Evolution or Creationism


  

166 members have voted

  1. 1. Evolution or Creationism

    • Evolution
      109
    • Creationism
      57


Recommended Posts

[When the human evoluted from the monkey, why are these still monkeys?]

Mutations. Some cells/animals (not the race, single one) mutate, some don't. A lineof a race can thru mutation of some few members split into two, from whose the one steadies like they are, while the other continues developing. Also the early monkeys in stone age didn't look like the monkeys today. You should be aware of this. People just tend to call them monkeys coz of their ressemblance. It's like you call an eagle a bird as you call a road runner a bird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does not explain everything and evolution isn't fact as of yet. Creationism is based upon the belief of faith. Faith doesn't need explanations that science is looking for at this moment in time. Would you like to ponder this question-- What are you going to be doing for the next billion years (or for that matter eternity) after you DIE? Sitting on a beach, absolutely not. You only have the 70 to 100 years on this earth to live your life and the people looking for every reason to contradict that creationism is false are just wasting their time.

However, you peeps have never heard of near death experiences that have been experienced by millions of people. These millions of people have changed their ways of living based upon that experience. There was this one detailed experience with Pam Reynolds undergoing surgery where she was clinically dead for over an hour. Where was she for over an hour you may ask yourself? Apparently, upon her account she was overlooking her body on the surgery table until she entered the spiritual realm. Once in this spiritual realm she met her grandmother and some other souls (emanating light). She asked what that glaring light was and why she couldn't enter it but her grandmother said "it was God when he respirated and you can't enter because you?re not ready yet". When the operation was done all the blood from the containers were put back into her body and she overcame a brain tumor at the base of her brain. Apparently, science can't conclude how she had no brain electrical activity while she was clinically dead for over an hour.

Science is only good for one thing on this earth and that is to enhance God's creation and to be used to help other people. Science shouldn't be used to murder or do other things for personal gain.

We are all school children looking for answers and asking questions in this big classroom we call Earth. It?s alright to debate about evolution and creationism but what you don't understand is ordained by God himself. If he wanted to let the cat out of the bag a long time ago he would of and we wouldn't be talking about this right now. But then again God says in revelations he will reveal all before the end. So we will know if God does exist or not, it?s just a matter of time. You can keep debating all you want that evolution is fact and all set in stone for the rest of your natural life or until you have that sudden near death experience.

That?s my 2 cents worth. I only am presenting information that you can either believe or disbelieve but that?s up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason there are still monkeys is (in general) this:

a speciation event is the gradual production of a new species from some sort of common ancestor (a species is a reproductively isolated group of organisms that are capable of reproducing with each other and producing viable fertile offspring). like someone stated eariler.... we really didn't evolve from monkeys as we know them today. we evolved from some kind of ancestral mammalian primate that gave rise to other primates such as gorillas, chimps, and monkeys...

a new species is created when groups of the common ancestor become reproductively isolated from each other, thus allowing for selection, mutation, and gentic drift to act independantly on each population to the point where the two groups become highly differentiated from each other... for example, let's say a group of ancient primates becomes geographically isolated from another group somehow... let's say a few members of the population migrate across a mountain range (this specific example is called the founder effect, part of a larger theory of genetic drift). now each of the two groups has a different set of genes, alleles, and allele frequencies represented in their populations... since they are isolated from each other, no gene flow between the two populations will balance the ratio of alleles (gene variations) from this generation to the next, and a misrepresentation of certain alleles when compared to the original larger population will occur. this fact, along with the posibility that one population will be subjected to a much different environment that the other will cause natural selection to act differently on one group when compared to the other... also certain advantageous mutations may occur in one population and not the other. so over time, the genetic makeup of each population will become so different that two new species are now present. look up hardy-weinberg equilibrium sometime and you will see the criteria that must be met for allele frequencies to remain static over time... i think you will find that you can not think of a single instance of this criteria being met. thus, evolution of some kind is nearly inevitable no matter what the organism...

we share over 95% of our genes with chimps and gorillas... when compared to other mammals, like mice, we share much less but still a significant amount. thus it can be concluded that apes and humans were derived from some kind of common ancestor.

facts of human evolution:

1. we did not "come from" monkeys... we evolved, along with other primates, from a common ancestor.

