Ok, the other thread started with the movie "The Concierge" and ended up talking about evolution, so I thought I might as well put up a thread specifically about it :)

So what I'm interested in seeing are your views on evolution vs. creation, any proof that exists for either argument (this is the particularly interesting part), and anything else you can think of regarding the subject...

I want to borrow a quote from the FrappyDoo forum:

"Just look at the Grand Canyon...explain THAT with evolution!" :D

hmm, i'm bored tonight and looking for some internet action so here i go ... ;)

creation vs. evolution ... well, i'm worried about offending people and whatnot. hmm, and you know, religion and stuff. don't want to start preaching.

basically, i believe in God. but i also believe in science. seemingly contradictory but it works out for me. i believe the world was indeed created ... to evolve. make any sense? that, we may very well have been tadpole salamanders in the galapagos islands and eventually became the strapping beasts we are today, but we were *designed* that way. by something. it could be a great, smart perfect being or some being just as flawed as we are (and therein lies everybody's definition of "god" or "creator", which I don't want to get into, so to each his own), but something/somebody out there did *something*, on purpose or not.

maybe he/it/she spat in some mud and made claymation cinema for entertainment and maybe he/it/she dreamed us during some REM and maybe she/it/he exudes us from pores and we are tiny beings existing with whole cultures and ways of life on the bottom of it/he/she's foot. who knows. i tend to believe in "he" and that he did it on purpose and gives some sort of a d@mn (also, to each his own).

there's no law that says there can't be god and science. i guess we're just used to scientists not believing in god and therefore tearing the world apart to define its origins, but couldn't it just as well be that they are doing so to make sense of its preordained systems from the mind/great intellect/accidental amalgam that did the creating. Therefore, they developed evolution theories, but that doesn't necessarily negate god or "an omnipotent creator being" (whatever you want to go with). Even with the big bang theory ... somebody had to make the big bang. Maybe it was he/she/it farting (no offense intended) but regardless, nothing comes from nothing. it all starts from somewhere. it's the where we don't know and the path back to it that remains a mystery.

____
and that, dear friends, is our news bulletin for tonight.

That's more or less exactly how people should look at it, without going into the extremes of one or the other side. Pure Creationists go so far out of their way (and you wouldn't believe some of the things I've seen) to disprove any and every aspect of evolution - all the hominid fossils, bacteria DNA - basically anything you can think of, in order to disprove evolution and support the Genesis point of view.

On the other hand, pure Evolutionists do the opposite, giving their very best shot to proove that God doesn't exist, that we evolved from a primate ancestor and that the universe started with a big bang (some scientist comically described the big bang theory by saying "First there was nothing. And then it exploded" :) )!!

The best position to be in is somewhere in between, accepting both the facts that evolution and Darwin's natural selection exist, have been proven to exist and that we evolved eventually from a common ancestor we shared with the apes. On the other hand, one should also believe that there is some force out there that has perhaps *guided* our evolution in order for us to become what we are. After all, if God DID create the universe, that would mean that he created all the rules and laws in it (everything made of atoms, gravity and all the constants), and that therefore he had to play by his own rules (i.e. we couldn't just "pop" out of nowhere).

Maybe I'm wrong and Miriams "Big Fart" theory was the way it all began...who knows :D

Well, my one word (for now, at least) on this matter is that whether or not you believe in God, you have to believe something beyond our understanding and supernatural in nature came to pass when this Universe was created - be it an explosion that came out of nothing, or a Supreme Being.

That said, I believe in God...Jesus Christ, specifically.

I've already talked about this plenty at Jame's site, so if you wanna know exactly how I feel just go read that. I post under the same name there.

My problem is that I need proof. There is plenty of evidence in the science category that tells me we are here because of evolution. So far....I have not been convinced that there is a God. If I find some real proof...I will develope some faith. But for now...I just can't believe.

That's just our human nature. We're too stupid to understand the universe we live in, so we tend to break everything down into tiny bite-sized chunks that we can understand. Unfortunately, the universe and everything else doesn't work that way :) So basically, because there are so many things we don't understand, a natural symptom of that is to project it to a superior being much wiser than we are. For example, our cave-men ancestors didn't know what caused lightning, wind, rain, or the sun to shine, so they were all worshipped as gods...

Of course, I do believe in God specifically, it's just that as you learn more and more about our world and everything else, it becomes very hard to accept everything at face value, so you start asking questions and looking for answers...that's my best explanation for it! Oh yeah, and I sure as hell hope that the Bible wasn't the biggest hoax in history!! ;)

Me too. :)

I like to think of myself as a pretty logical person by nature - but sometimes I just can't see all around me created by chaos. Too many things work in such precision, and sometimes, so artistically, to be random.

