lucian123
25th February 2005, 13:31
QUOTE(driverx @ Feb 25 2005, 13:28)
Suntem o specie mult mai complexa decat orice alt animal. Multe specii de animale nu au invatat sa se adapteze la noile conditii (climaterice, etc) si...au pierit. Asta inseamna ca evolutia din definitie e proasta?
Hai sa nu mai facem afirmatii radicale si sa aducem dovezi.
Sau ti s-au inmuiat "muschii"
driverx
25th February 2005, 13:34
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 13:27)
Tu chiar crezi ca omul poate contrala natura? E o nebunie.
De unde ai tras tu concluzia asta ca eu as crede asta? Tu citesti ce scriu? Ca sa stiu daca mai merita sa ma obosesc aici. Omul nu prea va putea controla usor natura. Si cauza nu ar fi neaparat lipsa cunoasterii, ci dimensiunile.....
Dar daca reusim sa afectam negativ acum, cu "tool"-urile bune am putea face si invers. Deja o facem....dar la nivel local. Control de ploi de exemplu.
driverx
25th February 2005, 13:35
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 13:31)
ups, am postat-o de doua ori...
scuze
mama ce pornit is
Mda 
creca ca are prea multi caluti Skoda ta 
Vad ca nici pe astia nu ii poti controla 
lucian123
25th February 2005, 13:36
QUOTE(evilone @ Feb 25 2005, 13:27)
In acest moment omul a ajuns sa controleze selectia naturala si mediul.
QUOTE(driverx @ Feb 25 2005, 13:34)
De unde ai tras tu concluzia asta ca eu as crede asta? Tu citesti ce scriu? Ca sa stiu daca mai merita sa ma obosesc aici. Omul nu prea va putea controla usor natura. Si cauza nu ar fi neaparat lipsa cunoasterii, ci dimensiunile.....
Scuze, am confundat. Hai sa trecem peste.
Vezi ca unii dintre noi stiu sa recunoasca atunci cand gresesc.
Ultima strigare:
Vreeeeem doooveeeezi. Daca nu aveti dovezi toata teoria voastra e nula
evilone
25th February 2005, 13:37
Faptul ca omul distruge natura nu se datoreaza evolutiei biologice. Se datoreaza tocmai lipsei acesteia. Omul modifica mediul in loc sa se adapteze acestuia. Casa in care lucuiesti tu a distrus habitatul multor vietuitoare.
Mosotti
25th February 2005, 13:38
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 12:51)
de unde stii tu carei religii ii apartin eu?
esti crestin 
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 12:53)
Tu vei fi ignorat mai departe. Tu ai idei ceva mai obtuze si de aceea nu se poate discuta cu tine. Mai lasa filmele SF, jocurile pe calculator, mai mergi pe la biblioteca si mai studiaza si tu niste literatura de valoare. In vreo zece ani, cu un pic de noroc vei gandi si tu normal si se va putea purta cu tine o discutie logica. Pana atunci,
te ignor
literatura de valoare? biblia? hahahahaha. iti scriu imediat o biblie de o mie de ori mai misto si mai amuzanta, ba chiar o sa bag si nave spatiale, cyborgi si de ce nu, lesbiene
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 13:11)
de ce nu au evoluat? de ce nu le-a crescut picioare sa umble pe pamant? de ce nu au evoluat domnule driverx? iti spun eu de ce! pentru ca nu se poate asa ceva! delfinul e creatia lui Dumnezeu, asa cum esti si tu, si eu!
yeah, right, fanatism sprijinit pe aer cubic. iti spun io, detinatorul rahatului suprem
evilone
25th February 2005, 13:42
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 13:36)
Vreeeeem doooveeeezi. Daca nu aveti dovezi toata teoria voastra e nula
Exact acelasi lucru se poate spune despre creationism.
driverx
25th February 2005, 13:48
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 13:36)
Vreeeeem doooveeeezi. Daca nu aveti dovezi toata teoria voastra e nula
Desi mai inainte am zis ceva de voi, vad ca tot pe noi ne acuzi.
Daca e sa tratam asa ieftin lucrurile, la fel putem spune si noi despre creationism.
lucian123
25th February 2005, 13:54
QUOTE(evilone @ Feb 25 2005, 13:42)
Exact acelasi lucru se poate spune despre creationism.
Bibla este scrisa de mii de ani. Ea vorbeste despre istoria pamantului. E cea mai veche scriere de pe pamant. A fost scrisa de multi autori, fiecare in alta epoca. Totusi continutul ei e unitar si se explica prin realitatea din jur si prin logica.
