the invading nation.  This not accepting all New Zealanders as part of the Whanau has made parts of the country very sick.

 

Yes they are Mauiui..

If your kids are Kiwi.. Then they are Kiwi...

Nothing except DNA, can change that ...and even then ...pfft..

You and yours belong her dudette..

Mo.. xx

[Kismit]

5 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Hey ..

If they did ..

Would you listen .?

Mo.xx

Yes. Indeed I would. My history comes from England and their oral history is so ancient and was invaded so often that the original culture was transformed dozens of times. I find all of that history as it is rediscovered absolutely facinating. I am sure I would be just as facinated by the earlier history on New Zealand.

I watched a program last night where a comedian made a joke about American history only being a couple of hundred years old to an English history student. Said if he studied American history it would be a breeze. 

Nope American history like all countries dates back to the begining of time.

[+Liquid Gardens]

49 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes, but here's where it goes horribly wrong too.

When it is reasoned that objective evidence is superior to subjective evidence, when it may not actually be in reality.

You're correct as far as it goes; it is possible that someone could be correct based on their subjective evidence about something that has actually been reasoned wrongly based on objective evidence.  But they're not going to know that their subjective truth (also known as 'belief') is true without some objective evidence most likely.  

But to me that's only part of the issue.  Most people do not actually value the category 'subjective evidence' more than objective evidence, they mainly value their subjective evidence.  You've stated that your beliefs are unique to you and yet your beliefs are not consistent with a lot of other people's subjective evidence. I think you'd have to go through a whole lot of gyrations to be able to say that Urantia and Hinduism are ultimately referring to the same thing, so you disagree potentially then with a lot of subjective evidence from Hindus.  So what does that say about the value of subjective evidence?  How are you going to actually resolve the difference between two conflicting subjective evidences?  More subjective evidence isn't going to help and may just make it more divergent, the only way to resolve is with objective evidence.  In what way does that not make it overall 'superior' than subjective evidence?

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

the most important thing after all is what goes on in life on the inside (you might disagree) and if this is true, then it might be unreasonable to be skeptical.

I can agree with that, it depends on what your goal is.  I rarely comment on the other Beliefs section because it's not for skepticism or debate, but also because I have no desire to be a buzzkill.  For me the common thread in the vast majority of faith-based beliefs is that the faith is always in something the believer would like to be true, and if it makes someone feel good then most of the time I'd say do it and believe it.  But then there's what is actually true, a path most are not forced to pursue on these topics and maybe one they shouldn't pursue if it's going to ruin something, but if they want to go that path there is strong support for skepticism being valuable (as we communicate away real time with our magic science boxes and wires, something we wouldn't have without a good dose of skepticism).

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Yes they are Mauiui..

If your kids are Kiwi.. Then they are Kiwi...

Nothing except DNA, can change that ...and even then ...pfft..

You and yours belong her dudette..

Mo.. xx

 

Can I come over?

I've heard it said MANY TIMES that there's no better country in all the world to live than New Zealand.

 

 

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

And as Ive just pointed out, I don't think you can fit God into a test tube lolz...

So, we agree and the OP's book is wrong.

Ready to close the thread?

Harte

[Harte]

48 minutes ago, HerNibs said:

Clear as mud.  Let me know when you want a discussion.

Nibs

You really don't know Nibs?

The Five Root Races of Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophists.

Harte

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

I think it's not likely that scientists have tested for spirit, know where to look or even have the capability to measure something that is non-physical in nature.  If the spirit exists then it is separate from the body, and therefore body chemistry/energy.  Some people may hallucinate while the are dying.  And some, may experience the afterlife.  Unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers, and I am open to all possibilities.  

 

I didn't claim to have the answers I realistically listed what information we have. What we do have does not result in the likely hood of such a thing as an afterlife, but the very opposite. See what you quoted from me up there? Read the last line again. 

What's more likely. 

Why do you think scientists have not tested for the Spirit? What do you find in the information I provided to be in error? 

Do you not feel it is just a cop out to say you can't measure it, but it exists? It's just an easy out I reckon. But it's the only way to justify NDE belief I suppose. 

Surely you have heard of the 21 grams claim? Great Thundamentals song with Hilltop Hoods too. That's another test that some even still claim is proof of the soul. They don't state how the test was a monumental failure though when citing it as proof. 