2. evolution is gradual to the greatest extent of the word!!! it does not happen spontaneously or instantaneously

3. somatic (non-reproductive, i.e. not an egg or sperm cell) cell mutations are not heritable and not thus part of the evolutionary process.

4. Most importantly: EVOLUTION IS NOT A DIRECTED PROCESS. THERE ARE NO GOALS IN EVOLUTION. There is no grand design to life - everything happens by chance. We were not meant to be here in a cosmic sense... We are merely a product of chance, probability, and dumb luck... We have no purpose but the ones we create for ourselves. So create a worthy purpose for yourself and make a difference in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware that you cannot ultimately PROVE that a theory is fact.

That said, there are theories in science that have withstood the test of time, and the test of scrutiny so many times that it is just easier to claim it is a fact.

I believe evolution is one of those "factual theories". I study genetics, and believe me, the ultimate proof for evolution is written in each living cell's DNA. It's a storybook - non-coding sequences, dormant DNA, it's all there - all you have to do is look.

Yes I agree, there may be a point in time when evolution is disproved - but I consider the chance of that happening so small that I put my trust in evolution as a fact. Folly? Perhaps.

In regards to dredging up the old "earth is flat" "fact" - science was in its infancy at that stage in time, and remember there was little SOLID evidence to prove that the earth was flat - it was religious fanaticism.

Now, consider this, why is it that no one considers the term "the earth is not flat, it is spherical" as a THEORY? It is fact, right? We can go up in a shuttle and look down on our round world. Yet, when the scientist says - look here, you can see it in the DNA, in the fossil evidence, in the remnant organs, in the peppered moth (classic), etc, etc no one really looks.

It is my opinion that evolution will never be disproved. It is my opinion that it is as solid as the round earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, consider this, why is it that no one considers the term "the earth is not flat, it is spherical" as a THEORY? It is fact, right? We can go up in a shuttle and look down on our round world. Yet, when the scientist says - look here, you can see it in the DNA, in the fossil evidence, in the remnant organs, in the peppered moth (classic), etc, etc no one really looks.

Well, all religious people should be open-minded and still critical about the environment they inhabit provided by God. There was no mention that the earth was flat in the Bible. Yet, in the renassaince/enlightenment period, religious folk really didn't understand and didn't want to be open-minded that the earth was really spherical in shape. That was one of the mysteries left by God for people to find out. If all the answers were spooned fed to us, then there wouldn't be anything to debate or actually discover through science.

I applaud you that you do study genetics and maybe one day genetics will cure the bad genetic diseases that there are in our current world. This is another example why science can be good and help other people. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..., it's santa clause, if it's not santa clause, it's the easter bunny, and if it's not the easter bunny, it's the tooth fairy... [/b]

Are you telling me that none of them exist? I want my mommy!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many say 'Religion is lies!' and 'Think about what you believe!'

Ok, then I ask this...why must science and religion ever be in conflict? Think of science as our knowledge and understanding of the cosmos we inhabit, our measurement of existance if you will. Religion is the poetry of that existance, helping us to relate to that which cannot yet be measured.

As is the doctorine of Catholism (translated; Universal Belief), the beliefs of the Church shall not conflict with science. Very few people know that, and even less believe that the largest western religious organization would ever support science so heartily.

Yet think upon the history of the sciences. Many only wish to see where science has been held back by the Church, but look throughout the ages and you will be surprised to discover that science would not be where it is today without the help and encouragement of Rome.

Has Rome denounced evolution? No. Although I would be happy to add that Protestants (read; those in protest of the Church) have dennounced not just evolution but almost every scientific advancement to date, including the electric light bulb, the phonograph, the car, ALL biotechnology and so on and so forth.

They doth protest to much, methinks. Of course, having left the Protestant ways, I have found that so many of them do nothing but protest...