Secole/milenii la rand a fost acceptata. Pot spune ca tot ce scrie in biblie este demonstrat arheologic, stiintific. Lasand credinta la o parte, exista dovezi istorice din alte izvoare ca tot ce scrie in Biblie sa intamplat ad-literam. Toate profetiile facute de Dumnezeu prin oamenii sai din Biblie s-au intampat exact la timpul la care a fost prescris. Celelalte se vor produce cu siguranta.
Luand in considerare aceste aspecte, si nu numai, consider Biblia autentica si adevarata.
Teoria evolutionista a fost debitata de un tembel, in epoca moderna si nu are nici un suport istoric, stiintific, etc.
De aceea consider ca oamenii care cred aberatiile amaratului Darwin aste de aceasi conditie cu mentorul sau.
Va rog, pe cei evolutionisti sa spuna daca considera Biblia ca pe un fals sau daca e adevarata.
Sa spuna clar ce cred. Eu am spus despre scrierile lui Darwin clar ce cred. Sa spuna si ceilalti ce cred despre Biblie, daca e falsa sau adevarata.
calandrin
25th February 2005, 13:54
In continuare face salturi cu pumnii ridicati si scoate sunete nearticulate un oarecare Andrei Cioaca.
evilone
25th February 2005, 13:56
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 13:54)
Bibla este scrisa de mii de ani. Ea vorbeste despre istoria pamantului. E cea mai veche scriere de pe pamant. A fost scrisa de multi autori, fiecare in alta epoca. Totusi continutul ei e unitar si se explica prin realitatea din jur si prin logica.
Secole/milenii la rand a fost acceptata. Pot spune ca tot ce scrie in biblie este demonstrat arheologic, stiintific. Lasand credinta la o parte, exista dovezi istorice din alte izvoare ca tot ce scrie in Biblie sa intamplat ad-literam. Toate profetiile facute de Dumnezeu prin oamenii sai din Biblie s-au intampat exact la timpul la care a fost prescris.
Da exemple.
Edit: de unde stii tu ca Biblia e cea mai veche carte de pe pamant? Asta n-am mai auzit-o pana acum.
Btw, evolutionismul are suport stiintific. Nimic din stiinta nu spune ca vietuitoarele nu pot evolua. Se stie ca mutatiile si variabilitatea exista, si nu exista motive sa ne indoim de faptul ca atunci cand are timp la dispozitie o specie se poate transforma in alta acumuland mutatiile pozitive.
shapeshifter
25th February 2005, 13:59
Selected quotes from "Neither This Nor That I Am" by Jean Klein
"The world exists because you exist, but you are not the world. Objects of consciousness, names and forms, are the world. But reality, ever still, is beyond them. It is purely by reflex that you insist upon the name and form, and this reality escapes you."
"When you act you are one with the action, it is only afterwards that the ego appropriates the act from which it was absent. But the ego is a thought just like any other and thus cannot possibly be its own creator."
"The best way to bring a malfunction to an end on either the physical or psychological plane is to totally accept the perception we have of it. This does not mean accepting it morally, but actively. Acceptance is lucid, watchful awareness. It is this acceptance that brings about the cure. Seen from an "accepting" point of view; illness no longer has any substance, and the patient then has the greatest possible chance of getting better."
"Acceptance means objectifying the sensation, not trying to escape it, dominate it or supress it. In this total acceptance the body regains its health for it already knows health."
"In pure sensation, the idea of being somebody just does not exist. There is no-one to judge nor condemn, no doer to intervene.
Perception is always closer to reality than the concept. More authentic, it allows the sensation to come fully to life. As when you pluck the string of a musical instrument, the vibration is first captured by the soundbox, then by the surroundings, and so on in succession.
In everyday life we rarely give sensations time to make themselves felt. We prematurely, intervene, conceptualizing and qualifying them. Perceptions and concepts cannot exist simultaneously and we tend to cut the perception short before it has fully flourished."
"To accept, to take note, this is awareness. There is no other way of expressing it than this for memory does not intervene. Sometimes we come very near to this state when meditating, there are moments when we are silent awareness."
"Sooner or later you will be attention, attention without objects. This would seem to have no meaning when talking of attention, for one is necessarily attentive towards something. But this attention is absolutely empty, it is not focused on an object, it is free of any memory."
"The very instant thoughts and feelings arise you have not the slightest notion of being a person, the ego is totally absent. The ego itself is no more than a thought and two thoughts cannot take form simultaneously. Identification with the ego only comes into being once the thought concerning the object has subsided. Then it claims this thought as its own. Once this becomes obvious, you realise that the servitude you previously took to be real is but an illusion, your true nature transcends it."
