Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: H. Godwineson on August 23, 2002, 01:16:06 PM
-
There was a documentary on one of the cable channels the other night (don't remember which one) entitled The Real Eve.
Among the revelations contained within the film was this bit of information:
Every individual in the world can trace their ancestry (through DNA) back to a single woman in Africa.
Apparently, the population of Homo Sapiens was so small at that point in prehistory that a single strand of DNA became common to all mankind. Another revelation is the following:
All Europeans, Asians, and North American Indians, are descended from a single group of 250 individuals who migrated out of Africa, across the Red Sea, about 100,000 years ago. One of the women in that group had four daughters. All modern members of the racial groups just mentioned, are direct descendants of those four daughters. Thus, even if you are European, Asian, or Native American, your remotest ancestors were Black.
Howdy cousin!
Regards, Shuckins
-
So where's my 40 acres?
You can keep the mule. My 4runner will do the job better.
-
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/realeve.html
-
ROFLOL!!
I love it when those sort of stupid documetaries get shown :)
Just reminds me how little some overly pompous scholars really know.
And assuming the african continent was as it is now 100,000 years ago whose to say its population was black?
Don't get me wrong... each to his own beliefs. :D
-
Originally posted by Awulf
ROFLOL!!
I love it when those sort of stupid documetaries get shown :)
Just reminds me how little some overly pompous scholars really know.
And assuming the african continent was as it is now 100,000 years ago whose to say its population was black?
Don't get me wrong... each to his own beliefs. :D
I don't think there is any danger of "getting you wrong". :rolleyes:
-
Ahh probably not Midnight :D
-
yes , and "educated " people once said the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth.
theory is theory, not fact
-
Must.. resist.... thread could blow..... reach 300+ again...
whew.
-
Originally posted by Awulf
Ahh probably not Midnight :D
Care to show us a better theory?
(including plausible evidence and research)
At some point in our evolution, one single specimen, very probable a woman, mutated and started what we are today.
Mutations dont happen in groups. The start with a single individual, and if the mutation is successful, that individual will pass it on to the next generation.
That is VERY plausible, no, PROVEN again and again.
And dont compare old time science with the new science. Old time science was, ironically, based on religion. And religion is fantasy for all we know (if it wasnt, then the earth WOULD be flat)
-
oh man... here we go again! Way to go Animal! I tried to warn you off, but Nooooooooooooooo.
-
A rather enjoy it when simpletons try to swim upstream against the tried and true scientific method and years of man-hours of investigation and research by many individuals, each many times more intelligent than our resident salmons.
I hope this will make a great thread :)
-
Originally posted by Animal
At some point in our evolution, one single specimen, very probable a woman, mutated and started what we are today.
Somewhere a woman mutated and started what we are today?
Am I the only one who finds this a bit far fetched?
-
Why far fetched?
Mutations are what jumpstart evolution.
Read Darwin before?
A woman mutates that key feature that will distinguish her from the rest of the specie (that would be "eve")
She has offspring wich after many generations take advantage of that useful mutation until it is perfected millions of years later to what we are today.
Of course, this is a simple summary.
-
Yeah, Ive read Darwin. So do you know that his theories have never been proven?
-
have they been disproven?
evidence leans more towards he being right. and its pretty damn good evidence too. some would call it proof.
Wait, here's a juicy one:
Originally posted by john9001
yes , and "educated " people once said the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth.
theory is theory, not fact
And how did those ancient men reach this theory? they sure as hell didnt use the scientific method we use today. Oh wait, GOD told them the earth was flat.
What happened when the true scientists came with good evidence that the earth was round? they we burned :)
(pretty sure some people fantasize that this practice be re-instituted :) )
-
Well, see its really not up to us to disprove a theory. It is up to the one presenting a theory to prove it.
And there are several things that Darwin himself admits he cannot explain with his theory. One such thing is the human eye. "It could not have been evolved, it must have been created" ...remember that part? (not exact quote, off the top of my head here)
-
The human eye has been explained, he didnt know because he didnt have the means back then to understand it.
Its not that complicated actually (how it evolved, not how it worked)
The human eye (and all other eyes) evolved from simple light sensing cells in early organisms. After millions of years these cells grouped together to form the begining of the early eye. The cornea was initially a protective layer of clear tissue that covered the light sensing cells. After many mutations (much trial and error) the cornea turn into the complicated part it is now, mutations, mutations and more mutations, and viola, you get an eye (althought primitive) wich will later evolve depending on the needs of each individual specie and its niche.
(summerized explanation, but to get to the point.)
-
don't believe in evolution?
look closely at a flounder.
-
No, that is not the part Im talking about.
To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.
Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.
-
I like Biology also so my 2 cents. The eye must have been eveloved in organisms. If it not, there would have to have been thousands of individual eye creations for each and every different organism that exists or have ever existed. So many different creations of a similar aspect of life on Earth. Its more likely that they all evolved from a common origin.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
No, that is not the part Im talking about.
To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.
Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.
Sometimes mutations are not that good for the specie, but they still remain because the specimens who carried it were dominant.
Not all mutations that are bad are discarded, only those that threaten the ability of the specie to survive.
Some monkeys still have some nice things that we dont, because we lost them during the evolutionary path.
It is possible for mutations to lead a specie into a dead end. It in fact is very common. Not all mutations are good. In fact, most are not, but every once in many many years, there is one that works.
-
Originally posted by Animal
And how did those ancient men reach this theory? they sure as hell didnt use the scientific method we use today. Oh wait, GOD told them the earth was flat.
What happened when the true scientists came with good evidence that the earth was round? they we burned :)
(pretty sure some people fantasize that this practice be re-instituted :) )
No, they could see for themselves that the earth was flat. Where in the Bible do you find "and I also made the earth flat"?
And eventually the "round earth guys" managed to prove their theory to be correct, something that Darwin has yet to do with his.
-
Evolution is a fact. Its methods are a theory.
Just one of the proofs of the hypothesis would be to predict a model of the natural world as it would be, due to evolution. The model looks like nature folks. For example there is a hierarchy of types that follow a natural progression from simpler to more complex.
You also have analogous traits for completely different species. Wings for instance. The shape and function of a bats wing and a birds wing are strikingly similar. Yet their derivation is very different (bone structure). Common solutions indicate that environmental pressures led these species to seek the same solution to the same problem with very different starting points. (by seek I mean of course unconsciously through natural selection and mutation).
-
I have not mentioned christians and the bible, I said God.
Some liars say god (or deity of your choosing) told them the earth was flat, another liar says he sailed to the edge and verified it, and you get a very believable theory for the time.
edit: i dont know if you have been to the ocean, i live next to it, and a quick peek out the window clearly shows that the earth seems round, there is obvious curvature, plus big ships dissapear at some distance.
-
I find people who argue against evolution amusing, because all the evidence is staring at them at their faces and everywhere they look, they are just too close minded to try and understand it.
And most times they have the capacity to. Too bad for them.
-
I think the fact that a bunch of drunk tards can actually form some sort of a loose association (read squad) and actually be able to turn on a computer is proof that while evolution is indeed a fact, some unwanted characteristics still can fall through the cracks. :D
Cobra
-
Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it doesn't need to be "proven", it just have to conform and provide an explanation to every related fact and experiment, and does that just fine, the same as Relativity or Quantum Theory. So when you hear that "evolution is just unfalsifiable" you can be sure that is ok.
Creation by God is a religious concept that lies out of the discourse of science, as science deals with natural, measurable and perceptible subjects, so God, Faith and supernatural matters have no place in any scientifical discussion.
On the other hand, the so called "Creation Science" is nothing but a ridiculous attempt to put Creation on par with Evolution as a viable scientific theory. The proponents of this "Creation Science" present their claims using dishonest means, distorted accounts and flawed logic, always trying to mislead their already convinced audience, befuddling them with nonsensical pseudoscientific babble while painting the scientific community as a bunch of evil atheists.
It's stupid and non Christian having to be dihonest and to outright lie to force feed your beliefs onto others.
Many religious scientists don't find any problem accepting that Evolution is a valid theory, the account of Creation in the Bible is just another parable, and they just see God as setting the rules of evolution and "quickstarting" the proccess.
On the subject at hand, the tracing of our DNA to a single individual might be possible, but I find the date given a little too close. It would be more palatable to me if they claimed we all were descendants of some african hominid 3 or 4 million years ago. I find also unappropiate naming that individual "Eve", as I wouldn't like those avid creationist out-of-context-quote miners having such an easy task.
-
HALT!!.... This is the Gene Police!!... YOU! Get out of the pool now!! :D
-
Why does the existence of evolution have to conflict with the concept of divine creation? I find the natural world to be marvelous and I consider the mechanism of evolution to be a miracle in itself.
In a very real sense there was an Eve.
What evolutionary scientists have not been able to do is tie homo-sapiens to any direct ancestors. There is no unbroken line of human evolution to study. A number of ancient relatives of man have been discovered, but the closest direct ancestors of Cro-magnon or homo-sapiens have yet to be discovered. A very puzzling "blank spot" exists.
I read once, can't remember where, that Leaky discovered an almost completely modern human skull in the layer of sediments below the layer in which the skeleton of Lucy was found. Doesn't seem likely does it? But what if it wasn't a hoax? Has anyone else ever run across that story? Think what a puzzler that would pose for modern scientists.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
No, that is not the part Im talking about.
To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.
Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.
What makes the human eye inferior to a monkey's eye, or any other species' eye? We are the only "animal" on this earth that can see the full spectrum of color. Of course, at the loss of motion awareness. A good thing always come with a bad thing...
-
By the way, for the record. I'm agnostic.
I dont believe in organized religion, but I do believe in "God" though I have a different broader definition of the word. And I believe all this came from somewhere, something made it.
But to say the evolution and such theories are lies, thats just ignorant.
I leave the discussion to midnight Target from now on.
*passes the torch to MT*
-
How did the first cell "appear"?
Does evolution apply on cells?
-
Originally posted by Animal
I leave the discussion to midnight Target from now on.
*passes the torch to MT*
I suggest all who want to participate try to find the thread titled "E vs C" and read it from cover to cover. IIRC it may be the longest thread ever on this board.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
How did the first cell "appear"?
Does evolution apply on cells?
Yes it actually does.
-
What evolutionary scientists have not been able to do is tie homo-sapiens to any direct ancestors. There is no unbroken line of human evolution to study. A number of ancient relatives of man have been discovered, but the closest direct ancestors of Cro-magnon or homo-sapiens have yet to be discovered. A very puzzling "blank spot" exists.
God of the Gaps argument. Looking for the unknowns of science and fitting a God on them makes little sense, and is dangerous to the idea of God, as he gets smaller and smaller space as science advances
People used to worship the Sun, now we know it is just a huge ball of burning gas.
OTOH, care to point that blank spot to me? I fail to find it:
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
How did the first cell "appear"?
Does evolution apply on cells?
Interestingly there have been studies that show that mitocondrian have an "older version" of DNA than the cell nucleus. Some have even speculated that mitocondria may be similar to the earliest cells and that a symbiotic relationship might have formed between early cells and mitocondria to boths advantage.
There is a hierarchy of one celled organisms too Hortlund. Streching from preons (which are almost viruses) to Amoeba and Parameceum which are probably as complex as you can get and still be one celled.
-
Hortlund are you actually reading and considering the stuff we are anwering, or are you sitting there rolling your eyes?
Curious.
Anyways this is the end for me I hope this gets big.
Anxious to come back monday and see how it grew ;)
-
This is just one little problem that must be overcome to explain the existence of the very first living cell.
According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell had to have been formed by naturalistic mechanisms that defy all the known laws of nature. Natural law says that all inanimate matter desires equilibrium.
Homogeny is the ultimate goal of nature. A living cell is almost infinitely far away from this goal. Every living cell is extremely complicated and yet one of these amazing machines, which still cannot be reproduced by science, just happened to come together even before “natural selection” was even theoretically around?!
Come on now. Is this a rational theory? Consider the fact that the simplest living cell is far more complicated than the best supercomputer in the world today. And yet many believe that such a cell assembled itself in a primitive ocean soup of this Earth about four billion years ago? Really? Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts? Why not? All the building blocks for a supercomputer are there mixed up in the desert sands. Volcanic activity, lightening, and wind could provide the necessary energy for construction. What's the problem? Homogeny. Homogeny is the problem.
Parts do not assemble themselves in a non-homogenous way because of natural law. Information and directed energy from an outside source is needed for the assembly of working parts that were originally homogenous.
In the very first cell (Assuming that there was a “first” cell), which came first... the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist.
So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Yes, the whole system is dependent upon all its parts being there simultaneously. Some have called such a system "irreducibly complex." DNA makes proteins that make DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, there could be no more primitive life form to evolve from. And, even if a lot of protein and DNA were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds of necessary unique proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA (not to mention the needed ATP molecules) would all simultaneously fuse together in a functional way?
Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has not even been theorized.
-
The lord works in mysterious ways ;)
That answers your question.
(without going into the special "soup of life" and how a touch of electricity will turn it into bio, wich will then try to find the most energy efficient way to endure, thus slowly forming the first primitive components of the first bacteria)
-
hehe have a great weekend you moron ;)
-
btw I would love to hear your theories about the "soup of life" and a spark of electricity. <-- seriously
-
Steve is attaking the wrong theory. You are right that the Creationist simplified view of abiogenesis theory seems greatly improbable:
simple chemicals -----------------------------> bacteria
but the model scientists work with is a bit more gradual than that:
simple chemicals->polymers->replicating polymers->hypercicle->protobiont->bacteria
Each step brings a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly get closer to being a living cell, rather than making one big leap.
-
start wherever you want, and explain protein, dna and the cell.
-
Takeda,
Have scientists been able to duplicate that process in the laboratory? Or is it still just theory?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Takeda,
Have scientists been able to duplicate that process in the laboratory? Or is it still just theory?
Regards, Shuckins
ONE LAST BEFORE I LEAVE!!!