So please, open your mind not neccessarily to the Church itself, but to the beauty and poetry that drives us to inquire about our universe. To leave that behind could destroy the very humanity we value. The mystical, the paranormal is awesome, and as we learn more about these phenomena through science, perhaps that itself will lead us to more wonderous things in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does not explain everything because we have not had the time to learn everything science has to offer... But everything has a scientific explanation - everything, but that doesn't mean every scientific explanation can be understood by the human brain. You assume science is limited, only because our knowledge of science itself is limited... That is as ignorant as believing that everything revolved around the earth. They are both simply explanations that you tell yourself because of your very little knowledge of the universe... You have simply closed your mind to anything that could possibly exist outside of your education, your perception of what is possible and what is not possible, and your lack of knowledge of the universe.

We all have a lack of knowledge of the universe... even the most intelligent scientist. What we know of the universe is very little, and probably is comparable to searching for one needle in a billion hay stacks... The difference is, some of us have an opened mind about the universe, and are searching for answers rather than sitting around and deciding that we were put here by god, and there is no use believing in anything else... And we'll live our life a certain way so that we can be rewarded by a God once we are dead... and ultimately, end up staying on earth in its final days... when the sun reaches its own final days, ending life on this planet before it literally consumes it... believing that it is our destiny to stay on earth and be killed by the death of the sun.

Fortunately, religious fanaticism most likely will not survive during the period of a thousand years, and this will most likely not be the scenerio that happens, even though many humans will still die during the process, but before then, we will have probably already colonized another planet. :p

Science has been good for many things on this planet... without it, you would not be using a computer, driving a car, watching television, or traveling by air... You are taking science for granted, and belitting its effect on the human civilization, and its benefits. It is certainly good for a lot more than just one thing... I bet there are an infinite number of things it is good for.

As for near death experiences, it is just a process of the brain dying... You only see what you want to see, and since your eyes are closed, and you are unconcious, all your mind is capable of doing is to dream. But I do think a lot of these near death experience things are just a bunch of BS... Most of these people go on to write books, and they make money off of them... I believe it's all about making money from suckers who can easily be fooled. But it is quite possible for the one to see those things, but that doesn't make them real. Some people hallucinate and see snakes, but we call that a hallucination... not a religous encounter... And the same with dreams... We have dreams of all kinds, but that is just what they are, and what they will stay... they are not a reality. If they were, I would not be here typing to you... I would be walking down a dark hallway, trying to reach my parent's room, just when a monster in a cloak jumps out at me and begins tickling me... over, and over, and over again... And as funny as that may sound, The feeling of being tickled felt real, but it wasn't... And that was a reoccuring nightmare I had a child, and each time the tickling felt so real, and the pressure he put on his fingers while tickling me even hurt, and I felt physical pain in a dream... Does that mean it was some sort of miraculous thing created by God? No... The brain works in mysterous ways, not God... And what seems real, is not always real... and what seems fake is not always fake... Either way, I don't believe it has anything to do with God. It is just the result of an unconcous mind combined with our personal memories, fears, desires, and happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for near death experiences, it is just a process of the brain dying... You only see what you want to see, and since your eyes are closed, and you are unconcious, all your mind is capable of doing is to dream. But I do think a lot of these near death experience things are just a bunch of BS... Most of these people go on to write books, and they make money off of them... I believe it's all about making money from suckers who can easily be fooled. But it is quite possible for the one to see those things, but that doesn't make them real. Some people hallucinate and see snakes, but we call that a hallucination... not a religous encounter... And the same with dreams... We have dreams of all kinds, but that is just what they are, and what they will stay... they are not a reality.

Apparently, you don't understand that she was dead (brain dead) and so there was no dreaming. If the brain is clinically dead doesn't mean your dreaming. So then she was dead for over an hour but when you SLEEP your unconcious and dreaming while your body rests. Well, you can go on believing its all BS but people write the books because they want other people to know that DEATH isn't the end of the line but there is something after it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I basically comes down to this.