"Do not nourish the ideas you have built around yourself nor the image people have of you. Be neither someone nor something, just don't play the game. This will bring about being, constant awareness."
"Observe the way your mind moves, works, without having any preconceived ideas about it. A moment will come when you discover yourself to be the witness. Subsequently, when all striving has left you, you will realise that you are the light shining beyond the observer. Reality is neither a product of the mind nor the reuslt of a whole train of thoughts, it just is. The only methodwe can suggest is to observe impartially the way in which your mind reacts in the different circumstances of everyday life."
"Deeply buried within you is the conviction that all objects and your surroundings are separate from you, outside you. In the same way, feelings and your body are just objects amongst others which can also be considered separate from you. If we adopt this point of view, the ego loses its substance. You will come to see that your thougths, your I-thought, emotions, likes and dislikes are equally only perceived objects. This standpoint will lead you to realise spontaneously that you are the ultimate knower, and your notion of being a personal entity will thus lose all meaning."
"For most people, attention is only understandable as concentration directed toward something, or as deriving from the attraction of an object. The stress we put on the object that interests us creates the illusion of a continuity. Choiceless attention enables the object to melt into silent stillness, the ultimate non-dual subject which is the background of all apparent duality."
"When you listen without being aggressive or resisting, your whole body becomes this listening. Everything surrounding you is included in this listening, and ultimately there is total listening. There is no longer a listener and something listened to. You are then on the threshold of non-duality. You have left conceptual patterns behind. YOu must live this experience for yourself. "I am" points towards ultimate reality."
"We exchange ideas so as to know their worth, so as to find a just way of seeing things, but udner no circumstances do we try to situate ourselves in relaiton to a thought or a projection. Basically it is a form of reasoning which is meant to being about its own elimination, so that sooner or later you will find there is no room for personal identity."
"You have taken note , you have already seen yourself being carried away by your thoughts. To see it implies a transfer of energy away from your usual thought patterns toward reality. As other thoughts occur, quite a different attitude will settle within you and you will remain oiutside the whole process. In the end you will find yourself without words."
"Reality is not limited to the body and mind. We can cnosider the latter to be instruments, our prpperty to be put to use. The changes that the body and mind go through during the different ages; childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age are seen by a knower. This knower who observes these changes could not do so if he were not himself unchanging."
"But at other times when you say I exist, you are heading towards the perception of a non-state, which is neither of the body nor of the mind.This non-state is being, it is indeterminable, cannot be located mentally or physically. It is neither a thought nor a feeling. This non-state is identical to that of your surroundings. You are of the very same essence. In this non-state there are no surroundings. If there is another, that is, if there are surroundings, there is an I, and vice-versa. Our surroundings are not contained by name and form. You are neither the body nor the mind, these are limits you identify with through a lack of clear-sightedness. When you are attentive to a tree or flower, the perception, shape, name and concept are not the only things present. There is also the All-presence that you share with them and that you are both part of. The very name and form spring forth from this eternal background, the All-presence. This is instantaneous awareness that cannot be reached by thought."
"Eventually you come to realise that all intention, all will is but an escape from the suffering incurred by the ego. The object itself contains neither suffering nor pleasure, but is entirely dependent on the person behind it. It is when we refuse to accept a situation that we create and maintain suffering. This suffering just like pain is a pointer, a warning. As such we can accept it. With acceptance the ego is superseded and its virulence weakens."
"[We free ourselves] By awareness, free from all reference to the past, free from bodily or psychological habits, free from choice and repetition. It is a door open to spontaneous understanding and having nothing to do with mental activity. Instantaneous total vision consumes error. The energy which previously constituted the error shitfs away from it and integrates with truth that is being. The ego striving to survive either clings on to its accumulated memories, or projects desires into the future, thus using up a considerabhle amount of energy."
"All perceptions are objects, just as he hwo feels fear is an object. He who knows these objects is outside them. Fear is a perception; before we name it there is no fear, there is only perception. Once we name it there is no perception but a concept, an idea, for concepts and perceptions cannot co-exist.."
"You know that awareness without tension, where you are uninvolved and do not seek a conclusion, is total awareness. "
"We always strive to find ourselves in relation to objects, we constantly want to choose, master, arrange, classify, qualify. This is a tremendous waste of energy."