(damn interesting threads, just had to check it out before I leave the door)
YES it has been replicated several times though I doubt they reached cell status. (that we know of; many of these experiments are not disclosed to the public because its tricky)
Steve if you want the process in detail someone else is better off explaining cause I'm not a true expert in biology and I dont want to roadkill you. I just know and understand the basics when it comes to that point.
I bet Takeda knows the stuff better.
Its nice that you are reading this stuff and grasping it instead of covering your eyes and ears and yelling LALALALAFCANTHEARYOU
Though if you keep pushing back far enough you will always reach a place in science where its all based on faith, thats where the purest concept of GOD comes to play. And the MORE we understand science, the closer we get to that concept. Dont set limitations, or you are actually working AGAINST your own true beliefs (wich is faith in god, wich most true scientists have (including einstein and steven hawkins))
CYA
(cousin pulling me by the shirt)
-
Ok, first, bear in mind that Abiogenesis is a completely separated theory and really less supported by fact than Evolution, so you can´t disprove Evolution by attacking Abiogenesis,
Abiogenesis so is closer to a hypothesis than a proper theory. Many of the predictions are still to be proven, but that is the way science works.
Basic and simplified Abiogenesis:
The forming of organic mater from simple chemicals under some conditions is far from random.
(Problem: were the early Earth conditions suitable?)
From there you end up getting very simple self-replicating RNA-like molecular structures.
(This is a difficult and important step, but experiments hint that it is possible)
Groups of self-replicating molecules end up beign more efficient than others and as they get more and more complicated they "need" a better and more complex reproduction mechanism so after many mutations you end up with a simple bacteria: a strand of DNA floating inside a membrane that reproduces itself by subdivision.
(I guess this will be really hard to get to happen on a lab, those things had millions of years to try every stupid combination they could bring about)
So, there you have your explanation, it has gaps, but think of what you risk placing God on them, as I said, he might be squeezed when facts come to support these ideas or a new and better theory accounts for these matters.
[Edited for horrible grammar]
-
Hortland.. for an intelligent person I'm having a tough time agreeing with you.
the 'pea soup/electricity" experiment yielded amino acids .
the basis of life.
Obviously humans don't have long enough life spans to simulate what takes place over eons to give absolute proof one way or another.
Belief in theorys, religion, god figure, evolution of cells, electrons, whatever, all require us to 'read between the lines'. It's one of the things that makes us human.. the ability to have our minds go past mere observation.
-
This has brought a question to mind.
Does the fact that all Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans are descended from a group of Africans mean that Klan members now have to hate themselves?
Curious, Shuckins
-
I think the fact that a bunch of drunk tards can actually form some sort of a loose association (read squad) and actually be able to turn on a computer is proof that while evolution is indeed a fact, some unwanted characteristics still can fall through the cracks.
Survival of the species is everybodys buisness.
Does the fact that all Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans are descended from a group of Africans mean that Klan members now have to hate themselves?
Somebody get me the gaff.
I'm kinda enjoying the resta the thread tho.. so; hortland, yah piqued my intrest. Tell me, what came first; the amazinhunk or the appetite?
is god the eveready bunny?
will animal put up a mouse controlled slideshow depicting hortland pulling his shirt on/off??
-
What difference does it make where we came from? Where we're going is whats worth argueing about. God is the missing link... whatever "God" is. Lets just hope "God" can keep us from destroying ourselves.
-
Getting back to Eve, the documentary did not discuss perhaps the most importanat facet; The Eve was in fact from the fourth planet of Regulus. I read it on Art Bell, so it must be correct. Wait! Did you see that? :)
-
Geez... go away from the BB for an evening and it takes an hour to catch up on this thread ;)
So, there you have your explanation, it has gaps, but think of what you risk placing God on them, as I said, he might be squeezed when facts come to support these ideas or a new and better theory accounts for these matters.
If you didn't place God in here somewhere you would have nothing.
No surprise here but I definately believe in God and that we were all created in His image.
God has revealed all the truth that is now in the possession of the world, whether it be scientific or religious. by Brigham Young
When I was a child, my family would put together a huge jigsaw puzzle each Christmas, one that would take a week to finish, with thousands of small, look-alike pieces. Each piece fit in only one place, and we could complete the picture only by placing each piece correctly. When the Lord allows the scientists to discover all their parts, and he sees fit to reveal his part, the “picture” of what scientists have learned and the “picture” of what God has done will be the same. by Don Lind
In the end I fervently believe True Science and True Religion will support each other.
-
guess it will do as a theory until we uncover yet another "oldest" corpse somewhere. Sheesh... these guys can't even tell you what happened a couple hundred years ago and now they come up with this? They need a little better proff for me. Not that I care one way or the other anyway except..... when do I get my slave pay bonus?
lazs
-
guess it will do as a theory until we uncover yet another "oldest" corpse somewhere. Sheesh... these guys can't even tell you what happened a couple hundred years ago and now they come up with this? They need a little better proff for me. Not that I care one way or the other anyway except..... when do I get my slave pay bonus?
Bashing paleonthologists, recent era historians and "black whiners" with just a three liner... can't compete with that. I surrender to your "m4d r3asonin' skillz".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not that I care one way or the other anyway except..... when do I get my slave pay bonus?
lazs
DOH!! I firmly believe in the African woman thingy being my Grandma.... I DEMAND REPARATIONS!!
-
I got my bellybutton kicked by a spider monkey in 6th grade. I got too close to his cage and he ripped my shirt off, pulled out handfuls of my hair and scratched my face up. The point is that maybe it's the monkeys who evolved from man and not the other way around. After all they're stronger and faster than we are and, in the case of the FDBs they're brighter too.
-
Was it after the spider monkey incident you decided to pick up bungee jumping Elf?
-
takeda... is there anything wrong or... not correct about anything I've said about paleo's, black whiners or recent historians? Or.... is it just that you are from spain?
elf... when I was a kid, the people down the street were stupid enough to buy their kid a spider monkey... She was showing it off by letting it ride on her shoulder.. for some reason (unknown to us lesser primates) the monkey got pissed (literally and figureitively) and... well, whenever anyone uses the expression "gonna tear off your head and piss down your neck"... I think of that day. I believe they now own pit bulls or rots or something..
lazs
-
LOL Lazs...it's sounds like Darwin is trying to work on your neighbors down the street, just needs a couple of more tries at it.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by john9001
theory is theory, not fact
You are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Theory is a fact in scientific vernacular. Of course science does not claim fact to be an "absolute truth" either.
That "mitohondrial Eve" issue is very confusing to laypeople. If there was a population of 10,000 or 250 people at some point among which that "Eve" lived, we are descendants of every single one of them who had any descendants.
The only special thing about the "Eve" is that we could trace our ancestry to her through unbroken female line.
From everyone else we would be descended through mixed male-female chain.
There is great probabliity that we have much more recent common ancestor than that "Eve" - we just could not use mitohondrial DNA to trace the descent.
miko
-
Then.... why did God spite the Dinosaurs?
Was it really like what they said in the Simpsons.. they ate some of them forbidden fruits?
Chances are there were some "first" human(s)... we had to change from being a species of apes at some point.
People who believe in creation have no more proof of their belief than people who think evolution is the answer... except there's a whole lot more backing evidence for evolution.
-SW
-
The Bible does not contradict the theory of evolution.
Genesis 1: 26-28 speaks of the creation of mankind..."and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air...and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..."
The creation of Adam and Eve is not spoken of until the second chapter of Genesis. By implication there were already other people in the world. Some Biblical scholars might disagree with this statement, but others believe that the creation of Adam and Eve was a "special event," clearly distinguishable from the creation of mankind.
You don't agree? Then read the fourth chapter of Genesis, which tells the story of Cain and Able. After Cain slew his brother, the Lord cast him out of the land in which he was living. The ground was cursed and would no longer yield a bountiful crop for him.
Cain said..."My punishment is more than I can bear. Behold thou has driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
"And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
If it is true, as some anti-Evolutionists maintain, that Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Able were the only people in the world at the time of this event (Adam and Eve's next son, Seth, was not born until after the death of Able)
then who was Cain afraid of? If there were no other people in the world then Cain's lament is the ultimate expression of paranoia.
Go to verse 17 of the same chapter. "And Cain knew his wife"
Where did she come from?
Return to verse 17; "...and she conceived, and bare Enock: and he builded a city..."
He built a city? For what? There was no one to live in it?
Reading further in the fourth chapter of Genesis we find that all the sons of Cain (and there were many) found wives. Where did they come from?
As you can see, the Bible itself contains evidence that there was already an established population of humans in the world when Adam and Eve were created by God.
Regards, Shuckins
-
But what about the Dinosaurs?
Wooly Mammoths?
Ice Age?
-SW
-
:rolleyes:
nope, not biting goodwinsome.. or (can't remember)
-
Were you thinking of "Smite"?
or were you saying that God killed them cause he hated them?
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Then.... why did God spite the Dinosaurs?
-SW
-
No, spite.
He must of hated them if he killed them.
Or am I confusing one "loving God" with something else?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
The point is that maybe it's the monkeys who evolved from man and not the other way around. After all they're stronger and faster than we are and, in the case of the FDBs they're brighter too.
That's a myth!
Monkeys are just better AH pilots than FDBs and have superior social skills.
-
Maybe it was a game to God like Doom, he came thru blowing them away because he was bored
----------
Maybe he loved them so much that he wanted all the little Dinosaur souls in heaven with him :D
----------
Maybe he looked away for a few mins and something else got em.
---------
Maybe he looked down one day and screamed "THOSE BASTARD DINOSAURS MUST ALL DIE!!!" and then he kilt em.
you sound pretty sure tho...
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
No, spite.
He must of hated them if he killed them.
Or am I confusing one "loving God" with something else?
-SW
-
"you sound pretty sure tho..."
Nah, just pointing out the irony in an "all-loving" God... when he allows so many of his creations to slip from his fingertips.
Dodos, Dinosaurs, animals from the ice age, pre-historic man, etc.
But hell, what do I know... atleast the Bible sets it all straight.... errr, wait a minute....
-SW
-
WE ARE ALL DECENDENTS OF KIRK TANK!!
-
Could you explain to me the extent of God's fingertips?
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
"you sound pretty sure tho..."
Nah, just pointing out the irony in an "all-loving" God... when he allows so many of his creations to slip from his fingertips.
Dodos, Dinosaurs, animals from the ice age, pre-historic man, etc.
But hell, what do I know... atleast the Bible sets it all straight.... errr, wait a minute....
-SW
-
That's Captain Kirk Tank to you!!!
Originally posted by 10Bears
WE ARE ALL DECENDENTS OF KIRK TANK!!
-
The extent is the reality that we know.
Afterall, everything else is just subjective conjecture based on a book that was written by 5000+ year old simpletons that may or may not have been playing with a whole deck of cards.
Reminds me of a Chris Rock skit... God used to talk to everyone, atleast that's how it is in the bible... now-a-days, who's he talking to? Those people on the street talking to themselves? The ones proclaiming to be God? The ones proclaiming to be messengers of God?
Did he decide to just stop talking once the bible was written?
Aside from a faith based on a book written 5000 years ago by very simple people as a means to justify/explain their existence that has gone through thousands of revisions... what else do you have to explain/justify that there is a God?
Just because we can't fathom it, doesn't mean someone/something else had to create it.
-SW
-
Proof of existance of God, that's another thing that has slipped throught his fingers ;)
I think one of the greatest limitations of human thinking is that it's so human centric.
And I think people who boldly proclaim to know things for which they cannot have absolute proof, die in strange ways.
Maybe God hates them too.
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
The extent is the reality that we know.
-SW
-
Again, that's all subjective conjecture.
I could just as easily say space aliens struck down that crack head down the street with a yellow laser beam as I could say that someone's God working in mysterious ways struck down that crack head with a bolt of lightning.
There is no proof either way other than what you see. Luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, God, or simply toejam just happening with no real rhyme or reason... any of the aforementioned ideas could explain someone's death, someone having to suffer through deaths of people close to them, or just the way things happen on earth.
Faith is just that, and trying to explain the existence of God by relying on human foibles when all else fails... well that's just seems like a way of saying "well, I don't really know... but maybe this will explain what I think"... so until one of us meets our fate, you are no more right than I am. However, I can explain my philosphy by using what's around me... while faith is sitting there desperately leaping up and down reaching for every strand it can to explain life and the existance of a God.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Aside from a faith based on a book written 5000 years ago by very simple people as a means to justify/explain their existence that has gone through thousands of revisions... what else do you have to explain/justify that there is a God?
AK, you said the word yourself- "faith." No, I don't believe I'll die, go to Heaven and sprout wings, but I know my spirit will continue on. I know this is but one step in an eternal journey and I also know we aren't really capable of understanding what happens after this. My faith alone convinces me there is a God. It's all I need.
-
My only question.......Was Eve a hottie???
Cobra
-
God killed the dinosaurs and mamooths because they were a failed experiment and he hated them as his retard childs.
I'm beginning to think he is starting to feel the same way about us. He keeps failing his little experiments and blaming the results on his offspring :rolleyes:
-
Thomas Aquinas - Not that I agree, but there are thinking people who have tried to prove God's existence. A good read nontheless.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NO.
she didn't have to be, being the only female around !
-
Yeah Elf- I said faith.
I never said I was right. I never said people who believe in a God, afterlife, etc, were wrong.
According to what I have come to know, what I have seen, what is around me in this reality... I lean more towards no God or divine whatever.
If I'm wrong, I go to hell. If I'm right... eh, won't even be around to care.
Have faith all you want, just don't expect other people to accept it as willingly, or to follow it as blindly... and don't get upset when someone has a differing view point.
Remember, the majority is right about 50% of the time.
-SW
-
Ignorance is a revelation of God.
that's catchy...
what a blabbermouth.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Thomas Aquinas - Not that I agree, but there are thinking people who have tried to prove God's existence. A good read nontheless.