Things like science and philosophy have taken a standpoint that all is false until it can be proven based on experiment and discovery. Nothing is true that cannot be proven. It is a safe way to look at things because, idealy, fact is not biased by belief in mystical, unexplainable things.

Religion, on the other had, comes from the opposite direction. All beliefs, what ever they may be and where ever they may come from, are inherently true and cannot be disproven. Every religion has its form of the Bible and all put faith in it that it is true. Not until it is disproven will religion concede anything. It is therefore quite convenient that those things written in the Bible cannot ever really be proven or disproven. To the religious, this only affirms there belief and the argument stops there. I also believe a lot is put into the fact that the Bible has survived thousands of years. If it were not true, how could it have stood the test of time? The reason are many. It is a fantastic, intriguing, and entertaining set of tales of epic proportions. Many people need SOMETHING to believe in and it is there to embrace them. It was politically beneficial for many rulers in the past to embrace the Bible as it was something the people would respect and follow blindly.

Take mythology. The stories of the ancient Greeks and Romans are still with us today. Does that mean we believe in dozens of gods all ruling over us? No. But the stories are facinating and entertaining. There is no greater evidence of the human need for entertainment and sensationalism than the present. It is all around us. Probably the biggest franchise in the history of the world, entertainment, is fueled by it. Even the news uses it. Today it is used to draw ratings and make money. In the past it was used to united people under a common belief and to gain obediance from the ruling class and to punish those who challenged those beliefs.

I have no personal problem with religion beyond the fact that religion challenges all attemps to discredit it without ever proving itelf. Whatever the truth is, it will never be found in religion remains closed minded and holds unsubstantiated "truths" as actual defendable truths. By its nature, religion has put itself in the position of claiming truth and admitting it cannot found its claims beyond the fact that religion exists in the first place. All I ask is that religion consider changing its ways from presuming truth to taking the standpoint of science and work together to find what that truth is. The most difficult way to discover the truth is to go into the quest for it already presuming it is known what the truth is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put this in simple terms. I don't believe is valid Creationism because it is predicating on faith as being facts. A lot of Creationists,(especially Protestant) have a firm belief that everything is the Bible is true since it is God's words and it can't be false. As you can see, what scientific evidence can they draw on so that proves their theories true? None. It is all based on faith. Evolution has been refined and been proven with evidence. I'm not saying you should to not believe in Creationism since you can believe in whatever you want, however how can it be scientific fact when it is not proven by establish scientific methods? Untill then the burden of proof is on any religion who claims that their beliefs are facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I ever say that science cannot explain everything?

I believe that everything, even God, is based upon science.

The principles of science are the principles of existance. But why is it that even though science can be wrong at times, we don't throw it all out? Because that's what so many people wish to do with religion.

Gee, at one time, science proclaimed the world was flat. Better not let science move forward and evolve. If humanity took the same approach to science that it is taking with religion, then we would all still be living in huts. In religion, as in science, our understanding of it can be imperfect at times. Such is the nature of humanity.

Whats so dangerous with treating religion in this manner? It's That although science can help us understand the the miracles of the physical world it cannot help us make the moral decisions to interact with one another, at this time. Maybe never, because of our own limitations. Thus the poetry, the beauty of religious faith is called upon.

Religion and science. Yen and Yang. We need both to evolve to a higher state of existance. I may not understand the miracle of the creation scientifically, but I'm betting my very soul that Gods creation is scientifically measurable.

To creationists, the following; The phrase "a day", as translated from the original Hebrew writings, is "a period of time with a beginning and an end." Go back and reread Genesis, inserting the phrase "a day" with its proper meaning. Tell me, what is a day to one that is infinite? 24 hours? 1 million years? 1 trillion years? We will probably never know, but in the proper context, Genesis does allow for the Big Bang, and for dinosaurs (if one more creationists tells me God put the bones in the ground Im going to get a rifle and find a bell tower...), and for the evolution of man from the deepest depths of the oceans.