Here, have a read of this, Dr Karl who often speaks on triple is a bit of a modern day Julius Sumner Miller. 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm

[Will Due]

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You're correct as far as it goes; it is possible that someone could be correct based on their subjective evidence about something that has actually been reasoned wrongly based on objective evidence.  But they're not going to know that their subjective truth (also known as 'belief') is true without some objective evidence most likely.  

But to me that's only part of the issue.  Most people do not actually value the category 'subjective evidence' more than objective evidence, they mainly value their subjective evidence.  You've stated that your beliefs are unique to you and yet your beliefs are not consistent with a lot of other people's subjective evidence. I think you'd have to go through a whole lot of gyrations to be able to say that Urantia and Hinduism are ultimately referring to the same thing, so you disagree potentially then with a lot of subjective evidence from Hindus.  So what does that say about the value of subjective evidence?  How are you going to actually resolve the difference between two conflicting subjective evidences?  More subjective evidence isn't going to help and may just make it more divergent, the only way to resolve is with objective evidence.  In what way does that not make it overall 'superior' than subjective evidence?

I can agree with that, it depends on what your goal is.  I rarely comment on the other Beliefs section because it's not for skepticism or debate, but also because I have no desire to be a buzzkill.  For me the common thread in the vast majority of faith-based beliefs is that the faith is always in something the believer would like to be true, and if it makes someone feel good then most of the time I'd say do it and believe it.  But then there's what is actually true, a path most are not forced to pursue on these topics and maybe one they shouldn't pursue if it's going to ruin something, but if they want to go that path there is strong support for skepticism being valuable (as we communicate away real time with our magic science boxes and wires, something we wouldn't have without a good dose of skepticism).

 

You and I are in total agreement LG. 

But (to me) it's not really a matter of whether or not subjective experience is superior, it's a matter that subjective experience is the ONLY experience that matters.

If I experience or analize objective evidence, I can only do it subjectively.

I can accept that science has proven one fact or another, but only within a subjective emotion or desire to accept without validating the objective evidence personally myself.

----------

Regarding what you said about the beliefs of Hinduism (or any other organized religion for that matter) and my personal religious belief, I do not have a problem with any other religion at all.

Because allthough there isn't uniformity between Hinduism and what I believe, there is unity in the purpose of the religion, as well as every other religion good or bad, to worship God according to the highest concept of the true light of truth that can possibly be understood in a given time and place.

In other words, there's something highly universal in all religions, no matter what God's name, no matter if he's primitive or advanced, no matter if the God of each of these religions is real or a delusion, all is alright as long as it represents the best attempt to understand and worship.

But heaven forbid if whatever particular religion does any harm to anybody. Then it isn't what I define as religion.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Will Due

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

Ok ..

What use would be links ...honest .. Thats someone else's idea ..

Why would I use someone else's idea...when I have my own ..

Mo.xx

So basically, if you think it this is your evidence?

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

Originally I am from Australia. It has given me an insight into the differences between the Maori and the Aboriginal and the injustices they both faced at the hands of colonisers.

Still wondering though. What is the difference between one nation landing and claiming a place as thier own and another doing the same thing?

If New Zealand where to be invaded tomorow by another nation would that alter the current view held by some people that the Europeans where the ultimate evil and injustice?

Was the arrival of Europeans good or bad for the Maori, the,Aborigines, or the Tasmanians or Native Americans?

[Kismit]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Was the arrival of Europeans good or bad for the Maori, the,Aborigines, or the Tasmanians or Native Americans?

Quite unpleasant I imagine? Europeans brought disease and unrest. 

Was it good or bad for the people who where there before the Maori, the Tasmanians, but of course less likely but not impossible the Native American's and Aboriginals?

In all honesty what is the difference between Europeans conquering new lands and other non-european nations conquering new lands? Isn't the intention the same?

[Will Due]

 

Of course,

It's all just a part of the intelligent design of evolution.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Will Due

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Of course,

It's all just a part of the intelligent design of evolution.

 

 

Proove it

[Will Due]

 

Racial blending is good. It's how the human species progresses.

 

L

[Crazy Horse]

46 minutes ago, Harte said:

So, we agree and the OP's book is wrong.