-
Midnight, thanks for that very interesting quote.
This theological discussion is interesting. Some have been calling for proof. But they are missing the point. We are not supposed to have proof, we are supposed to have faith. And if you think about it, some of the most important things in the world exist without proof.
Do you love someone? A child, a brother, a parent, a wife, a girlfriend...?
Can you prove that you love that person?
Does the fact that you cant prove it make that love any less real, any less important, any less true?
-
Hortlund-
Love is a human emotion. It's just as real as being sad, glad, happy, pissy, etc.
I can't prove to you I'm sad, unless I have a tear coming down my face. Even then, am I sad? Or is it just something in my eye?
Emotions can be proven by change in the bio-rhythm... atleast I saw it on the discovery channel a few years back.
OTOH, belief is just that. We believed the world was flat. We believed the earth was the center of the universe (please note: this was after religious folks changed from the firmament being the skies above and pushed it further out into the universe). We believed there were witches(Salem)....
We believe a lot of things. If you were uneducated, I could convince you that lightning was because the Gods were pissed off. Oh wait, they did that in ancient Greece and Rome.
Just saying, the invervention of "God" is used to explain a lot of things our feeble minds can't quite grasp.
;)
-SW
-
You are missing my point.
Ok, how about this. Did you love your first girlfriend? Can you prove that?
-------
And if you want to debate over primitive man or ancient mans beliefs, it will only be misleading. "We" is far to vauge to have any sort of meningful discussion. Let me just point out that "we" also believed that it is impossible to survive drinking salt water alone, we believed that wild animals would stay away from fire, we believed that you can get water if you melt snow ...and we were right about those things.
Its about faith. Personal faith, I cannot give you my faith, nor can I convince you, or prove to you that I am right and you are wrong. Because everyone must search his own heart to find his own truth.
-
what's the guys name again that saw the snow and said hey I bet you could get some water out of that..
before he got wet.
Or that guy who looked at fire and thot, man animals will NOT dig this stuff!!!
before he saw them move away from it.?
Originally posted by Hortlund3
we believed that you can get water if you melt snow ...and we were right about those things.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Yeah Elf- I said faith.
I never said I was right. I never said people who believe in a God, afterlife, etc, were wrong.
According to what I have come to know, what I have seen, what is around me in this reality... I lean more towards no God or divine whatever.
If I'm wrong, I go to hell. If I'm right... eh, won't even be around to care.
... and don't get upset when someone has a differing view point.
-SW
SW, your faith (or lack thereof) is your own business. I doubt the existance of Hell as a place where non-believers go, so I think you're off the hook on that one. He'll probably just make you wax the clouds for a few thousand years or so. :)
It's ironic your view of the world around you convinces you there is no God whereas my view of the world around me convinces me there IS a God. I look at a sunrise, a budding plant, an infant and I see God's wonderful gifts of nature and life.
LOL now don't YOU get upset because someone has a differing view point. Our spiritual beliefs are our own business, and I wouldn't think less of a person that was agnostic any more than I would think less of a person because they were a Hindu. God loves all of us, SW. I believe that.
-
I could if at that time I was hooked up to one of those machines... then I could prove it.
That's my point.
Some things were believed in because they were correct. Some things that were believed in, were because their simple minds couldn't understand it.
Enough pirates out on the sea, some of 'em drank sea water and died. Others lived to tell about it and found it, you DO die if you drink it.
Same with fire, some primitive man started waving fire around on a stick at some animals... they ran away. He grunted to his buddies, and they started using fire to keep animals at bay.
Snow was placed onto a fire to put it out... snow melted, but the fire also went out. But the proof is in the pudding, they made water out of snow/ice.
But when you start placing all of your cards into your heart, that's when you effectively give up on trying to find out the real truth. Your "heart" is no more going to guide you to the answer than the Bible, or some scientists. Nor will you find out the absolute truth if you arrive at one conclusion, and just because it's the most widely accepted, it's the one that you choose as your final conclusion.
Case in point, I use to be religious, and use to believe there was a God.
Now I don't know what there is... I only know reality, and that's all anyone knows. Everything else is just faith, belief and subjective conjecture.
So trying to explain/justify the existance of a God, Gods, or whatever, based on the majority of people's acceptance, or based on a 5000 year old book written by simpletons that's gone through thousands of revisions, seems a bit silly to me...
Now if that mythical judgement day comes (hey, wasn't that supposed to happen a couple of years ago? Could of sworn the bible said 2000 years), or I die, then I'll know there is a God/whatever you want to call it.
Until then, science is doing a helluva lot better job explaining reality than religion has ever done.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Kanth
what's the guys name again that saw the snow and said hey I bet you could get some water out of that..
before he got wet.
Or that guy who looked at fire and thot, man animals will NOT dig this stuff!!!
before he saw them move away from it.?
I think it was the same guy who looked at the ground and saw that it was flat actually. Or maybe Im thinking of the guy who stood in his observatory watching the sun and the moon and the stars move all over the sky while the earth was not moving at all.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Until then, science is doing a helluva lot better job explaining reality than religion has ever done.
Actually SW science has never explained anything about reality, all they are able to do is describe reality.
Science has never been able to answer the "why" question...did you know that?
An example: I hold my mug of coffee above my desk and then drop it. I ask science why the mug falls down on the desk and spills coffee all over.
-"Gravity", they answer.
-"Why does gravity make my cup of coffee hit the desk?" I ask
-"Because large objects attract smaller objects, in this case, earth (large object) attracted your cup of coffee (smaller object), the larger object pulled the smaller object towards itself.
-"But why does large objects attract smaller objects?" I ask.
There are two possible answers here, either science will start moving into advanced theories of gravitational waves or gravitational strings or whatever (something that will only lead to yet another "why" question from me. Or science will lose its temper with pesky me and say
-"Because thats the way it is" <-- (that is NOT a valid answer to a "why" question btw).
-
And btw...your reply back there "I could if at that time I was hooked up to one of those machines... then I could prove it."
That means you cant prove it...right? So does the fact that you cant prove it make it any less true?
-
I think the real point here is that a religious belief tends to encourage acceptance, while a scientific belief tends to encourage further questioning.
I'd rather have the questions.
-
Hortlund, get back in your cage.
I believe in faith. I don't believe in the thing that is the object of that faith.
-
He is the man that knows that God exists.
he may also be the first man to light his own farts..but there is no evidence of this..
but I have faith that it's true.
Originally posted by Hortlund3
I think it was the same guy who looked at the ground and saw that it was flat actually. Or maybe Im thinking of the guy who stood in his observatory watching the sun and the moon and the stars move all over the sky while the earth was not moving at all.
-
Hortlund3: That means you cant prove it...right? So does the fact that you cant prove it make it any less true?
Sure it does - for me. You are the only one who has access to your brain without some intermediate hardware involved.
Statement "I love X" may be true for you but statement "Hortlund loves X" is not true for me or anyone else - it's just an unfounded speculation. In order for us to agree on it as a fact we would need some kind of verification.
Actually SW science has never explained anything about reality, all they are able to do is describe reality.
You are wrong here - any system of knowlege, including religion, describes reality. The unique property of science is that it makes usable and verifiable predictions and that all its statements can be disproved.
There is a whole lot of knowlege that does not fall under the definition of scientific knowlege because there is no way to disprove it or make verifiable predictions based on it even if it were true.
And science does explain things rather than describe them - e.g. chemist determines the properties of a compound that does not exist yet using known properties of elements and known chemical principles - and then verifies them, not combines elements and then describes what the heck he got. In fact only when it became able to make prediction did chemistry became a science.
There are two possible answers here, either science will start moving into advanced theories of gravitational waves or gravitational strings or whatever (something that will only lead to yet another "why" question from me. Or science will lose its temper with pesky me and say...
Scientist woulds say - "we don't know yet but what we do know is consistent with all observation and experiments".
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Science has never been able to answer the "why" question...did you know that?
An example: I hold my mug of coffee above my desk and then drop it. I ask science why the mug falls down on the desk and spills coffee all over.
-"Gravity", they answer.
-"Why does gravity make my cup of coffee hit the desk?" I ask
-"Because large objects attract smaller objects, in this case, earth (large object) attracted your cup of coffee (smaller object), the larger object pulled the smaller object towards itself.
-"But why does large objects attract smaller objects?" I ask.
There are two possible answers here, either science will start moving into advanced theories of gravitational waves or gravitational strings or whatever (something that will only lead to yet another "why" question from me. Or science will lose its temper with pesky me and say
-"Because thats the way it is" <-- (that is NOT a valid answer to a "why" question btw).
Actually, the why question can be answered all the way down to protons, neutrons and electrons... and even smaller matter (yes, it does exist and we have found it).
The only limit to how many why questions you can ask before they stop answering is when you get too confused to form a sensible question.
But you still failed with the point being that it doesn't answer "why"... it answers plenty of whys. It just doesn't answer the "why" of why we are here.
But then again, the only thing that comes close to accomplishing that is a book that may or may not be completely fictional.
Science is well on it's way to explaining the "why" of why we are here and all that. It's been doing that quite well for years now.
Religion, OTOH, just relies on you believing without further delving into the subject.
Of course, the easiest route to understand is the simplest... and believing in a "God" is the simplest. Nevermind all that technical mumbo jumbo, it's just confusing and too hard to understand.
But when I ask you the "why" of why God created us, why he saves some of us, why he condems others, etc... you'll be just as stumped as the scientist you are asking the "why" questions of when he runs out of proven theories... meanwhile the priest is explaining the answer to his "why" questions with a 5000 year old book written by extremely simple people that has been revised/translated/butchered since.
That's all I'm saying.
-SW
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Statement "I love X" may be true for you but statement "Hortlund loves X" is not true for me or anyone else - it's just an unfounded speculation. In order for us to agree on it as a fact we would need some kind of verification.
[/b]
I get the impression here that you are of the belief that there are no objective truths? For the sake of argument, lets assume that there exists something we can call "truth". My statement "I loved my first girlfriend" is true. Although I am the only one who knows this and I have no way of proving it, yet it is true. And the point is, it is true, even though I cannot verify it in any way. You need only ask yourself the same question to realize that there can be such things as truth without proof.
You are wrong here - any system of knowlege, including religion, describes reality. The unique property of science is that it makes usable and verifiable predictions and that all its statements can be disproved.
[/b]
In what way does that make me wrong?
There is a whole lot of knowlege that does not fall under the definition of scientific knowlege because there is no way to disprove it or make verifiable predictions based on it even if it were true.
[/b]
So scientific knowledge is not neccesarily the same thing as "truth"...correct? Scientific knowledge is not constant, it changes over time depending on what the latest set of verifiable predictions are. Truth however, never changes.
And science does explain things rather than describe them - e.g. chemist determines the properties of a compound that does not exist yet using known properties of elements and known chemical principles - and then verifies them, not combines elements and then describes what the heck he got. In fact only when it became able to make prediction did chemistry became a science.
[/b]
Disagree, the only exact science is math, and that is only because we made it up.
Scientist woulds say - "we don't know yet but what we do know is consistent with all observation and experiments".
Exactly.
Now let me ask you if you agree with the following:
Using science, or scientific knowledge as a base for argumentation for or against the creation or existence of a higher being is pointless because science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.
Science will never know whether science has access to all avaliable parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anyting with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Science will never know whether science has access to all avaliable parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anyting with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.
Hortlund, you don't know that at all. Science is still very young in terms of human existance.
I'll bet you 80 years ago, you would of said that we couldn't create life.
Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Reminds me of a Chris Rock skit... God used to talk to everyone, atleast that's how it is in the bible... now-a-days, who's he talking to? Those people on the street talking to themselves? The ones proclaiming to be God? The ones proclaiming to be messengers of God?
Did he decide to just stop talking once the bible was written?
That aint no Chris Rock skit. Thats Chris Rock in the movie "Dogma", isnt it?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Actually, the why question can be answered all the way down to protons, neutrons and electrons... and even smaller matter (yes, it does exist and we have found it).
[/b]
Not really, the answer to the why question on the "proton, neutron and electron"-level is still "large objects attracts smaller objects"..or rather, "all objects attract eachother depending on mass" (some engineer type can probably give a better definition of gravity, but you get the idea).
The only limit to how many why questions you can ask before they stop answering is when you get too confused to form a sensible question.
But you still failed with the point being that it doesn't answer "why"... it answers plenty of whys. It just doesn't answer the "why" of why we are here.
But then again, the only thing that comes close to accomplishing that is a book that may or may not be completely fictional.
Science is well on it's way to explaining the "why" of why we are here and all that. It's been doing that quite well for years now.
[/b]
Yeah, sure...
"First there was nothing, then it exploded" <-- Big Bang theory.
Religion, OTOH, just relies on you believing without further delving into the subject.
Of course, the easiest route to understand is the simplest... and believing in a "God" is the simplest. Nevermind all that technical mumbo jumbo, it's just confusing and too hard to understand.
But when I ask you the "why" of why God created us, why he saves some of us, why he condems others, etc... you'll be just as stumped as the scientist you are asking the "why" questions of when he runs out of proven theories... meanwhile the priest is explaining the answer to his "why" questions with a 5000 year old book written by extremely simple people that has been revised/translated/butchered since.
The fun/sad part is that you dont realize that you are clinging to science the same way others are clinging to their religion. You wont find any more answers from science than you will find in the Bible. Somehow that escapes you.
Once you realize that science does not provide answers, only descriptions or observations, maybe then you will realize that just as you accuse others of taking the easy route, by putting their faith in God, you yourself are also taking the easy route, but in another direction, you are just putting your faith in science.
-
Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.
Hence, had someone said we couldn't create life, they would have, in fact, been correct.
-
How so?
They didn't use embryos... they just used genetic matter.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Hortlund, you don't know that at all. Science is still very young in terms of human existance.
I'll bet you 80 years ago, you would of said that we couldn't create life.
Scientists created a sheep from the cells of another sheep.