To the hard core scientific side I say this; Think of the quantum scale, if you can. Evision how that relates to this universe, to all universes. Can you think along that scale? Can you comprehend the magnitude? Thinking of infinite universes at the sub-atomic scale hurts my head. I just cannot even come close to imagining what I know is truth. And existance ticks off like clockwork. It is complex beyond our imagining, yet why have you blocked out the possibility, the most remote chance, that a being beyond our own scale, outside of our framework, could possibly exist? You marvel at the wonders of curved space, are astounded at the beauty of DNA, yet have no room for the awe of a higher power? The possibility of something unmeasured, yet that has had more influence on the history of the human race than perhaps any scientific discovery (well, fire wins that one...but it pretty close!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those people could just as easily go on talk shows and radio shows, and even preach to people for no price at all... yet they choose to write a book, and make millions off of their story... they make millions off of God... is that right? Would God approve? I hightly doubt it.

I never said that I don't believe in life after death... Personally, I like to think that the mind is separate from the body... like a picture of our brain that is preserved in an infinite energy source, what you might like to call a soul. Though I don't believe in it so strongly that I would live my life only for that one belief.

Deadzombie: You didn't say science cannot explain everything... but Borg77 did... So I was replying to his/her comment about that. But I do not believe we need religion to have science... But I do believe in the possibility of both of them completely combining 100% in the far future, where science itself will become a religion, while mixed with spirituality... Religion will survive in this form, but it will be quite a bit different from any religion we know of today... especially Christianity... That, again, is the power of change. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put this in simple terms. I don't believe is valid Creationism because it is predicating on faith as being facts. A lot of Creationists,(especially Protestant) have a firm belief that everything is the Bible is true since it is God's words and it can't be false. As you can see, what scientific evidence can they draw on so that proves their theories true? None. It is all based on faith. Evolution has been refined and been proven with evidence. I'm not saying you should to not believe in Creationism since you can believe in whatever you want, however how can it be scientific fact when it is not proven by establish scientific methods? Untill then the burden of proof is on any religion who claims that their beliefs are facts.

The Bible isn't a textbook full of theories and facts. It was spoken by the Word of God. There is scientific evidence to prove parts of the Bible are true as there are so called Bible archaeologists. I agree with you that science has to be proven through the scientific method as that it is the way of this world but not of the spiritual world. Science and religion can help each other in different ways to prove that there is a higher power. Until that day, science will always say it has the upper hand saying that God is Santa Claus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principles of science are the principles of existance. But why is it that even though science can be wrong at times, we don't throw it all out? Because that's what so many people wish to do with religion.

Whats so dangerous with treating religion in this manner? It's that although science can help us understand the the miracles of the physical world it cannot help us make the moral decisions to interact with one another, at this time. Maybe never, because of our own limitations. Thus the poetry, the beauty of religious faith is called upon.

First, science isn't thrown out because it is designed to be revised. Science concedes it is not absolute and, in fact, embraces the ability to change with new discoveries. Religion on the other hand, being largely founded in some sort of writing, i.e. the Bible, is not as happy to change. When the words within it are challenged logically and convincingly and religion is unwilling to concede and adapt, one must question its validity as a whole. After all, what patience do you have for someone who simply will not believe something you KNOW to be true. I'm not talking religion, I'm talking about everyday things. You know the exact way to get somewhere because you've done it a million times, but the person you are telling how to get there refuses to believe you because he thinks you are wrong. You know you are right, but he is unwilling to concede he may be wrong. Religion is very proud and, even though not human, has an ego. It has proclaimed truth for so long, it is not concievable to back down now. It must hold fast to what it has proclaimed. It has back itself into a corner by not accecpting that it might not be the truth and can't back down now. Science embraces challenge, it would not work any other way. The only way to expand our understanding is to accept all we know, all we have ever known and will ever know, as falable. We must admit that we may very well be wrong and embrace it as a strength. It allows us to expand our minds beyond what we currently see as the truth. The only absolute "Truth" at this point in our existence is that nothing is abolute. Be open-minded and embrace change. I would hate to believe all that is today is all that will ever be. There is a lot of science that I HOPE is wrong and only time will tell. Religion can unite masses of people in peace and understanding, but it cannot survive if it maintains that it is supreme and unwilling to change.