Ready to close the thread?

Harte

I haven't read the OPs book, have you?

[Will Due]

Just now, Kismit said:

Proove it

 

I'm proof. 

 

 

[Kismit]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Racial blending is good. It's how the human species progresses.

 

L

That is much better. Atleast this doen't come across like you have hidden knowlwdge and special insight. 

Your opinion is valid

However there are some on UM who might wish to claim it's all part of a liberal globalist agenda. I would ask them to proove it too.

[Hre2breal]

51 minutes ago, Kismit said:

As I said I have studied parts of the treaty of Waitangi, in regards to the respectful treatment of Maori when dealing with health issues. In acknowledging if one person is unwell, it affects the whanau and should be treated as a whole. On the importance of lineage and how people are connected through iwi and marae.

But I have not studied the whole treaty from other angles. So can you tell me in your opininon. What is the difference between the Maori landing in New Zealand and claiming it as thier own and the Europeans doing the same thing?

When Maori came here as far as I know Moriori were here..It has since been established that Maori an Moriori were related.. Possibly explaining why Maori came here in the first place..hence Maori were the first people as Moriori were of blood descent...

Wars between Maori vs Maori an Maori vs Moriori drove Moriori to Chatham islands where they stayed until there demise if I remember correctly the last descendant if Moriori died around the 80s or 90s which was a shock because they were thought to be long gone...

The wars between Maori an Moriori were not for ownership of land it was over chiefmanship an women to be exchanged for bloodlines differences in there oppions of this lead to discord an ultimately war..It was all about strength of tribe not land..Theres the difference between European an Maori an its always been that way for European here back then...They wanted to trick us or make up tax laws in order to conviscate land ie..Dog tax laws..

Maori werent perfect bt any means they fought each other but it was about bloodlines not ownership of land...Maori gifted land like it was lollies to fellow Maori whom would help them battle to beat another rival tribe..

This happened to my own family we were gifted land from Waikato for helping them take on Ngapuhi..

Then my grandfather married a Ngapuhi woman to help intwine the harmony ..

Europeans were cruel manipulaters but eventually blood ties too eased that rift an now we co exsist for our mokopuna an now pakeha are trying to right thier wrongs an return stolen land an make amense....Its come along way...

[Kismit]

General reminder: if everyone could refrain from derrogatory remarks and name calling, that would be great.

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

When Maori came here as far as I know Moriori were here..It has since been established that Maori an Moriori were related.. Possibly explaining why Maori came here in the first place..hence Maori were the first people as Moriori were of blood descent...

Wars between Maori vs Maori an Maori vs Moriori drove Moriori to Chatham islands where they stayed until there demise if I remember correctly the last descendant if Moriori died around the 80s or 90s which was a shock because they were thought to be long gone...

The wars between Maori an Moriori were not for ownership of land it was over chiefmanship an women to be exchanged for bloodlines differences in there oppions of this lead to discord an ultimately war..It was all about strength of tribe not land..Theres the difference between European an Maori an its always been that way for European here back then...They wanted to trick us or make up tax laws in order to conviscate land ie..Dog tax laws..

Maori werent perfect bt any means they fought each other but it was about bloodlines not ownership of land...Maori gifted land like it was lollies to fellow Maori whom would help them battle to beat another rival tribe..

This happened to my own family we were gifted land from Waikato for helping them take on Ngapuhi..

Then my grandfather married a Ngapuhi woman to help intwine the harmony ..

Europeans were cruel manipulaters but eventually blood ties too eased that rift an now we co exsist for our mokopuna an now pakeha are trying to right thier wrongs an return stolen land an make amense....Its come along way...

Thank you Hre2breal, this by far my favorite post of yours. It shows a good strong level of knowledge of the facts.

The last full bloided Moriori did indeed die in 1980, but I believe decendents do still exist.

It seems a reasonable guess to say the native Maori travelled around the Pacific and Polynesia extensively before settling here. Easter Island is one of the places it would be reasonable to guess the Maori travelled to.

When I look at wars I see them as being fought for the same reasons, power and resources. Again if we had the written stories from both sides how would they be viewed today? Would the wounds of war be as raw as the wounds recorded on paper now?