I also see signs of intelligent design around. Part of it, inevitably, is emotional. Can't *all* be explained. :)

My point exactly! To me, god is just an easy way of explaining what you can't explain.

I believe that the world was created by God.

To me, saying God doesn't exist is an easy way of making up for sin. :) That's not meant as an insult, but I think it can work both ways - the human mind has a reason to make God up, or pretend He does not exist.

I don't think its an easy way for making up for sin at all. If I do sin, I will be punished either way, by the law or by god(if he is real). So its not really making up for anything in my opinion.

I just want to apologize in advance if I offend anyone.

It's really clear actually:

With a God in my life, I have to repent every night (I do so anyway, even though not forced)...I am responsible for all things that break God's law, not just human law.

Without a God, I don't have to worry about these things, and don't have to feel as guilty for my sins. Seems easier to me.

Naw, it's all good.

I get where your coming from. I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't sin. I know I do. Every day. Every hour probably. And I do feel guilty for it. Which I guess is a disadvantge to being agnostic rather than practicing a religon. What I ment to say is that although I don't repent my sins with prayer right now, if god is real I will have to face the consequences in the end. Or not. Sorry if that sounds confusing. When I read it to myself it doesn't sound like its explaining much, I guess it just makes sense in my head.

I sort of get it - I just mean that, being a Christian, I have to spend some of my short time during life on things like guilt and reptenence.

Anyway, that's enough out of me.

Some people actually believe in God with a "Why Not" philosophy i.e. if they believe in God and he does exist, then at the end of it all they'll get the rewards...if not, then no harm done anyway!

One of the favoured arguments of Creationists is that the universe is too ordered to be random (not intended to offend anyone)...and I realise that this might be the case. But what they sometimes fail to realise is the actual size of the universe, and by this alone, every random event has a small probability of happening, which in a universe of this size can become significant.

But in the end there must be some sort of organized intelligence behind the whole thing, whether it's what we call "God" or an advanced alien race that's tinkering with the whole thing or whatever...it's not too hard to imagine!

Yes, something is bound to happen somewhere - but here? What are the odds that we're once of the very few planets out there this lucky?

Also, keep in mind, that if you believe in evolution, you have to believe in either billions upon billions of other humanoid races on other planets who have died out, or you have to believe in this earth being nearly TRILLIONS of years old, and that millions upon billions of other human-type figures, mutated and different from us, tried to survive, but didn't.

I just find that hard to believe. :)

Hmm, that's a very interesting point of view! Like I mentioned previously, I'm sort of in between the two, I believe in both evolution and creation (sort of), that they have some sort of connection.

But if you want, I'll give you some of the facts that support the evolutionist's point of view (this again is not meant to insult anyone).

Ok, here goes. Scientists estimate that the age of the universe is roughly 15 billion years. Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 7. In our galaxy there are between 200 and 300 billion stars, and in our known universe there are an estimated 300 billion galaxies of similar *average* size (this comes from the Hubble Space Telescope's Deep Field images). I'm sure you've heard on the news that there are new planets being discovered constantly (with present methods they can only find large Jupiter-like planets), and the professors at my university were the first to discover a whole solar system (consisting of three detectable planets)outside our own. In total there are about 50 known planets in the nearby stars (with nearby I mean within a 1000 light-year radius)

Of course, there are a lot of conditions that are required for there to be life: size, age and type of sun, distance of planet from the sun, a suitable cosmic location (i.e. not close to exploding supernovae, black holes etc.), axial tilt, stable eliptical or circular orbit...just to name a few. Based on these figures, NASA concluded that there are roughly 10^11 (that's 10 to the power of 11) suitable planets *in the whole universe*. Now, whether these planets harbour what we define as *intelligent life* (one that is capable of constructing a radio telescope) is a different concept alltogether. The chances are that they would be nowhere near hominid looking (as I discussed in my other thread). So, if you look at it, the chances of such "coincidences" happening *somewhere* in the universe are not 0, since we are here (although, even if superintelligent beings existed in the nearest galaxy, let alone some distant one, it would still take them another hundred thousand years to even discover us!

Also, if you're interested, I can explain how life formed on Earth roughly 3.5 billion years ago, but I won't now because I've gotten too long winded ;D

Cheers!

You could, but I probably wouldn't believe it. :) I even have my doubts about these findings you've listed here. We have to remember that if they DON'T find "new things", they have to find a new line of work. :)

I believe in science plenty - I just believe we don't know nearly as much as we've supposedly "discovered." If you look through history, you'll see that the odds suggest that most "findings" will prove to be innaccurate later.