-SW
That is not to create life. Cell=life. So science has been able to take life, and mix with it. Come on SW, you have to do better than that.
And science is exactly as old as humankind itself.
-
Sling- it was on one of his DVDs... think it was Bigger and Blacker.
Hortlund-
Not really, the answer to the why question on the "proton, neutron and electron"-level is still "large objects attracts smaller objects"..or rather, "all objects attract eachother depending on mass" (some engineer type can probably give a better definition of gravity, but you get the idea).
Errr... okay... whatever, that's the most basic explanation I've ever seen. If that's where you think the end the knowledge of those subatomic particles ends... maybe you need to take some college level science classes.
But I digress, your understanding of science is apparently quite minimal if you think the only thing a scientist can tell you to answer your "why" questions is "larger mass attracts smaller mass". It's quite a bit more than that.
Yeah, sure...
"First there was nothing, then it exploded" <-- Big Bang theory.
There's far more theories than just that one. But hey, the world was created in 8 God days. As opposed to human days which would be a couple trillion years... with no mention of many things that have happened in earth's past. Dinosaurs, ice age, cave men... yeah, the Bible has it so much more believable.
The fun/sad part is that you dont realize that you are clinging to science the same way others are clinging to their religion. You wont find any more answers from science than you will find in the Bible. Somehow that escapes you.
Wanna bet? The bible doesn't explain gravitational fields to me, orbits, matter, the basics of everything around us that we can't see but we experience everyday. While science DOES explain that. Well, atleast it does when you actually study it all.
Once you realize that science does not provide answers, only descriptions or observations, maybe then you will realize that just as you accuse others of taking the easy route, by putting their faith in God, you yourself are also taking the easy route, but in another direction, you are just putting your faith in science.
Once you realise that your grasp of science is only on the surface, you will understand that it's not simply taking what science has explained and believing it. But actually researching it and putting 2 and 2 together.
But hey, if you believe 5000 year old simpletons... be my guest, don't hurt me. I never attempted to explain why we are here... maybe there really is no "why" at all.
Not everything makes sense, the need for a God is to add order to an otherwise chaotic universe.
Any day an asteroid could strike this world. Religious people will say that was God hitting the delete key... I'll just sit back and say, "Shit happens."
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
That is not to create life. Cell=life. So science has been able to take life, and mix with it. Come on SW, you have to do better than that.
You think that's any different than how we birth babies? Just two genetic codes mixing together. The cell already exists.
And science is exactly as old as humankind itself.
Math maybe... but that's only a portion of science. They weren't exactly examining what a tree lived off of... it was taken care of God, remember?
-SW
-
The fun/sad part is that you dont realize that you are clinging to science the same way others are clinging to their religion. You wont find any more answers from science than you will find in the Bible. Somehow that escapes you.
Once you realize that science does not provide answers, only descriptions or observations, maybe then you will realize that just as you accuse others of taking the easy route, by putting their faith in God, you yourself are also taking the easy route, but in another direction, you are just putting your faith in science.
What escapes you is that "science" required NO FAITH at all. I can and am encouraged to question everything as long as I have a contrary hypothesis and I'm willing to try and prove it.
Religion encourages me to STOP Questioning and accept the word on faith. Big difference.
-
And science is exactly as old as humankind itself.
Math maybe... but that's only a portion of science. They weren't exactly examining what a tree lived off of... it was taken care of God, remember?
-SW
Oh come on. Take a look at the list of inventions from 35000BC and forward. Start with the spear.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What escapes you is that "science" required NO FAITH at all. I can and am encouraged to question everything as long as I have a contrary hypothesis and I'm willing to try and prove it.
Religion encourages me to STOP Questioning and accept the word on faith. Big difference.
What religion are you talking about now?
-
Inventions necessary for life... versus examining the foundations of life.
C'mon Hortlund, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
We aren't here saying, "God invented Earth", "No, scientists invented Earth"... we're talking about the foundation of life, reality and beyond reality.
Absolutely nothing to do with creating fire by rubbing two sticks together, or forging the first sword to do battle with.
Geez.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
I'll bet you 80 years ago, you would of said that we couldn't create life.
Ah, were do you think babies come from?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
What religion are you talking about now?
You freely accept God, and don't question his existence, yes?
Then all religions would be the answer.
-SW
-
lmao!!!!
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Yeah, sure...
"First there was nothing, then it exploded" <-- Big Bang theory.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
What religion are you talking about now?
Same one you were talking about.... ;)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Errr... okay... whatever, that's the most basic explanation I've ever seen. If that's where you think the end the knowledge of those subatomic particles ends... maybe you need to take some college level science classes.
But I digress, your understanding of science is apparently quite minimal if you think the only thing a scientist can tell you to answer your "why" questions is "larger mass attracts smaller mass". It's quite a bit more than that.
Feel free to give a better answer. I'm saying that Gravity= large mass attracts smaller mass (well, they are attracting eachother really)
There's far more theories than just that one. But hey, the world was created in 8 God days. As opposed to human days which would be a couple trillion years... with no mention of many things that have happened in earth's past. Dinosaurs, ice age, cave men... yeah, the Bible has it so much more believable.
As I have been trying to tell you, I cannot give you my faith, you have to search for it yourself. I'm sorry. But I can tell you this though, the answers you are looking for cannot be found in science.
Wanna bet? The bible doesn't explain gravitational fields to me, orbits, matter, the basics of everything around us that we can't see but we experience everyday. While science DOES explain that. Well, atleast it does when you actually study it all.
No, science does not explain that. Try to think about it for a while and you will understand that.
And how thick do you think the Bible would be if it would include explanations to the entire creation? I mean get a grip.
Once you realise that your grasp of science is only on the surface, you will understand that it's not simply taking what science has explained and believing it. But actually researching it and putting 2 and 2 together.
I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that no one has more than a superficial understanding of "science". Since the word "science" covers everything from bilology to math. Be that as it may, I'm still right about science and the why-question. If it helps, try to approach the question on a philosophical level.
-
Since the word "science" covers everything from bilology to math. Be that as it may, I'm still right about science and the why-question. If it helps, try to approach the question on a philosophical level.
Well there's the problem. Science is not defined by any specific discipline. It is a method of study not an area of study. Scientific philosophy if you will, is a very specific set of rules that define the way something is studied.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation
That's really it. No more no less.
-
speaking about theories of 'reality', gravity, etc..
here's another one that is pretty intruiging.
Flux Theory (http://www.geocities.com/xulfrepus/)
it's a Grand Unification Theory
-
For the bible crowd... answer me this:
WHO CREATED GOD?
-
As I have been trying to tell you, I cannot give you my faith, you have to search for it yourself. I'm sorry. But I can tell you this though, the answers you are looking for cannot be found in science.
So what you're saying is that you don't follow the Bible? What do you follow to achieve this faith in a supreme being? Serious question.
No, science does not explain that. Try to think about it for a while and you will understand that.
I have, but apparently you are hitting this from an entirely different dimension than I am therefore I have no idea what you are talking about.
And how thick do you think the Bible would be if it would include explanations to the entire creation? I mean get a grip.
Dunno, it was never attempted. You are of course assuming the Bible isn't a bunch of rantings from crazy individuals amassed together. I see a lot of crazies in DC with their own scripture written on cardboard... will I one day see it all compiled into another religions Holy Bible? I'm serious, think about that for a second.
I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that no one has more than a superficial understanding of "science". Since the word "science" covers everything from bilology to math. Be that as it may, I'm still right about science and the why-question. If it helps, try to approach the question on a philosophical level.
I see.. well on the philosophical level I assume you mean "why we are here"...
Question for you, do you think there IS an answer to that? What if we're here because we are, and there is no reason for it?
There, that's about as philosphical as I can get.
I'm not trying to convert you, or convince you I'm right.. I'm just arguing with you because you're arguing with me, and because it kills time at work.
-SW
-
For the science crowd...answer me this:
WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE?
-
For the bbs crowd...answer me this:
DO WE HAVE TO REHASH THIS AGAIN?
-
Oi! I asked first!
Originally posted by Thrawn
For the science crowd...answer me this:
WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
For the science crowd...answer me this:
WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE?
We dont know yet, but at least we are trying to find out.
We dont just invent some lie and go on with it.
And by the way, only idiots answer a question with another question.
-
Originally posted by Animal
We dont know yet, but at least we are trying to find out.
We dont just invent some lie and go on with it.
And by the way, only idiots answer a question with another question.
Ever heard of the socratic method? Moron.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Ever heard of the socratic method? Moron.
Teaching by asking instead of telling?
Yes, thats exactly why I said it.
Only idiots without a clue use it, to not look ignorant.
"I dont know the answer to his question, so I'll put a condescending expression and think of a harder one, fast!"
This works better: answer the question, then ask your question. On, and on.
-
My dear tardling, there is no point in trying to answer questions to which there is no possible answer.
Will we ever have to capacity to prove or disprove God's existance? Do to what most agree to be his present nature, No.
Will we ever be able to see beyond the beginning of the Universe. Do to what most agree to be it's nature, No.
Both questions are meaningless. Where does God begin and the Universe end. I think of the words god and Universe as synonomous.
-
Good answer why didnt you try that the first time?
By the way, dont you are not allowed to use a word I invented.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Good answer why didnt you try that the first time?
By the way, dont you are not allowed to use a word I invented.
I thought the implications were self evident. That happens alot where you are total jenius, such as I.
I figured that referring to you by your own patented, tongue-in-cheek insult, it would be that much easier to defeat you.
ie: Superman and Kryptonite.
-
tardlet.
-
The problem then is, if God and the universe co-exist eternally, and the earth is a chunk of said universe then god can't have created the earth. Therefore the bible is lying.
Thus we can disprove the existance of god based on the case and parameters for his existance laid out in the bible.
-
Whoa, I never said I was a Christian or believed in the Christian god.
By God, I mean Universe. By Universe, I mean the Tao and the multitude of things. To me these are all different word for the same thing.
-
I'd just like to point out that I have been noticeably absent from this topic, seeing how it's been beaten to death... actually, quite beyond that into something that resembles a month-old sailcat rotting on the highway.
-
...and before you ask, a "Sailcat" is that flattened critter on the highway (preferably a cat, can't stand the fish-eyed things) that has been run over so many times it is as flat as a pancake, and once dried can be thrown around like a frisbee.
-
I have a tomcat that kills rats and places them on my front step and this morning when I went outside to get the newspaper I stepped on one of his offerings and rat guts squished between my toes. I almost vomited but made it to the hose and rinsed off the various rat organs stuck between my toes. Man it was so gross. I hate rats.
-
Heh, my sister's cat does the same thing.....leaves them on the front porch as presents damn near every day.
Drives her husband and the dog's bananas......not sure why, it just does.
Cobra
-
<<>>
There is nothing 'natural' about a progression from simpler to more complex. Stuff rolls down hill.
ra
-
God hates cats too.
Originally posted by Kieran
...and before you ask, a "Sailcat" is that flattened critter on the highway (preferably a cat, can't stand the fish-eyed things) that has been run over so many times it is as flat as a pancake, and once dried can be thrown around like a frisbee.
-
Originally posted by ra
<<>>
There is nothing 'natural' about a progression from simpler to more complex. Stuff rolls down hill.
ra
Wrong.
As the enviroment changes and organisms find the need to adapt and compete with other species, they will evolve accordingly, and with each generation more complex methods to survive and thrive.
Take a look at the Chameleon.
-
The field mice at work were very destructive and annoying. We got two kittens and raised em. We don't have any mice problems anymore. The first couple nights we left the cats in the building it looked like a slaugterhouse the next day.
Some idiot is trying to raise large cats... breed housecats up in size... You wouldn't want to have 40 pound cats running around. they are not some sobbering moronic doggie.
lazs
-
I've seen a 40 pound cat before.. not a pretty sight.
-
I ran into a 40 pound cat once, but I shot him (gun reference for MT :) ) because he scared me!
We call 'em bobcats.
Cobra
-
I LIKE GUNS!!!!!
sheeesh!
I think all Liberals should be armed and learn to shoot. I can picture it now...
"ABC news reports the Rosie O'Donnel Breast Cancer Survivor Pistol Packin Gay Mommas are attacking the EIB studios again. Rush is outgunned and outweighed by the pink clad liberals.... film at 11"
-
Dog is God backwards... think about THAT for a second!
-SW
-
Then both are Man's best friend......but not woman's because they like cats.
Cobra
-
But dude... like... what if... God was like... your Dog.... and like my Dog... was like God.... I mean... wooaahhh!! and like Santa is really Satan.. and... oh man, I've got the munchies...
-SW
-
Cobra, I have a tomcat that sprayed the inside of my pick-up and I can't get the smell out. How much would you charge me to fly out here and shoot him?
-
ewww... nothing will get THAT out
-
Originally posted by Animal
Wrong.
As the enviroment changes and organisms find the need to adapt and compete with other species, they will evolve accordingly, and with each generation more complex methods to survive and thrive.
Take a look at the Chameleon.
Animal,
Your dogmatic belief in the theory of evolution is remarkable. You don't seem to know anything more about it than those of us who don't believe in it, yet you think we are morons for believing the theory has huge flaws.
The natural order causes things go from high order to low order, from high energy to low energy. Everything flows down hill. The theory of evolution says that sterile chemicals can eventually turn into chameleons by random interaction. There is no evidence that such a progression is possible, and the laws of nature make it very unlikely. Name any other natural phenomenon where random events create more complexity rather than more simplicity.
If life had spontaneously come into existence in a mud puddle or an undersea volcanic vent, that's probably where it would have stayed.
ra
-
What was this thread about?
Anyway, back to the cats.
A couple years ago a stray got into one of Travel Trailers on the lot and "spent the weekend". In fact it was dead when we opened the trailer up to prep it for shipment. But the cat had his revenge. That trailer was so smelly you needed a hazmat suit just to walk inside. OMG! We ended up gutting the thing and redoing all the upholstery.