"In the evening when you go to bed prepare yourself, so as to avoid taking your daily worries with you. Observe whatever should present itself objectively; if you feel tired, feel it deep within yourself, look at it closely, this you will spontaneously find yourself exterior to it. Sooner or later a moment will arrive where it is no longer the focal point of your attention and it will disappear, will be burnt up by this awareness. The same thing will happen to all worries that preoccupy you. You will thus experience a feeling of harmony. Finally let your body sink into deep sleep."
"When you wake up in the morning, don't do so in relation to objects, let it be in the Self, your true being. First of all be deeply aware, later the ego and the world will come to life."
"Expectation is like the carpet preventing us from seeing the floor simply because we are so used to seeing the carpet. The day we send it away to be cleaned, its absence allows us to see the floor."
"Perception is entirely independent of the perceiver and of the perceived object, which are but concepts. Perception is living, the only reality, now, however gross or subtle it may be. Each perception is a non-dual experiencing of pure awareness. Subsequently we may say: "I thought this or that, or I heard a chord in C major" ... at the actual time, there was no thought, no sensation, only "I am". With deep conviction, this fact will take root within up and we will no longer need to make an effort to remember it. It is this true understanding that turns the "I am" into a reality."
"In reality there is only the Self, the non-dual Self which is. Awareness is reflected in the mind's mirror, and this gives birth to the ego. Seeing this dependent and separate. We mistakelny take ourselves to be this or that, but in reality there is only the true "I am" beyond time and space."
"When one is struck by wonder or astonishment there is perfect non-duality between the knower and the thing known. It is a living reality. Let yourself be totally absorbed by it, then thought and action will derive directly from this background which is wonderment."
@Driverx & Co: dovezile sunt în tine, câtă vreme le vei ignora, le vei tot căuta în exterior..
driverx
25th February 2005, 14:03
Exista scrieri muuult mai vechi ca si Biblia, dar noh, ce sa ii faci, unii au invatat biblia, cu atat au ramas.
Mai, si daca avedarul absolut s-ar afla fix la mijloc, discutiile de genu tot nu au nimic constructiv. O discutie poate fi neconstructiva, "constructiva" (adica ne imbecilizam toti unii pe altii cu "argumente" biblice) sau constructiva cu argumente stiintifice.
Lucian vrea argumente stiintifice, dar el neaga stiinta. El le vrea sa le spunem noi, doar pentru a le murdari cu noroi si a le "demostra" nulicitatea lor.
andreic
25th February 2005, 14:03
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 13:11)
de ce nu au evoluat? de ce nu le-a crescut picioare sa umble pe pamant? de ce nu au evoluat domnule driverx? iti spun eu de ce! pentru ca nu se poate asa ceva! delfinul e creatia lui Dumnezeu, asa cum esti si tu, si eu!
Iar faci greseala asta clasica ?
Evolutia ia milioane de ani... nu apuci tu sa vezi cand si cum.
Skodaru
25th February 2005, 14:04
@zippy99: what ? pe scurt, te rog, ca ne faci capu' calendar
lucian123
25th February 2005, 14:04
QUOTE(evilone @ Feb 25 2005, 13:56)
Da exemple.
Edit: de unde stii tu ca Biblia e cea mai veche carte de pe pamant? Asta n-am mai auzit-o pana acum.
Ai auzit de sulurile de la Cumran? Asta una la mana. Al doi-lea si cel mai important e ca toata istoria Bibliei este confirmata de dovezi istorice din alte izvoare, dovezi arheologice.
Am mai spus asta, dar se pare ca ori nu vrei sa citici ce scriu, ori nu pricepeti.
Eu am spus o dovada( defaplt e un grup mare de dovezi).
Aduceti si voi ori contra argumente, dar logice nu aberante ori dovezi in favoarea teoriei voastre.
Daca nu: lasaa-nee, lasaa-nee.
andreic
25th February 2005, 14:05
QUOTE(calandrin @ Feb 25 2005, 13:54)
In continuare face salturi cu pumnii ridicati si scoate sunete nearticulate un oarecare Andrei Cioaca.
Saracul de tine 
Crezi ca esti interesant cand faci afirmatii dinastea dar derapeazi verbal, probabil din lipsa de activitate sau din plictiseala... pune lanturi 
Skodaru
25th February 2005, 14:05
QUOTE(Andrei Cioaca @ Feb 25 2005, 14:03)
Iar faci greseala asta clasica ?
Evolutia ia milioane de ani... nu apuci tu sa vezi cand si cum.
hai mai, adica ce? noi am avut timp sa evoluam si delfinii nu? care-i faza?
driverx
25th February 2005, 14:07
QUOTE(zippy99 @ Feb 25 2005, 13:59)
"The world exists because you exist...."