Anybody who thinks that there are no other lifeforms anywhere else in the universe is nothing but a pile of ignorance.

And about God...why should we (as humans) not be able to control our own lives. It is not fair. Some find it hard to believe that there are other lifeforms anywhere else...I find it hard to believe Adam and Eve were magically dropped onto this planet into a little place called "Paridise." If the "wisetail" was true, they had no control over their lives. Hence not being able to eat the apple! The bible is nothing but stories past down from many many generations ago. People believe in God because they feel they have to. Actually, a lot of people believe in God because they're SCARED not to. It's all about FAITH...without faith, it's all for nothing. If you're like me, and you don't have COMPLETE faith...then don't pretend to HAVE faith. Who can honestly say that for at least a moment...you had your doubts that God exists?

OK, I realise that some of the facts that I presented in my last post are a bit hard to accept (I personally doubt the 10^11 figure, but the rest is the most current belief held by scientists). I'm not just inventing these figures however, I had a subject at uni as part of general ed. called "Are We Alone? The Search for Life Elsewhere in the Universe"...it sounds like something Mulder might have thougt of, but it was a very serious subject where they went into a lot of physics, chemistry and a whole lot of other stuff related to our universe.

Anyway, without going into too much detail, scientists replicated the conditions that were present on our earth 3.5 billion years ago (they put a whole lot of gasses present in our atmosphere from volcanic eruptions etc. in a flask, and ran electric sparks through it to simulate lightning). Almost *instantly* when they analysed the results, they found all 20 amino acids that we use to make proteins, polypeptides that are used to make our DNA, and a whole lot of organic molecules used in our body. What's more, when the solution was allowed to cool and sit there for a few days, they found that some of the lipids had formed into circular objects which are called protocells, which when filled with water, split off and formed two smaller cells...these resemble VERY closely the fossils of the oldest cells known...the splitting is not the organised replication of a cell that we know today, but it could very well have been the start. Anyway, I'm not saying that this was THE way that life on earth or anywhere else started, but that it is a POSSIBLE way that it could have happened.

If anyone's curious, you can check out the http://www.talkorigins.org site, which presents scientific evidence for both point of views :)

Right....so Adam and Eve weren't just dropped to create human life then?

Nah, I don't think it was likely that they were just dropped in to start the Human race...actually, there are different ways of interpreting the Genesis chapter of the Bible, which would view the "day" as a symbolic period, and which doesn't contradict evolution.

Well, I think it probably does. The Bible is open to interpretation in many ways, but I'd have to say that isn't one of them. That said, I believe in microevolution - birds getting faster as time goes on, people getting taller - but not a dog turning into a whale. :D

Yes, I've had my doubts, but seeing as how I believe in Him, I pray to God every day and almost always defend Him in situations like these. I have Faith in Him.

By the way: life on other planets does not mean intelligent life. I don't know what's out there. I don't believe The Bible addressess whether or not other life exists.

PooPoo: Yeah, it's amazing, isn't it? I think, however, that it takes a lot more Faith not to believe in God.

Really hate to nit-pick, but I just gotta say this :)

In the original Hebrew text of the bible, the word used is not "days", but rather "period of time" which is interpreted in the translations as days...

Also, there are two words for "create" in the Hebrew language. One of them means "to make", the other means "to fashion something out of something already existing", and this is the word used when referring to the creation of Man.

That being said, this doesn't mean that I don't believe in God. On the contrary, I am very religious myself, and I too pray every day (I'm of the Orthodox faith though, but that doesn't change much). The point is that, as I learned more and more about everything, I started asking questions, since I find it difficult to believe that everything was just "popped" into existance.

Well, if you can believe in a Supreme Creator, the "popping" becomes much easier to swallow. :) I see your point - I can understand people not believing in The Bible or Jesus specifically - there are so many religions out there. I am always surprised to meet someone who doesn't believe in some sort of God though.

I just realised after re-reading my previous posts that it looks like I was coming on way to strong, shoving my views down people's throats, so I want to say I'm sorry, that it wasn't the original intention!

Since you mentioned all those other religions out there, I wanted to ask a specific question about them...

I've seen a whole lot of Mormons around, there are two "resident" ones outside our uni main gate, and even here in the Phillipines, I saw them dressed in their attire and realised straight away what they were...so, what do you think about all these other religions (well, sects almost), any experiences with them? I've noticed the methods they use, and you really need a will of steel to be able to get away from them! I tend to take it very personally when someone tries to convert me to their own faith, these guys must have tried a dozen times!! :D I know some of their beliefs, how right/wrong are they, and also how right/wrong are they to convert other people??