Also, the science of moral decisions and ethics is philosophy. It uses the same scientific method to try to understand moral and ethical behavior. Even before the Bible, philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle used the scientific method to try to reason morals and ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is proving religion by scientific evidence. Evidence has to be tested true not just stated as true. There is nothing wrong with religion, it starts getting screwed up when a group decided they want to prove their beliefs as both scientific and faithfully true. Yes science did proclaim the earth being flat as fact but that is what science is. The flat earth fact eventually was proven wrong through newly discovered evidence and it became fact that the earth is round. Religious belief being scientific fact is dangerous because it will be fact no matter what. What does church have to say if their "scientific belief" is false? I can bet any religion will try to come up with something to explain to maintain credibility, rather than admit it and change their belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those people could just as easily go on talk shows and radio shows, and even preach to people for no price at all... yet they choose to write a book, and make millions off of their story... they make millions off of God... is that right? Would God approve? I hightly doubt it.
They have gone on radio shows and have preached to millions of people as you have misunderstood without making any money.
I never said that I don't believe in life after death... Personally, I like to think that the mind is separate from the body... like a picture of our brain that is preserved in an infinite energy source, what you might like to call a soul. Though I don't believe in it so strongly that I would live my life only for that one belief.

Its good to see that scientific minds can be open-minded to the idea of life after death even if you don't believe in it so strongly. Religion and Science should stop all there "I am more elite then you are" sayings and combine forces to seek the real truth if you believe in God or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is proving religion by scientific evidence. Evidence has to be tested true not just stated as true. There is nothing wrong with religion, it starts getting screwed up when a group decided they want to prove their beliefs as both scientific and faithfully true. Yes science did proclaim the earth being flat as fact but that is what science is. The flat earth fact eventually was proven wrong through newly discovered evidence and it became fact that the earth is round. Religious belief being scientific fact is dangerous because it will be fact no matter what. What does church have to say if their "scientific belief" is false? I can bet any religion will try to come up with something to explain to maintain credibility, rather than admit it and change their belief.

You can't experiment on something if its not in the physical realm. But then again your right about certain groups of people within a particular religion. Islam is a peaceful and loving religion but radical groups like al Quaida believe that Islam is the one true religion and are willing to die for it. They are willing to kill as many people as it takes of any other religion to proclaim their's is number one. Chrisitanity is another example of a peaceful and loving religion. And there are groups within Christianity that will go to great lengths to disprove the scientific community but they go about it a different way unlike other groups do.

The Church itself should embrace the scientific community for the advancements that we have today. But there are certain scientific practices that are dangerous as you say certain religious practices are dangerous. There is a two way street for everything in this world: you either agree or you disagree. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they experience is not necessarily a religious experience when they are dead... There is a big difference between religion and spirituality... And experiences like these are what I believe to be spiritual experiences... not religious ones... And that really doesn't prove the existence of a God, although it can prove to someone personally that there is a life after death. And I am not debating whether or not that exists... I believe you can still believe in life after death without being religious... I am a walking example... I have no organized religion, but I believe in reincarnation, among many other things...

Our bodies are full of energy, right? Well, I have never heard of energy itself dying... So while our body dies, that energy inside of it still survives... Albert Einstein even said he believed in life after death because of the very thing I am talking about now... energy... And Einstein was a genious, and a man of science...

But this still does not prove the existence of a God, or even the importance of organized religion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bodies are full of energy, right? Well, I have never heard of energy itself dying... So while our body dies, that energy inside of it still survives... Albert Einstein even said he believed in life after death because of the very thing I am talking about now... energy... And Einstein was a genious, and a man of science...

I agree with you that our bodies are full of energy. After we die, we simply move on to a higher energy state (a religious person would say heaven or hell). So, even if you don't believe in God you will still move on as an energy entity thinking and perceiving in a different way then we do right now. But we won't perceive that way until we die. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to clear a couple things up...