-
RA, we haven't even fully explored the depths of our oceans.
We don't really know much about anything.
Which lends credence to a lot of speculation.
Hence the possibility for a God, no God, evolution, creation, etc.
It's all speculation based on the fairly limited history we have.
How long have we been catogorizing living things for? Not long enough to notice any change... not long enough at all.
So what do we know? Not much at all... but this doesn't necessarily lend reality as we know it to being created by something or someone.
It very well could of just came to be.
But like I've said, our history and what we have recorded is extremely limited... mostly because we use to be extremely simple people.
-SW
-
Elfie,
Air Fare and a Hot Tub party should cover the job.
Cobra
-
The US researchers built the infectious agent from scratch using the genome sequence for polio.
Scientists are divided about whether a virus is alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
-
http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/20010425.html
Scientists Create Synthetic Life in the Lab
In an announcement that might seem more appropriate to a science fiction show than a science fair, two research teams revealed that they have created a new "synthetic" life form that uses man-made amino acids to build proteins never before produced on the planet. Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in California and Philippe Marliere in France manufactured their creation from a base bacteria that is infamous for its health hazards--E. coli. One team transformed the bugs into protein producers of unnatural proteins by inserting a genetically engineered protein that accepts the man-made amino acids, while the other mutated the editing function that prevents incorrect amino acids from being incorporated into proteins. Although chemists can manufacture hundreds of strange synthetic amino acids in test tubes, nature has selected only 20 to incorporate into the proteins of living organisms. These synthetic bacteria are the first living organisms to expand that group of building blocks - a milestone that may help scientists develop important new drugs and treatments. The research was published in the journal Science.
Those wacky scientists..
-
Hort's gonna' love this one
-
...And my name is pronounced FrankenSTEIN, NOT FRANKinstein.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
don't believe in evolution?
look closely at a flounder.
Also look closely at the mullets of the world.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
...manufactured their creation from a base bacteria that is infamous for its health hazards--E. coli.
Actually that sounds just like another case of scientists taking life and modifying it.
-
You're right that one does.
Read the one above it.
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Actually that sounds just like another case of scientists taking life and modifying it.
-
Exactly what are babies then?
They aren't new life... they are just modified life. Taking the mom's genetics, and the dad's genetics, and splicing them. Bam! A baby.
So, are babies not new life?
(and this leads back to the two sheep... one created from the other... but is different than the parent sheep the cell came from)
-SW
-
"Scientists are divided about whether a virus is alive."
Sidenote: scientists like that should be taken out back and shot.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Exactly what are babies then?
They aren't new life... they are just modified life. Taking the mom's genetics, and the dad's genetics, and splicing them. Bam! A baby.
So, are babies not new life?
(and this leads back to the two sheep... one created from the other... but is different than the parent sheep the cell came from)
-SW
SW, I dont think anyone has argued that scientists cannot create life by making their old lady pregnant. What they cant do is sit down at a table with a bunch of chemicals and create a baby. Do you understand the difference?
-
We can create bacteria... we can create virii.... or however the plural is spelled... according to evolution that's the building blocks of life. How we came to be.
Virtually every bioligist agrees that cells, in the human body, are made up of what appear to be bacteria working in unison.
All them lil' cellular organs are believed to be bacteria that by themselves could only do so much, but formed together in a cell... they can sustain themselves for long periods of time.
So, if we can create the building blocks of life... and we are already to the point where we can create life out of cellular material... how can we not create life?
Our bodies don't even make us out of little chemicals, we are formed of cells. We all started as single cells... then they began dividing.. and dividing... and dividing...
-SW
-
Can we create bacteria? Or can we modify existing bacteria?
Are we getting into a debate over what constitutes life? I'm still waiting for someone to explain how life started in that "primordial soup", or did you just ignore that part?
-
DAMN!!! I'm STILL dividing !!!
-
Hortlund, it takes millions of years of observation to find out how it all started. If you pay any attention to the scientific world, there is a moon orbiting either Saturn or Jupiter that is essentially in the state this planet was in billions of years ago before life first came about.
Once we begin research there, which will naturally take a VERY long time of watching and waiting, we will find out how it happens. It happened here... well, if you ignore the whole "built from one man and his rib" dealy.
Read this for some good background on what I was talking about regarding cells: http://www.geocities.com/bioimages/
The study of life is for those who want to know how it all happens and how to do it. Religion is for those who don't care, don't want to care, and just rely on one answer to everything, "God did it."
The fact of the matter is, we have only begun the study of life in the past 500 years.. while life has been in a constant struggle with itself to perfect itself for billions of years.
If you read the Bible, and what we have actually found in terms of the billions of years of earths history through studying... the Bible sure don't make much sense......... but it's ALWAYS open for interpretation.............. if it don't work out, just interpret it so it will.
-SW
-
can't wait to find life on say Europa..
sooner or later the Creationists will have to deal with that info.
-
Lets assume for just a moment that we cannot create (new) life in the lab. What exactly does that prove Mr. Hortlund3?
-
Is Europa that giant ice ball?
If it is- man that moon has entrigued me since I first read about it in Air & Space (I think) while waiting in a doctors office several years ago.
We have fish, plants and other creatures in the depths of our seas where light never reaches.. yet they manage to live. We haven't even seen 'em all either..
Remember those prehistoric fish that were just recently found? I forget what they were called..
Just think about all that stuff.. and you begin to realise just how little we know... but this is what makes it acceptable to believe in a God. A couple thousand years from now, I can't help but think what the people of then will think about the people of now.. and how much more we will have learned.
We will be simple by their standards.
-SW
-
Yer not supposed to go near Europa man didn't you see the movie??
http://tma1.virtualave.net/2010/2010.htm
Originally posted by Wlfgng
can't wait to find life on say Europa..
sooner or later the Creationists will have to deal with that info.
-
Anyone with even an introduction to biology can tell you that life is not such a fragile thing. It seems to be not only resilient, but tenacious. If there is liquid water, there is usually life. We really have yet to find a sterile environment here on Earth that included liquid water.
"Black Smokers" are small volcanic areas in the deep Atlantic. The pressures are crushing, the water temp varies from 700+ to 25f. Yet these places have formed entire ecosystems based on the energy derived from sulfuric compounds. No sunlight, no photosynthesis.... a completely alien ecosystem that has never seen the light of day, nor needs to.
As to ra's point. He seems to be alluding to entropy. This is true enough, entropy exists, but entropy is a term refering to energy in a closed system. We hardly have that here. The Sun is just one of the external sources of energy which contribute to changes. There is no entropy as long as there is input.
More complex things are formed from simpler things every day. Your body does it with simple sugars and amino acids. A SuperNova does it by creating heavy atoms from hydrogen.
No need to close your mind to the possibility that we have Evolved simply because it might be at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I think that would upset God. He did give us these wonderful minds for a reason.
-
yes Europa is an ice planet thought to have a liquid water interior heated by thermal action.
It would not be surprising to find life similar to life found near black smokers (volcanic vents) on the bottom of Earth's oceans.
-
Unfortunately, this thread could go on forever.
God, no god, creation, evolution, unified theories, flux theories, big bang theories, etc...
It'll still all be speculation until our feeble minds shut down for the last time. Then we will know.
I don't pretend to know what will happen, what is happening, and what has happened... I only question and guess.... I just want people who say, "I've been here a while, and I know God." to think for a second... what if everything they know is simply a fable created by simple minded individuals in far simpler times to explain the existance of themselves and this planet.
Afterall, we are less than a needle in the universe of hay.
-SW
-
I started this thread to promote peace, brotherly love, and harmony between the races. Such a nice little thread.:)
WOW!
What happened?
I would like to add one thought here. One of you has said we will learn the truth when our feeble minds shut down. That isn't exactly true.
If atheists are right about the existence of God, when they die they will never know the truth, for they will be aware of nothing.
If deists are right about the existence of God, they will have the satisfaction of knowing the truth.
Would that about sum it up?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Afterall, we are less than a needle in the universe of hay
maybe you're a needle.. I'm a thorn.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
If atheists are right about the existence of God, when they die they will never know the truth, for they will be aware of nothing.
If deists are right about the existence of God, they will have the satisfaction of knowing the truth.
Would that about sum it up?
Not really. That's when you run into the problem of which religion has the right God.
Besides, as I understand it... just because you don't know God doesn't mean you can't be forgiven. A long time in purgatory, then chance for redemption. Atleast that's how Christian's state it.
Either way, it's still open to interpretation... which is exactly why I dislike organized religion.
-SW
-
No, you're a pinhead Wlfgng. :D
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Exactly what are babies then?
They aren't new life... they are just modified life. Taking the mom's genetics, and the dad's genetics, and splicing them. Bam! A baby.
So, are babies not new life?
(and this leads back to the two sheep... one created from the other... but is different than the parent sheep the cell came from)
-SW
No, it is not new life from scratch in the sense of getting life from inanimate objects. It is more accurately a continuation of life, though not in the immortal sense.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Unfortunately, this thread could go on forever.
God, no god, creation, evolution, unified theories, flux theories, big bang theories, etc...
-SW
Cats...don't forget cats...we discussed them too!
Cobra
-
They took a cell from a sheep and turned it into an entirely new sheep.
They don't think they same, they are two different sheep.
It's a new life. The same way religion would describe it- a totally new mental process.
Otherwise twins wouldn't exactly be two seperate lives, now would they?
:)
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lets assume for just a moment that we cannot create (new) life in the lab. What exactly does that prove Mr. Hortlund3?
That would indicate that the evolution theory is flawed.
Remember the criteria for scientific knowledge midnight?
Miko2d put it rather well when he said "The unique property of science is that it makes usable and verifiable predictions and that all its statements can be disproved. There is a whole lot of knowlege that does not fall under the definition of scientific knowlege because there is no way to disprove it or make verifiable predictions based on it even if it were true."
So ok, we have this theory about the primordeal soup. We have the ingredients in this soup, and the theory says that we should add electricity and somehow life will "spawn" or whatever.
Here is a theory, that science has tried to verify using thousands of experiments, but not once have they succeeded. That makes the theory flawed. Or maybe flawed is a strong word, lets just say that it makes the theory just that...a theory...nothing else. And guess what, there is no ranking among theories, they all are equally "true".
Lets talk a bit more about this primordeal soup and the creation of life midnight.
Lets look at probabilities shall we?
Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some interesting calculations.
Dr. Coppedge applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. He was very generous to the evolutionists, in fact he computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, the whole crust were included in "the soup".
He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature.
In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.)
To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119 841st power, years. Try to write it down, use a normal sized book. Start on page one with a "1" and then write 60 pages of zero's behind it. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell.
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist specialized in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after it, you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number
10 followed by 119,841 is big, but no where near that big.
-
Yup, I went back and edited it. Now it is correct.
-
Wat are the chances that they could be wrong.
:D
-
Just to get an idea exactly how big that number is...
Take the number of seconds in any considerable period. There are just 60 in a minute, but in an hour that increases to 3,600 seconds. In a year, there are 31,558,000, averaged to allow for leap year. Imagine what a tremendous number of seconds there must have been from the beginning of the universe until now (using 15 billion years, which is one of the standard estimates by evolutionists). It may be helpful to pause a moment and consider how great that number must be.
When written down, however, it appears to be a small figure: less than 10^18 seconds in the entire history of the universe.
10^119 841...
-
But it CAN still happen.
Remember now Hortlund, the big bang theory and the whole primordial soup deal is only ONE theory.
There are far more out there.
One more possibility was the potential for an asteroid or foreign object with bacteria or other single celled organisms hit this earth while it was still in it's birthing stages.
So that means that no matter how many times you crunch those numbers, the universe is infinite. This in turns mean the possibilities of how life got here, and for how long it evolved further out in the universe, could potentially be infinite.
It's a little dense to believe that out of that infinite sky above us, we are the only planet with a smidgeon of life on it.
-SW
-
Interesting stuff you pulled from that Creation Science website Steve. But it is just bad science. The probabilities are calculated as if there was no other factors involved. Natural selection for example, is completely ignored. By that I mean that once something good is "happened upon" it is built upon. This is randomized out of the figures you presented.
The real crux of the matter is this. Life did begin on this planet. The evidence suggests that it (algae and bacteria) was there 3.5 billion years ago give or take 300 million years. This means that it had 1 billion years to get to this point.
We haven't figured out a way to duplicate 1 billion years in an experiment yet. This does nothing to refute evolution.
So if you want to stop thinking and take a religious view... so be it. I choose to believe that this is evidence that life tends to form. This isn't taken on faith. There are other studies in biogenesis that point in this direction as well. The probability studies are silly pokes at real science by Creationists trying desperately to stay in the fight.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
But it CAN still happen.
Lemme guess, you were one of the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial?
(now, you are gonna love this)
According to probability-science anything with a probablilty lower than 1 in 10^50 cant happen.
-
Let's do split hairs. ;)
A new life does not equal new life as you are suggesting. Man and woman have always been able to create a new life; they have not always been able to create one in a lab from ingredients off the shelf.
-
To put it it a different way, life is like a coal from a fire; it can be carried from place to place to kindle a new fire.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
... what if everything they know is simply a fable created by simple minded individuals in far simpler times to explain the existance of themselves and this planet.
-SW
SW, well, if that happens I won't even know it will I? I'll just cease to exist when I die.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Interesting stuff you pulled from that Creation Science website Steve. But it is just bad science. The probabilities are calculated as if there was no other factors involved. Natural selection for example, is completely ignored. By that I mean that once something good is "happened upon" it is built upon. This is randomized out of the figures you presented.
The real crux of the matter is this. Life did begin on this planet. The evidence suggests that it (algae and bacteria) was there 3.5 billion years ago give or take 300 million years. This means that it had 1 billion years to get to this point.
We haven't figured out a way to duplicate 1 billion years in an experiment yet. This does nothing to refute evolution.