Uitati un exemplu clasic de sucit minti pe bigudiuri ca a lui zippy.
zipiule, te rog explica asta, ca e tare. Pe bune. Sunt chiar curios ce iti debiteaza capul. Dar te rog lasa-ne cu citatele, ca altii au aberat destul, nu abera mai mult si tu cu aberatiilor lor. Macar mai creaza ceva aberatii si tu, ca si ei, prostia trebuie sadita in continuu, ca altfel dispare. Alta proprietate a evolutiei, elimina ce nu e bun in sistem.
lucian123
25th February 2005, 14:07
QUOTE(driverx @ Feb 25 2005, 14:03)
Exista scrieri muuult mai vechi ca si Biblia, dar noh, ce sa ii faci, unii au invatat biblia, cu atat au ramas.
Mai, si daca avedarul absolut s-ar afla fix la mijloc, discutiile de genu tot nu au nimic constructiv. O discutie poate fi neconstructiva, "constructiva" (adica ne imbecilizam toti unii pe altii cu "argumente" biblice) sau constructiva cu argumente stiintifice.
Lucian vrea argumente stiintifice, dar el neaga stiinta. El le vrea sa le spunem noi, doar pentru a le murdari cu noroi si a le "demostra" nulicitatea lor.
Nu eu nu arunc cu noroi in argumente stiintifice.
Stiinta moderna accepta CREATIA.
Numai o gasca mica de nebuni (ma refer la oamenii de stiinta) mai accepta in ziua de azi evolutionismul.
Cei care dau cu noroi sunteti voi.
evilone
25th February 2005, 14:08
QUOTE(lucian123 @ Feb 25 2005, 14:04)
Ai auzit de sulurile de la Cumran? Asta una la mana. Al doi-lea si cel mai important e ca toata istoria Bibliei este confirmata de dovezi istorice din alte izvoare, dovezi arheologice.
Am mai spus asta, dar se pare ca ori nu vrei sa citici ce scriu, ori nu pricepeti.
Eu am spus o dovada( defaplt e un grup mare de dovezi).
Aduceti si voi ori contra argumente, dar logice nu aberante ori dovezi in favoarea teoriei voastre.
Daca nu: lasaa-nee, lasaa-nee.
Cine a spus ca sulurile alea sunt cele mai vechi? Din cate stiu eu cel mai vechi mit al creatiei cunoscut este Enûma Elish. Ma repet: chiar daca Biblia ar avea dreptate in unele privinte, nu inseamna ca are dreptate in toate privintele.
andreic
25th February 2005, 14:08
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 14:05)
hai mai, adica ce? noi am avut timp sa evoluam si delfinii nu? care-i faza?
Delfinii sunt evoluati deja daca nu ai remarcat... sunt printre putinele vertebrate adaptate bine la viata marina. Duc o viata sociala bine conturata, comunica fara probleme, prezinta stari emtionale aproape ca la om.
Sau tu crezi ca viata trebuie sa fie numai pe uscat ?
shapeshifter
25th February 2005, 14:09
QUOTE(Skodaru @ Feb 25 2005, 14:04)
@zippy99: what ? pe scurt, te rog, ca ne faci capu' calendar
Am postat asa lung pt. a reflecta asupra ce scrie acolo, nu pt. a intelege cu mintea imediat, e vorba aici de reflectie, observare si nu despre etichetare..
lucian123
25th February 2005, 14:10
QUOTE(Andrei Cioaca @ Feb 25 2005, 14:08)
Delfinii sunt evoluati deja daca nu ai remarcat... sunt printre putinele vertebrate adaptate bine la viata marina. Duc o viata sociala bine conturata, comunica fara probleme, prezinta stari emtionale aproape ca la om.
Sau tu crezi ca viata trebuie sa fie numai pe uscat ?
Mai bine decat unii dintre voi.
driverx
25th February 2005, 14:11
Dragi co-forumisti? Stiti ce constat eu aici ? (si totodata ma si distreaza de numa') Ca sunt douta tabere aici, dar sustinatorii evolutionismului sunt cam pe aceasi lungime de unda, pe cand voi cu creationismu luptati pe cai diferite. Dezechilibrul total a intervenit cand a venit zipiboy si va spart de tot cu citatele lui, ca nici voi nu le suportati.
Andrei....ce ne batem noi capul aici? Sa ii lasam in supa lor. Ei isi irosesc viata. Eu mio irosesc pe a mea aici incercand sa le explic niste valori pe care ei oricum o sa le nege.