I am a Christian, and I do believe in the inerrant word of God. Therefore i natrually believe in Creationism. The Old Testament has been proven to be accurate, and very factual. Documents have been found (including the dead sea scrolls) which DO supprt the OT writings we have today. They support them so closely, that the only differences are grammer and obvious translation errors. They have been dated around 200 years after Christ. In fact, more ancient writings have been found to support the bible than have been found to support texts by Homer and other ancient historical writings. By a very wide margin. It is one of the most used historical books by secular archealogical big wigs. The city of Nineva, which was mentioned in no other historical writing beside the bible, was found back in the 50s.

That being said...why do i believe what i believe? Its the most reasonable answer. Well...mainly for Creation. Think of Occam's Razor...is it easier to believe that this big bang happened that created the universe....what went bang by the way? If there was no universe, no stars, no planets, no energy, no nothing, what went bang? Continuing...so something went bang i guess...and it perfectly (at random) created the universe. Planets cooled...starts were in their place and we have the milky way galaxy. It just happened to be that every planet was put in perfect distance from each other and the sun. Each moon was put in perfect distance from each planet. Orbits somehow worked out nicely...etc...all by random chance. And earth just happened to be at the exact right place to be able to contain life. A couple feet in any direction, and we aren't here. So earth cools and land and oceans form etc. now there is this primordial goo sitting around. It just happened to be at the right place on earth at the right time. The right amount of amino acids are formed and and whamo! we have a protein atom. Now according to theory, this has taken 400 million years. And all we have is ONE protein atom.

Unfortunately for those that beleive that, it's impossible, and is not a widely accepted theory to the beginning of life.

"Not only was the time too short, but the math odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn't work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and life it for a billion years, the odds of creating just on functional protein molecule would be one change in a 10 with 60 zeroes behind it." Walter L Bradley, PH.D quoted in The Case for Faith....a professor at Texas A&M...he served as the director of the Polymer Technology Center there...needless to say, he knows his stuff.

He goes on to say that there isn't a theory on origin of life in the evolutionary community that hasn't been disproven. Right now...there are no options to the origin of man in science. How you tell me...does it take more faith to beleive in extreme odds above, does it take more faith to beleive that creationism is wrong, especially with no alternatives, or does it take more faith to beleive in an Intelligent Designer (which, by the way, many leading edge scientists are thinking is a possibility)

And as for evolution....yeah i think micro evolution exists. It exists in the many different breads of dogs or horses or cats. It is man-made in many things...like increasing the amount of milk a cow can give. I think it is pretty hard to deny that all forms of evolution aren't true. Now...macro evolution is not true, and has never been proven to be true. Darwin himself said that if no transition fossils are found, his theory falls apart. Well...none have been found so far...and its been what...over a hundred years since he wrote.

As far as how dinasours fit in the bible....i don't really know. The bible talks about massive beasts in the old testament, but it doesn't elaborate. I haven't done any studying, so I can't begin to theorize.

Ya know...I'm not against science at all. I don't really have a science/math mind. I'm more of a philosopher/theologian type... but I do think that science and religion can agree on some things...and obviously there are some things that they cannot agree on.

Well my soup is getting cold so i should be off...seems like there was one more thing i wanted to say....oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe in evolution and I think that this is the way human beings have appeared on Earth. In my view people need to have explanations for the questions they cannot answer for the time being. That is where their faith in God takes place. He gives them these answers. That cannot stop them from looking for the scientific facts. Their faith just gives them the ballance they need. After all evolution is fact and nobody can deny it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted an explanation of what caused the big bang... And I will post it again:

Fifteen billion years ago, give or take five billion years, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.

(If you want more, I'd be happy to post more)

And actually, nothing is perfect when it comes to the universe... Which is why new solar systems start out quite violently... many planets either being sent on death missions straight into their sun, or planets crashing into one another. That is hardly an organized or perfect way for the universe to work. Our moon is only here because of what is leftover of two planets, one bigger, one smaller, that crashed into eachother, while the leftover debris pulled itself together, creating a moon, while one planet still remained, even though it was very ugly, hot, and explosive. The crators on the moon are the result of the moon being bombarded over, and over again. Most likely caused when an asteroid hit earth, while the leftover debris hit the moon.