So if you want to stop thinking and take a religious view... so be it. I choose to believe that this is evidence that life tends to form. This isn't taken on faith. There are other studies in biogenesis that point in this direction as well. The probability studies are silly pokes at real science by Creationists trying desperately to stay in the fight.
No midnight, I pulled it directly from Dr Coppedges book...you can find it here (http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_toc.htm)
And no midnight, time is taken into consideration in his calculation. You really should read the book, its rather interesting.
If you read chapter 6, you will see how he reached that number, and how that number is correct.
Why do you of all people call it bad science? And what exactly is "bad science"? Would that be science that leads to facts that you dislike? If so, just say so. Note if you will that no one has ever proved him wrong on those calculations. Most people like you tend to try to ignore them instead.
Just for the heck of it Ill post his 14 assumptions for his calculations. then everyone who cant be bothered to follow the link can make up their mind on whether all factors are taken into consideration.
1. Assume that the primitive atmosphere was as evolutionists claim.
2. Suppose that all of the twenty amino acids did form naturally and in the right proportions, by the action of ultraviolet rays, lightning, and heat.
3. Presume that the amino acids were formed in only the left-handed configuration.
4. In calculations that follow, consider that the average protein molecule is 400 units in length, which is shorter than the 445 average length computed earlier for the smallest theoretical cell from Morowitz’ data.
5. Postulate that all the atoms on earth have been used to form amino acids. That is, all the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur atoms in air, water, and crust of the earth have been made up into amino acids for this all-out effort to get proteins by random alignment.
6. Consider that all of these amino acids are grouped in sets. Each set contains one of each kind available at each position of the forming chain. These groupings may be pictured as being in the form of coacervate droplets described by Oparin, or any other way so that they are together.
7. Let it be granted that these groupings are permanently protected in some manner from the destructive effect of ultraviolet rays. It is widely recognized that ultraviolet rays would be lethal to the life being formed unless protected in some way. These rays, particularly those in the wavelength range near 2600 Ĺ, are “highly toxic (absorbed by protein and nucleic acids),” with lethal chemical changes resulting.
8. Concede also that the amino acids would automatically unite, even though this would require going against an “energy-gradient,” and the complex system which unites them in all known living things would be absent.
9. Suppose that one substitution is allowable in each chain. In this concession, it will not be required that the active site be exempt from substitution, and it will be considered permissible for any amino acid to substitute for any other at any point. (See discussion of substitution earlier in this chapter.) If future discoveries ever widen the viable limits of substitution, the extreme concessions we are allowing, such as in number ten below, would take up the slack. In some cases a protein with substitutions may be partially functional.
10. Assume that the rate of chain formation is fantastically rapid, such that an entire chain requires only one-third of a ten-million-billionth of a second! This is around 150 thousand trillion times the normal speed in living things which itself is quite fleet.
11. For each set of amino acids, let it be figured that every unusable chain is immediately dismantled and another one made at the same rate of around 30 million billion per second, which is a trillion trillion (1024) per year in each set.
12. Assume that nothing will interfere, so that chance will have an ideal opportunity, and that if a usable sequence is ever obtained, the action will stop so that it may be preserved. (In the matter of trying for a set of 239 proteins, regardless of the speed of trials, it would of course be necessary for 239 contiguous sets to obtain right sequences at the same time. However, even if there were a way to arrange for a long time of overlapping existence of each sequence that occurred, with staggered timing of different sets; it would not make enough difference to affect the outcome.)
13. Consider further that if 239 proteins in contiguous sets are ever obtained, they will be able to merge into one group of proteins ready for working together in a living system.
14. For our present purpose, assume that the age of the earth is five billion years, and that the age of the universe is fifteen billion years. From an evolutionary standpoint, these rounded figures are more or less standard at the present time. (As we will see, evidence is growing for a much younger age.)
Sounds pretty generous to me, especially since many of these concessions are either definitely impossible or else have a probability that is “vanishingly small,” to put it mildly. They are made merely to offer chance such a favorable opportunity that its failure to produce should be conclusive.
Midnight, next time you post about stuff like this, try not to do some "guilt by association"-thing. Try the facts instead.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Lemme guess, you were one of the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial?
(now, you are gonna love this)
According to probability-science anything with a probablilty lower than 1 in 10^50 cant happen.
It did happen and the math is wrong.
-
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/foster9.html
I'm out, so I'm posting the above website. It addresses the very thing we are discussing.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It did happen and the math is wrong.
Ahh yes, mr midnight, biology professor, mathematician and BB poster extraordinere. What is wrong with the math then?
From the book:
In the list of concessions, it was assumed that all of the appropriate atoms on earth’s surface, including air, water, and crust of the earth, were made into amino acids and arranged conveniently in sets to make it easier for chance to come up
with a usable protein. It can be estimated that there would be about 10^41 such sets available.
With each of these sets making a total of 10^24 different chains per year as assumed in concession 11, that gives a total of 10^24 x 10^41 chains produced on earth in a year’s time, which is 10^65. Under concession 14, the total chains made since the earth began would be 5 x 10^74, which we will round off to 10^75.
We have just seen that chance could have made 10^75 different protein-length chains at the speed assumed during the entire time the earth has existed. Using the formula from the alphabet, we can now estimate how many of those might be considered usable protein molecules. First, we should allow for one substitution per chain. This would have the effect of changing that 1/10^240 formula to around 1/10^236. The probability, then, for usable protein molecules in this total of 10^75 produced since the world began is 10^75 / 10^236.
Simplifying the fraction, we get 1 in 10^161 as the probability that even one would be usable, on the average.
Therefore, the odds are 10^161 to 1 that not one usable protein would have been produced by chance in all the history of the earth, using all the appropriate atoms on earth at the fantastic rate described. This is a figure containing 161 zeroes.
-------------
Note that here he is talking about one protein, but a cell contains more than one protein, therefore he made another calculation, namely this one:
It has just been calculated that the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161, using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began. What is the probability of getting an entire set of proteins for the smallest theoretical living entity?
The second protein molecule will be far more difficult than the first, because it has to be part of a matching set. The protein molecules of a cell are quite specifically adapted to work together as a team. We assumed that the first protein could be any usable protein that might be good somewhere. Once that first one is specified, the rest of the set has to match it exactly. It is like assembling a car from a crate of automobile parts. Once the kind of automobile is determined by the first component used, then all the other items must be of that same matching group. Nothing else on earth will fit, in most cases, except the part made for that particular purpose.
After the first protein molecule is obtained by chance (if it ever happens), then the others must be quite specific in the same way as the automobile components.
The probability of getting the first protein molecule was influenced by the formula taken from the alphabet analogy. The second one is more difficult to obtain, we have just seen, because it has to be more exact to match the first one, instead of being just any protein.
The total number of possible orders in a chain of 400 amino acids of 20 kinds is 20^400. (The formula is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain.) As stated above, 20^400 is the same as 10^520.
Considering the first one as already obtained, we need 238 more. The second one could be any one of those 238. The probability is therefore 238/10^520. The third one could be any of the 237 still needed, so its probability would be 237 /10^520. Calculating all of these, and allowing for one substitution per chain, we arrive at a probability of 1 in 10^122470. Even if almost a trillion different sequences might work in each protein, the probability resulting is 1 in 10^119614.
This figure represents the second through the 239th protein molecules. Multiplying in the first one, which was at a probability of 1 / 10236, we arrive at the final figure for the minimum set needed for the simplest theoretical living entity, namely. 1 chance in 10^119850.
Earlier, we obtained the figure of 10^75 which was the total number of chains made since the earth began. In order to allow for overlapping sets of 239 each, we will use that same figure to represent the total protein sets formed. Dividing into the big figure just calculated, we learn that the odds against one minimum set of proteins happening in the entire history of the earth are 10^119775 to 1.
Even if such a set could be obtained, we would not have life. It would simply be a helpless group of nonliving molecules alone in a sterile world, uncaring and uncared for, the end of the line.
-
All this talk about propigatin' is makin' me horny.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
So that means that no matter how many times you crunch those numbers, the universe is infinite. This in turns mean the possibilities of how life got here, and for how long it evolved further out in the universe, could potentially be infinite.
It's a little dense to believe that out of that infinite sky above us, we are the only planet with a smidgeon of life on it.
-SW
Except the universe finite.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Now divide that number by the total number of worlds.
Also take into account that it doesn't have to be a human cell, it just happened to be one cause we're all human and talking about it.
This guy was obviously from earth doing human math and God hates him.
-
Calculating the chances of the evolution of a T4 bacteriophage virus.
"We can even handicap ourselves with a rate of additive mutation of once per 200 quadrillion reproductions. Even then we will still see one such mutation per two million generations, for a rate of one relevant mutation every 548 years. Of these, as we have already noted, bad mutations will vanish with no effect, but useful ones will persist, and will rapidly acquire the same population statistics. Indeed, a single T4 mutant, with the given estimates, will reach the trillion population mark in less than two days -- this is perhaps why evolution sometimes appears punctuated, for it can take centuries or even millennia for an advantage to be gained through new mutations, but once gained it can be exploited even to the point of total dominance in a matter of days or years in single-celled populations, a mere instant of geological time.
At any rate, given the above guesses, what are the odds of the T4 genome arising through natural selection within one billion years?
n = 1,824,818 (number of mutant proto-T4's)
p = .05 (the chance of a beneficial proto-T4 mutation)
q = 1 - p = .95
m = n*p = 91,241
s = (n*p*q)^0.5 = 294.4
Now, if x = 61,538 (the total number of correct mutations needed), then z = (x-m)/s = -100.9. In other words, the evolution of the T4 bacteriophage is essentially guaranteed to occur in less than a billion years, provided all the conditions are right, and the rates of reproduction and mutation are as estimated above. However, if the math is done, and our estimations are correct, it can be shown that the evolution of an organism like the T4 must take more than 500 million years, since the odds within that period of time are close enough to zero for the event to be regarded as virtually impossible. In fact, the odds start to drop below 50% when the time falls under 675 million years. Of course, all of that changes if we become more realistic, and credit the T4 ancestors with populations in the thousands of trillions, generations by the hour or even the minute, and relevant mutations at a rate of one every several trillions of replications."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thrawn- the universe is not finite. If you stumble across a satelite (hmmm Hubble is about the best you can do, and it still can't see very far) that can view the edge of space... lemme know.
Elfenwolf- true. I'm not necessarily talking about you, though.
Kieren- Explain to me what a new life is then. Because I guess I don't quite understand... I mean, all this time I thought that a new life didn't necessarily have to be different than the parent. I mean, are various forms of asexual creatures on this planet not creating a new life everytime they divide?
Of course they are! This is an extension of that, you take a stem cell from a sheep. You take the cell matter, and create a new life.
It is an entirely different being, physically and mentally. If they just grew a new kidney, okay, that ain't a new life.... but a whole new sheep, well...
Hortlund- "According to probability-science"
Oh, there's your problem. The probability of an asteroid hitting this planet is very low. If one coming towards us, hits us tommorrow.. the probability shoots through the roof.
Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? You seemed to have ignored this: "So that means that no matter how many times you crunch those numbers, the universe is infinite. This in turns mean the possibilities of how life got here, and for how long it evolved further out in the universe, could potentially be infinite."
Just what makes you think life had to create itself here? If a one celled organism, or bacteria were to land here on an asteroid, it would reproduce itself.... Conversion of basic compounds in the atmosphere, water, etc would eventually lead to an atmosphere. This in turn would allow for.... well, where we're at today.
Problem with probability is that it'll probably happen until it happens, then it definitely happened.
-SW
-
"(hmmm Hubble is about the best you can do, and it still can't see very far) that can view the edge of space... lemme know."
Could the Europeans see the Americas before they were discovered? I guess they don't exist then.
I bet the mouse that is running around in a plastic ball thinks the ball is infinate as well.
The universe could have only expanded by the speed of light. Speed of light x age of the universe gets you it's size.
There is was also a finite amount of matter and energy created during the big bang.
-
Explain Soylent Green then!
-
Cobra, Solyent Green is PEOPLE!!
-
Yeah, I forgot. We can't get past our own moon, yet we can measure the size of something we don't know the limits too..
It's all based around guesstimation Thrawn.
Science, as it is right now, isn't the end all be all of explanations. What it can explain, however, prevents me from believing in a divine creator.
-SW
-
Damn Dirty Apes!
-
Paging P. W. Herman...paging P.W. Herman...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Calculating the chances of the evolution of a T4 bacteriophage virus.
Intriguing...so this guy did some calculations of a virus (not "life").
Dr Coppedge did some calculations on the most basic cell of them all (life).
But there are more flaws to the primordial soup theory.
Consider this dilemma:
For the natural origin of life, ultraviolet rays would have been needed to form amino acids, but ultraviolet rays would destroy the very life which is supposed to be formed! These rays would have reached the surface of the earth in great numbers through the primitive atmosphere which was assumed to contain no oxygen and therefore no ozone shield. The ozone shield in the upper atmosphere now screens out most of these dangerous rays. It was supposed to have been formed from oxygen mainly produced by photosynthesis in plants and algae over an immense span of time.
-
base bacteria that is infamous for its health hazards--E. coli.
which of the 1000 subtype ?
this comment is idiotic.
-
Consider this dilemma:
For the natural origin of life, ultraviolet rays would have been needed to form amino acids, but ultraviolet rays would destroy the very life which is supposed to be formed! These rays would have reached the surface of the earth in great numbers through the primitive atmosphere which was assumed to contain no oxygen and therefore no ozone shield. The ozone shield in the upper atmosphere now screens out most of these dangerous rays. It was supposed to have been formed from oxygen mainly produced by photosynthesis in plants and algae over an immense span of time.
How can you disprove something with another hypothese ?
Sorry :)
You need more than that ;)
-
As said by Claude Bernard :
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
For the bbs crowd...answer me this:
DO WE HAVE TO REHASH THIS AGAIN?
ROFL!!!!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund3
Intriguing...so this guy did some calculations of a virus (not "life").