The universe is not nearly perfect... It is a violent, unpredictable, harsh place... it's the imperfections which have created some of the greatest things, and eventually, sometimes, the result of those imperfections can be something like Earth; a planet that can sustain life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifteen billion years ago, give or take five billion years, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.

But isn't it also true that physicists can't explain or can't find the most minute subatomic particles. Either that they are not there or just part of God's own creation. If the big bang did really happen, physicists and cosmologists should have an explanation of these so called minute subatomic particles. But time will tell if they will find an explanation for this last remaining big jigsaw puzzle piece. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't experiment on something if its not in the physical realm.

Exactly, so why is it so vigorously defended and held as the truth if it cannot ever be proven? You must admit, this makes it very hard to believe beyond just accepting it as so and moving on. The pedistal that religion is sitting on has been getting higher and higher since it began. It is so covated that it cannot be considered false. But what about 2000 years ago? To them it was the here and now. They were no different in mind than you or I, no better, no worse. I can make things up now as they could then. With no malice intended on any level, why could it not be considered that the Bible was something written in an attept to unite directionless people. To bring order to chaos. To give hope to those with none. It was not written to be the truth, but to convey a general morality and purpose. If we are to look at it this way today, then we would feel betrayed and devistated. But 2000 years ago, were those who wrote the Bible thinking about their ansestors 2000 years in the future? To look at it that was now would be scandelous. Then it would have been just a tool to unite the masses for a common good. To escape oppression and give hope to the future.

Do you know who Bob is? Bob is a being beyond all human comprehension. You cannot ever hope to understand his existence. He exists beyond all physical barriers. He connot be seen, felt, or heard. He can only be accepted. He is here to bring us all together under one common purpose. For this, you have only my word. Oh, yeah, I jsut made Bob up. He doesn't really exist.

Do you feel betrayed or lost? No, of course not. Not only did you not know of him, but I told you he wasn't real right away. What if the world today was desperate to find something common to believe in and I presented Bob to them. I would present his ideals and stand by his existence. What if people chose to believe me? With Bob's ideals we are able to overcome the trials and tribulations of the present. I made him up with nothing but good intentions. My goal was not to decieve, just to unite. My world was falling apart and I needed to do something. Now imagine 2000 years later. Bob has been held as the ideal for so long now. Countless other belief systems have sprouted off the original. Many accept his existence just as they accept the sun or the sky. No imagine if I could somehow travel 2000 years into the future and tell them I made it all up. How would they respond? Most definately with restistance. Chances are I'd be executed or, at the very least, ridiquled. Does that change the fact that I did indeed make him up? No. I included enough truth in my creation to make it seem possible, and over the years people devoted themselves to his existence existence and they continued the beliefs. I didn't care what people 2000 years from now think about Bob, in fact, I wasn't even thinking that far ahead. I was more worried about my present and my children's future. I had no idea that the ideals I created would be so embraced or long term. Those people of the future would be devestated to learn it was all a lie. The worst thing that can be done to a person is to take away all that they believed was reality and true, whether their belief were based on the truth or not. All they know is that they put their trust in something larger than themselves and to be betrayed by that is more than any person could handle.

I am not saying that the people who wrote the Bible were liers or out to decieve anyone. Nor am I saying that it is not possible that the stories in the Bible are true, either in part or as a whole. All I am saying is that those who wrote the Bible lived in a very different time. A time of oppression and hopelessness. All I ask is that the Bible be treated as what it really is. A book of stories that provide a system of ideals that could, and did, unite so many people under common goals and beliefs. The Bible very well could have saved the human race from anialating itself 2000 year ago, and there is no shame at all in that. But to assume that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be based on nothing more than those very claims it itself makes would be reckless. I am not against religion, only those who would choose to follow it blindly and hold the Bible as both the truth and proof to the existence of God based on nothing more than the very existance of that very Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.