Dr Coppedge did some calculations on the most basic cell of them all (life).
But there are more flaws to the primordial soup theory.
Consider this dilemma:
For the natural origin of life, ultraviolet rays would have been needed to form amino acids, but ultraviolet rays would destroy the very life which is supposed to be formed! These rays would have reached the surface of the earth in great numbers through the primitive atmosphere which was assumed to contain no oxygen and therefore no ozone shield. The ozone shield in the upper atmosphere now screens out most of these dangerous rays. It was supposed to have been formed from oxygen mainly produced by photosynthesis in plants and algae over an immense span of time.
I didn't read that book Steve. But isn't it possible that the beginning life forms could have been shielded not from an atmosphere of ozone, but from other now dead or dying life forms? That perhaps that life evolved from that? Just random chance that some happened to stay in a favorable position between layers to stay alive and continue the evolution process?
Also what role does heat play in the calculations? Could it be that energy accelerated the process? Just asking.
-
It is funny how most of us JUST HAVE TO convert one over to their side of thinking. In the end it really doesn't matter ;) .
I am an atheist by choice for that is what I believe in. I believe in evolution (there are so many examples). I truly believe that after I die that will be it, no afterlife, no continuous travels of 'my soul/spirit', etc.
Do I really know? Nope, just what I believe. Do not confuse my being atheist as being agnostic. I truly believe there to be no God and/or devine intervention.
That is the same reason that I cannot tell anyone else what they believe in anymore than anyone else telling me what I believe the truth to be.
My wife is Catholic. I do not try to convince her that she is wrong to believe in her God. I do not try to convince her to not pray. I do not try to convince her to not to go to her church.
By the same token she does not try to 'convert me over', she does not try to have me go to her church.
We truly love each other.
It is irrelevant to what one believes in, rather it is relevant to how one treats another.
You all have a good day :)
BTW, namecalling is stupid (think about it)
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
I started this thread to promote peace, brotherly love, and harmony between the races. Such a nice little thread.:)
WOW!
What happened?
I would like to add one thought here. One of you has said we will learn the truth when our feeble minds shut down. That isn't exactly true.
If atheists are right about the existence of God, when they die they will never know the truth, for they will be aware of nothing.
If deists are right about the existence of God, they will have the satisfaction of knowing the truth.
Would that about sum it up?
Regards, Shuckins
As an atheist let me give you my take:
If atheists are right about the non-existence of God and afterlife,
when we all (atheists and everyone else) die it will not matter as we will not have the capacity to be aware.
That will sum it up for me ;)
BTW nice thread you've started.
Regards,
wSNPR
-
Hortland the whole flaw in your argument is your interpretation of the odds and what it means.
We, here in NZ, have Lotto. The probability that I, or anyone elses chance of winning it is something like 40 Million : 1. Yet every week there is usually more than 1 winner.
The funny thing about most Christians, or deity believers, is that the faith is usually wrapped around their complete and utter fear of... no not dying :) .... but fear of NOT EXISTING. The human mind struggles to comprehend infinity, and equally struggles to comprehend oblivion. From what I've found, 9/10 religious followers are, for the lack of a better term, feeble minded, and religion is more of a following than anything else.
Whereas the remaining 10% are very smart, well educated people, but the one thing they always seem to struggle to grasp is oblivion. IE, 10% of my religious discussions end in the 'oblivion' cul'de'sac.
Initially I struggled to explain the WHY of oblivion, or in simpler terms death. And was often asked to explain the use of oblivion in evolutionary terms.
The Christian concerned would sorta say "if evolution is so great, and when we die there is nothing, what gives?". The answer is simple, to evolve more. If we did not die, if we lived forever, our species would not evolve, it would stagnate, and eventually flaws would catch up with us and wipe us out. Something as simple as a virus strain resistance can mean 1 evolutionary step.
Death, is an evolutionary feature in itself. Without death, the species cannot evolve. Without evolution, the species will cease to perpetuate.
When you comprehend that your death does serve an evolutionary function, then you've taken a step forward.
-
You people are gona end up going to HELL if your not carefull.
SATAN!
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Hortland the whole flaw in your argument is your interpretation of the odds and what it means.
We, here in NZ, have Lotto. The probability that I, or anyone elses chance of winning it is something like 40 Million : 1. Yet every week there is usually more than 1 winner.
The funny thing about most Christians, or deity believers, is that the faith is usually wrapped around their complete and utter fear of... no not dying :) .... but fear of NOT EXISTING. The human mind struggles to comprehend infinity, and equally struggles to comprehend oblivion. From what I've found, 9/10 religious followers are, for the lack of a better term, feeble minded, and religion is more of a following than anything else.
Whereas the remaining 10% are very smart, well educated people, but the one thing they always seem to struggle to grasp is oblivion. IE, 10% of my religious discussions end in the 'oblivion' cul'de'sac.
Initially I struggled to explain the WHY of oblivion, or in simpler terms death. And was often asked to explain the use of oblivion in evolutionary terms.
The Christian concerned would sorta say "if evolution is so great, and when we die there is nothing, what gives?". The answer is simple, to evolve more. If we did not die, if we lived forever, our species would not evolve, it would stagnate, and eventually flaws would catch up with us and wipe us out. Something as simple as a virus strain resistance can mean 1 evolutionary step.
Death, is an evolutionary feature in itself. Without death, the species cannot evolve. Without evolution, the species will cease to perpetuate.
When you comprehend that your death does serve an evolutionary function, then you've taken a step forward.
If we did not die, were immortal as I believe you are saying, how could these supposed eventual flaws wipe us out?
-
BTW, I have yet to see any of you evolutionists explain how evolution gets around the second law.
-
if we lived forever then the same people would forever continue to mate. with the same genes floating around forever virus strains would eventually become immune to our bodies natural defenses, and the human race would be wiped out. think of it this way, if Adam and Eve were still alive, how would their bodies cope with some of today's viruses? since viruses have evolved since then, so have our bodies natural defenses. if we didn't die, the viruses would evolve, but we would not, leaving us totally defenseless against even the most basic of diseases, like the common cold.
-
That makes no sense at all. Immortal is immortal isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Apache
BTW, I have yet to see any of you evolutionists explain how evolution gets around the second law.
Here you go.
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.
Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis
from http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here you go.
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.
Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis
from http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory.
To overcome the 2nd law of nature, there must be an input of information and energy.
-
Do you guys really understand all this data you're posting, or are you just bs'ing everybody?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins- Hortlund is the one throwing data around... well atleast he's the one that started it.
Of course, in the end... everyone is BSing everyone. There is no absolute, only what you have come to believe.
I'm not saying there isn't a God... I am saying, I don't believe there is one, and I am only supporting my argument.
Whether you choose the Bible, the Koran(sp?), or a culmination of scientific studies, it's all BS because we have a very limited understanding of reality as we know it.
Simply put, I see religion as a means to explain the as of yet unexplained. Not the unexplainable, because what we know isn't much. There's a whole lot more we can study and come to know, and it ain't gonna happen in any of our life times.
-SW
-
Second Law:
Second law is not broken by life processes - the enthropy of the whole system still increases.
That is beside the point. The evolution is an informational process in it's essence - not just physical/chemical. Human's genome is smaller than that of many plants. Less energy may be required to sequence it. It is still more evolved.
A 500 page book with random gibberish takes as much energy to print as normal book of the same size. 2nd law does not apply here directly.
Less energy is required to procreate complex mouse than a huge promitive jelly fish. What evolved is pattern - sequence of bases on a DNA string, not a physical entity.
Immortality:
Evolution does not work on the level of species or even indiciduals - it works on the level of genes. Longevity of a vehicle is not as beneficial to the success of gene's differential propagation as early and active procreation.
Genes that rely on a vehicle living long to procreate are usually at disadvantage compared to genes that do not require longevity.
Longevity is a huge uphill battle against physical processes as the damage to vehicle tends to accumulate with time. Chance of genetic damage to a baby increases exponentially with women's age. Apparently it was much simpler genetically "not to bother with longevity".
Of course a case can be made that sentient species are capable of accumulating experience/wealth with age and increase survival/procreation chances even after reaching maturity despite physical deterioration.
Such development increases lifespan and chance of having cildren at a later age - and makes it harder to have them in early age while still poor and inexperienced. Such accumulated experience can be affecting survivability of childern born at earlier age - if the elders affect the survival of their yet inexperienced grown children and grandchildren.
That makes good case that humans can evolve towards greater longevity. It has not been that long since humans evolved enough to easily communicate experience (language, etc) - about 100,000-200,000 years.
Still, there is data that shows ethnicities that lived longer in civilised conditions (where experience and wealth accumulation is more important for advancement than brute physique) live longer in the same conditions than other.
(Of course an end was put to it in many places by welfare state that subcidises early and frequent procreation of least capable while taking resources from most capable and making their life miserable and expencive by spread of "underclass".)
Example:Compared to otehr races, blacks are much more likely to fall to whole slew of old-age ilnesses that never had a chance to surface (and be selected against) in brute short jungle life from which they energed centuries or millenia later than caucasians/asians.
Of course they did not have time to get adapted to civilized killers like alcohol, abundance of fat and salt too.
Hard to say which contributes more to to blacks' shorter lifespan - old-age ilnesses or being unadapted to "comforts".
In many cases those agravate each other - hypertention is affected by salt intake. Diabetes is affected by diet. Allergies and asthma are affected by absense of animals in the urban house resulting in deficient/untrained immune system.
To all those white races lost a lot of population with time. A whole lot of our grand-grand-... aunts and uncles died childless so that we could inherit more adapted genes of their brothers/sisters - our forefathers.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Allergies and asthma are affected by absense of animals in the urban house resulting in deficient/untrained immune system.
Hey! You were watching the news last night too, huh? ;)
Seriously though, I can't believe that was ever in question (about immune systems)... muscles will atrophy if you don't use 'em.
If you don't put the immune system through it's trials and tribulations early on, that would lend itself to being under developed.
Then when you look at it from the evolution point of view, if several generations go on where people do not use their immune systems (animals bring in outside naturally occuring irritants that would otherwise not be present inside a closed home), then who's to say eventually the offspring of two parents who did not develop their immune system will result in a child possibly without an immune system or with a very weak one....
Oh wait, this is already happening. Children are born(fairly rare, but that's how evolution works..) without an immune system or with a very weak one. Some die, others have to live in bubbles.
Many birth "defects" come not only from two parents who were unhealthy, but also from very healthy parents. So healthy in fact, that the construction plans for their offspring altered such that the underused/unused body operations weren't fully developed, or developed at all in some extreme cases.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Apache
To overcome the 2nd law of nature, there must be an input of information and energy.
As to understanding, I majored in Biological Science at Cal Poly SLO. I have forgotten most of it, but still know where to look for the answers. I also taught elementary level science for 5 years after graduation.
Apache - If you really want to know, read the article I posted. Makes no sense to pick one sentence out of context and claim it as valuable information. If you had posted the whole paragraph it would refute the very point you were trying to make.
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
-
Miko2d,
Second Law.
Yes, the entire universe is obeying the 2nd law, but if evolutionary theory is true, then life defies the 2nd law. If a rock is found floating in the air defying gravity, it is breaking the laws of physics. The fact that all the other rocks are obeying the laws of physics doesn't change that. Evolution theory says that the most complex structures know to exist (life) were assembled by random events. That is a floating rock.
Immortality.
I don't see much point, but immortality would be a great way for genetic information to be passed on. If a life form was immortal, ie. if it could theorically live and reproduce forever if it was never eaten or squashed, then it would have the ability to spread its information continuously, while its offspring were free to mutate and spread their information too. For example, if a sea turtle never aged, it wouldn't matter if her clutch of eggs was eaten before getting a chance to hatch. She would be back on the beach next year laying a new clutch, year after year, century after century. So long as she wasn't eaten herself. This sounds like an effective way for DNA to propogate itself. And that is what the theory of evolution says: life in all its forms exists merely to propogate DNA. That has always struck me as sounding like the old joke that pigeons were created so that pigeon poop would have a mode of transportation.
As far as longevity among humans goes, it's all very interesting but it doesn't pertain to most of the posts in this thread which are about macro evolution, not micro evolution (natural selection).
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Second Law.
Yes, the entire universe is obeying the 2nd law, but if evolutionary theory is true, then life defies the 2nd law. If a rock is found floating in the air defying gravity, it is breaking the laws of physics. The fact that all the other rocks are obeying the laws of physics doesn't change that. Evolution theory says that the most complex structures know to exist (life) were assembled by random events. That is a floating rock.
ra
This is why these threads go on and on and on. This question has been answered, yet since it is commonly claimed as a reason to refute evolution in the creationist mantra, the logical answers are ignored and the same old crap is rehashed.
Nevermind. Believe what you want. You obviously aren't interested in learning.
-
AKSWulfe:Hey! You were watching the news last night too, huh? ;)
I was painting my roof aluminum last night but I saw much earlier studies of rural/urban children subjected or free from farm animals' company.
Seriously though, I can't believe that was ever in question (about immune systems)... muscles will atrophy if you don't use 'em.
If you don't put the immune system through it's trials and tribulations early on, that would lend itself to being under developed.
...eventually the offspring of two parents who did not develop their immune system will result in a child possibly without an immune system or with a very weak one....
You are very confused here :) I have to tell you that citing "scientific" explanation you've heard on the news may make you a target of quite a few laughs.
Here is how it really works - well, closer to reality, in any case.
The issue is not with immune system unneended - despite all the progress the microbes around and populating us (some beneficial) would kill us in minutes it failed. It's that immune system has to face different tasks (many are harder harder) in civilised urban environment that in jungle forest.
Allergy is caused not by atrophied immune system but complete opposite - overreactive immune system - that supposedly did not get a chance to be "calibrated" during early (intrauterine/early age) development.
At the same time population dencity of urban living make a person much likely to be exposed to all kinds of germs than "uncivilised" life would. Lack of exercise is hardly an issue. The challenges may be different from those geneticallyn programmed. Exellenmt resistance to yellow fewer or malaria (same?) does not help much in New York.
Many birth "defects" come not only from two parents who were unhealthy, but also from very healthy parents. So healthy in fact, that the construction plans for their offspring altered such that the underused/unused body operations weren't fully developed, or developed at all in some extreme cases.
I was thinking of that - whether major races diverged far enough for their sets of genes to lose some compatibility. It does not seem to be the case. Hybrids are quite good in most cases. Of course whites-asians are not as diverged as those two groups from blacks and lived in similar "civilised" conditions with constant gene exchange.
Blacks in US do have about 25% of white genes on average though it differs a lot geographically. Could have that negatively affected them? If it did, it would probably be in the most subtle and sophisticated systems.
Of course the immune system is the most sophisticated system in our organism after the brain - likely to be affected by even minor screwup.
Whatever the origins of disparity - evolution or mixing genes, it exists. Unlike brain, well-functioning immune system is necessary for survival in our society. And it's not a career suicide to notice and talk about racial differences with regard to immunity unlike the other kind of differences.
miko
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
As an atheist let me give you my take:
If atheists are right about the non-existence of God and afterlife,
when we all (atheists and everyone else) die it will not matter as we will not have the capacity to be aware.
That will sum it up for me ;)
BTW nice thread you've started.
Regards,
wSNPR
The way Heaven works is this- All us true believers sit around, play Aces High (and only fly perked planes) and get drunk on Mai-Tais.
The kinda-believers get to play Aces High but they don't get perked planes and they fire rubber bullets.
Non-believers are made to fly goonies and sit in field guns far away from the action.
Oh, there will be no Aces High staff in Heaven. :D
Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?
-
MT, I don't know what this world is coming to. They even let us Christians into college too.
I defer to your superior knowledge of biology.
To move on, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, yes?
Note: I'm not going down the "it's only a theory" road.
-
Evolution is as important to Biology as Newtons laws are to Physics. It represents an explanation of the biological world as we observe it today that is elegant in it's simplicity and all encompassing in its breadth. It is as much a theory as Pythagoras' theory on right triangles.
I think http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html
is one of the best sites I've seen regarding this question. It takes the view tthat religion and science may actually be compatible.
-
Apache- it gets kind of hard to ignore the chronological time line of ape-> human.
Among other things we have dug up from the ground and dated using carbon dating...
Just because you believe in religion doesn't mean that you can't believe in evolution.
What makes you think God wasn't smart enough to know that we'd want to know out about the "before time"?
If you think about it, he would of made it so that it started off very simple, but allowed for areas of growth and perfection.
Evolution is still very possible within the realm of religion, to ignore it, you have to ignore virtually everything that has been discovered in/on our planet and choose to only believe what you read in the Bible despite the proofs sitting in our museums.
Elf- "Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?"
Yeah, it seems kinda bleak don't it? OTOH, it makes you realise you only got one shot at enjoying being and then that's it. So live it up.
To all religious folks-
How do you explain to me that if you ask for God's forgiveness, no matter how extreme your sins are, you will be forgiven... eventually. While, someone who lives a life according to the ten commandments (ie: a good person), but he doesn't believe in God.. or at the very least isn't sure and doesn't ask for forgiveness... well he gets the short end of the stick..
How do you explain that? I mean, all of those child molesting priests... surely they will get a nice spot in heaven if they ask for forgiveness while someone who is a far better person but doesn't believe there's a God gets the short end of the stick?
Seems a lil' redundant to me, and would appear that heaven would resemble a hell more than anything.
A mass murderer could ask for forgiveness, and he will be forgiven... eventually.
-SW
-
You used an interesting word MT, observe.
What is/are the observable fact(s) of evolution?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Apache- it gets kind of hard to ignore the chronological time line of ape-> human.
Among other things we have dug up from the ground and dated using carbon dating...
Just because you believe in religion doesn't mean that you can't believe in evolution.
What makes you think God wasn't smart enough to know that we'd want to know out about the "before time"?
If you think about it, he would of made it so that it started off very simple, but allowed for areas of growth and perfection.
Evolution is still very possible within the realm of religion, to ignore it, you have to ignore virtually everything that has been discovered in/on our planet and choose to only believe what you read in the Bible despite the proofs sitting in our museums.
Elf- "Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?"
Yeah, it seems kinda bleak don't it? OTOH, it makes you realise you only got one shot at enjoying being and then that's it. So live it up.
To all religious folks-
How do you explain to me that if you ask for God's forgiveness, no matter how extreme your sins are, you will be forgiven... eventually. While, someone who lives a life according to the ten commandments (ie: a good person), but he doesn't believe in God.. or at the very least isn't sure and doesn't ask for forgiveness... well he gets the short end of the stick..
How do you explain that? I mean, all of those child molesting priests... surely they will get a nice spot in heaven if they ask for forgiveness while someone who is a far better person but doesn't believe there's a God gets the short end of the stick?
Seems a lil' redundant to me, and would appear that heaven would resemble a hell more than anything.
A mass murderer could ask for forgiveness, and he will be forgiven... eventually.
-SW
SW your belief in evolution is no different than my belief in creation, they are both faith based. You can't prove macroevolution any more than I can prove creation.
How do we know that this ape creature you guys so highly refer to wasn't created, then destroyed before man was created?
-
It's actually a long series of ape-like creatures that becomes more man like as the series comes to a close with us, stretched over a couple hundred thousand years.
But in the case of evolution, it's far easier to see than creation.
Just hear me out, we are so closely related, in terms of body structure, to apes that it's astonishing.
Why do we need 360deg rotating arms? To scratch our backs? Why don't other animals have ball sockets in their shoulders to scratch their backs?
Was it because at one point we swung in trees? Or is it because God felt it would be easier to throw spears with ball sockets?
Why do our feet actually resemble ape's feet when viewed without the surrounding flesh and skin? Was it because at one point our feet were used as secondary hands to again grip tree branches at swing?
Is it possible that we were in fact a TYPE of ape, but not the kind we see around us today? A type that was able to adapt and alter itself?
Things like that will continue to go unanswered for a long time because we are relatively unintelligent in relation to everything around us.
It's all based around which is easier for you to swallow... but when we have examples of previous ancestors in museums, it gets very hard to swallow creation.
-SW
-
Target,
Please indicate where I have put forward any creationist ideas. I simply don't believe in macroevolution, that doesn't make me a creationist. Evolution is science's best effort to explain the existence of life, but as a theory it is full of holes.
ra
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
It's actually a long series of ape-like creatures that becomes more man like as the series comes to a close with us, stretched over a couple hundred thousand years.
But in the case of evolution, it's far easier to see than creation.
Just hear me out, we are so closely related, in terms of body structure, to apes that it's astonishing.
Why do we need 360deg rotating arms? To scratch our backs? Why don't other animals have ball sockets in their shoulders to scratch their backs?
Was it because at one point we swung in trees? Or is it because God felt it would be easier to throw spears with ball sockets?
Why do our feet actually resemble ape's feet when viewed without the surrounding flesh and skin? Was it because at one point our feet were used as secondary hands to again grip tree branches at swing?
Is it possible that we were in fact a TYPE of ape, but not the kind we see around us today? A type that was able to adapt and alter itself?
Things like that will continue to go unanswered for a long time because we are relatively unintelligent in relation to everything around us.
It's all based around which is easier for you to swallow... but when we have examples of previous ancestors in museums, it gets very hard to swallow creation.
-SW
I understand your position and I certainly would not attempt to shove my beliefs down ones throat but IMO, macroevolution doesn't even meet the basic parameters of scientific theory. Its not observable, repeatable nor testable.
-
I understand Apache... I just think that it's just as totally out there, and plausible, as creationism(is that right?).... and I think it could just as easily fit with there still being a God.
Such as God creating, not us, but the basics. Cells that can evolve, DNA which are blue prints for life, and the ability for DNA to mutate (which does/has happened).
It's not that far fetched... creation and evolution could also go hand in hand (refer to paragraph above).
My opinion of course.
;)
-SW
-
SW, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm a creationist and believe God created all things, including man as he is in his current state, I just can't prove it. Thats a hoot ain't it :).
I you sir.
-
What do you mean by macro and micro evolution? Sounds like an attempt to dodge those things that are less readily observable by calling them macroevolution, while accepting the natural selection bit as micoevolution. Do I have that right?
And if I were to show a hypothesis - explanation - observation that agreed with evolution, would that really matter? I'm positive that even if there was irrefutable evidence of evolution there would be people who would call it a trick of the devil and still try to refute it.
But here goes anyway:
If we are decended from apelike creatures and apes are also decended fromn those creatures, then we should be more closely related to apes than to other animals. This should follow on down the line from more closely related to less and less like this
Great Apes - closest
Baboons -
monkeys -
mammals -
vertebrates
invertabrates
zooplankton
Plants
etc. etc.
If a genome map or a sample is made of the DNA in these different creatures it follows exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. Is this proof? No, it is a proof.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
The way Heaven works is this- All us true believers sit around, play Aces High (and only fly perked planes) and get drunk on Mai-Tais.
The kinda-believers get to play Aces High but they don't get perked planes and they fire rubber bullets.
Non-believers are made to fly goonies and sit in field guns far away from the action.
Oh, there will be no Aces High staff in Heaven. :D
Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?
Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?
Seriously, no.
It is the idea of only having one shot in life that I treasure, to make the most of what I have left (enjoy). Because I see no second chances possible, I am against wars resulting in killing many innocent people all because we are too greedy to share.
Besides, having to deal with some people in this life is enough! :)
LOL, just imagining some of you all gathered around in heaven or hell arguing/fighting over silly things is quite amusing ;)
Regards,
wSNPR
-
lol, ok MT. I'll leave with this.
Not too long ago, Sir Fred Hoyle, you know, the guy who named the "Big Bang" theory, said the following. "No amount of time now being considered by evolutionists is even remotely adequate to accomplish the formation of a higher living organism by chance. Such an event, he said, would be comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein"!
-
No way do I agree to disagree, how about you disagree to agree!
:)
Serously though, I just like throwing out a bunch of what-if scenarios and see if anyone is more right than the other... or more believable.
I also enjoy arguing/discussing these things because I end up learning more than I did when I went into it.
I don't believe in God, but that isn't to say I can't believe a God(or divine creator) couldn't exist.
I just don't have any facts other than the few things we've uncovered here... I guess that is the bane of man.
To know it all, but know nothing at the same time. ;)
S! Apache.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Seriously tho,wSNPR, don't you kinda hope you're wrong about the no afterlife thingie?
Why bleak? It doesn't negate the life you have lived. You are still part of the universe. The engery you expended during life, your molecules, still all there. I kind if think of it as going home. My component parts are still part of the greater whole, the divine millieu.
Now consciencousness for all eternity, that is pretty loving scary. A bird starts at one end of the galaxy. Flies to the other end of the universe and sharpens it's beak on a mountain. Flies back to it's starting point, and begins the process again. By the time the mountain is the size of a pepple, you still have an eternity to go. Sounds like a nice recipe for insanity. God, I don't see how anyone would want to be concious for eternity.
-
Originally posted by Apache
lol, ok MT. I'll leave with this.
Not too long ago, Sir Fred Hoyle, you know, the guy who named the "Big Bang" theory, said the following. "No amount of time now being considered by evolutionists is even remotely adequate to accomplish the formation of a higher living organism by chance. Such an event, he said, would be comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein"!
Hehe yeah, Hoyle. Not to denegrate a brilliant man, but even Einstein was symied by the unified theory he kept trying to prove. Hoyle has an agenda too, but it has nothing to do with creation. He asserts that ALL organic compounds are biological in origin, and that everything that is here got here from space. Even today space viruses are causing mutation and evolution.
-
I just had a thought.
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the probablity of life developing on Earth. What if we changed the calculations to include every possibly hospitable planet in the galaxy, what about the universe? Wouldn't it appoach certainty?
-
Did I not say that... like twice already Thrawn?
:)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Did I not say that... like twice already Thrawn?
:)
-SW
Oh, I don't actually READ any of the other posts on this board. ;)
PS: My apologies for stealing your thunder. These religion threads are all starting to look alike.
-
Yeah, but this thread had cats, the others didn't!
Cobra
-
I had never heard the term "Sailcat" before. My life is better for it. That alone has made this thread worthwhile.
-
Thunder?
Shoot, it's more like a whizz-bang-pop kind of sound. Like those crappy new fireworks they sell in place of M-80s.
Was just saying though, I said it first. So there.
:)
-SW
-
We were at a wedding once and when the bride and groom left a seagull pooped on the groom's mother and the bride laughed and the groom's mom got all pissed off and called her a hoosie-ho who'd tricked her son into marriage and the bride said oh yeah? well maybe if YOU were more of a ho your husband wouldn't visit massage parlors and then it got ugly and damn I wish I had a nice slice of pizza...maybe with some red and gold bell peppers and the good kind of Italian sausage on it...some mushrooms...yum
-
Damn, I wish you had had a video camera.
And for cryin' out loud, don't they have delivery where you live?
-
What did 'God' evolve from?
If He/She did in fact not evolve, who/what created 'God'?
-
The Big Bang created God.:)
-
God created universe just now and arranged for the evidence of evolution and Big Bang - just to keep our life interesting.
God himself was created by a Super-God (and so on...). I mean, that's obvious. God created us in his image, right. What do you think He is himself, an atheist? Perish the thought!
If not a godless atheist, who would he believe in? Just Himself? That would make him a liberal but that's impossible because he truly loves humanity but does not interfere much becasue of respect to free will. Also his views on sodomy and abortion are anything but...
miko :)
-
Bump!
eskimo
-
Oh dear God...
:eek:
-
pizza map just drove me out of the MA.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pizza map just drove me out of the MA.
lazs
mmmmmm,
I like pizza.
eskimo
-
If ya follow the Bible Eve was created from Adams rib, now the DNA implictions here of some interest!