I realise this has almost nothing to do with the original topic being discussed, but it's still interesting ;)

To get back to the evolution topic, I'm just going to copy and paste something I said at FrappyDoo SO I can see Zeph and PooPoos responses


(excuse spelling)
I bring myself back to the point of the evolution of man themself. The first humanoid, was Austrolopithicus, actually there was one before that called Austrolopithicus Africanus, but I will focus on Austrolopithicus. Austrolopithicus, which much like an ape, walked on all fours, and had a slopping forehead and protruding jaw...then turned into Homo-Erectus. Which was basically just a very hairy person who walked upright, unlike before, and had a slightly less protruding jaw and forehead. From Homo Erectus came Homo Habilus, which was less hairy, less protruding jaw, a more domed cranium, with a bigger brain cavity. Homo Habilus, with its more developed brain, was capable of using tools, and making tools. From Homo Habilus came Homo Sapien, the species right before humans. Up to now the bible could possibly explain why this occured, it started off as Adam and Eve and grew from there. Where did Cro-Magnon man come from? There is DIRECT FACTUAL EVIDENCE of Cro-Magnon man, where did they come from? And if you would like to know where they disappered to, Cro-Magnon man inter breed with Homo Sapien, yeilding Homo sapien sapien, or modern day man.
If there are bone aka archilogical evidence of Cro-Magnon man....where then do Adam and Eve fit in the archelogical evidence?

Also if Adam and eve are to be the representations of humans....Please give me a date in history when they appeared..and what followed..the Sumarians? Egyptians>? and where do they relate to the dinosaur bones... ?

I can tell you why Adam and Eve do not fit into the equation, and its rather simple. During the time when Adam and Eve were thought of, when the bible was created, Dinosaurs, Homo Habilus, Neandrathal man, Cro-Magnon man, Homo Erectus, and all the others were not known at the time. There was no way that information could have been known, which is why Creationism offers no explaination for it.

Peter: I believe Jeff replied to that in that thread, so I'll revert to that. I am still learning of the scientific side of things, but I've seen answers for everything on both sides really.

Zeph: no need to apologize at all.

Mormons, eh? A lot of people avoid them - I think we purposely pretended not to be home once so we wouldn't have to talk to them, but personally I wouldn't mind. My dad, I've been told, used to almost ALWAYS invite them in - he knew the Bible well enough that he could shoot down a lot of their claims...The Book of Mormon contradicts with it quite a bit apparently.

Anyway, he apparently more than once got the Mormons really angry - always kind of cracked me up to hear that. It would crack you up too if you knew my dad. :D

d@mn, 30 posts since i last checked!! :)

a lot going on here, lessee ... since so many people's comments refer to other comments, this might be out of order ... but hey, this is a pot of ideas so i hope that's ok. and, going from that, i've got a whoooole lot to say. prepare yourselves! ;) these are numbered for your reading pleasure cause I doubt you all want to read this at once, but, i had to catch up!!

1. quote, TWTCommish; "That said, I believe in God...Jesus Christ, specifically. "

you guys got to talking about religions, toward the end. don't want to offend Chris, but I mean, you know how contradictory your statement sounds, right? I've always been wary of how Christians believe God is Jesus cause it's too too similar to how Catholics believe God is Jesus AND Mary ... How can one believe X is Y? That's why they have two different names and two entirely definitions. Yet, somehow, they evolved to mean each other, or Y (Jesus) to equal the former (God), and the how and the sense of that, which I have perceived and which I get factually, is one that has no common sense to me. My family is Christian, my mother was once Catholic ... I've seen it all. I myself am Christian because I do believe that at some point in the history of the world a man named Jesus existed ... other than that, the buck stops there. I believe he's entirely separate from God. Related, but separate.

2. quote, TWTCommish: "I like to think of myself as a pretty logical person by nature - but sometimes I just can't see all around me created by chaos. Too many things work in such precision, and sometimes, so artistically, to be random. "

yup. "God is in the details." ;)

3. quote, OG: "My point exactly! To me, god is just an easy way of explaining what you can't explain."

So's science. Pick one, or believe both. Because science may have the math and numbers, but recall that math is INVENTED. I've taken the math and i've dealt with the quantum physics people (not heavy duty but i have). and it's INVENTED. You know, in courses I've taken that break down something as simple as light, when you get down to the microscopic level, you get down to THEORY. Not even necessarily FACT. And here's a real live term we used to define things: "little packets." That's right. Nothing specific, no real terms. That term was used to refer to "little packets of light" travelling, which no one can grasp or seize. It's funny, people put so much weight in the factual side of science when it is really as theoretical and contradictory (think of all the opposing theorists and scientists out there) and grasping for the truth as religion.

Back to science. It did not have known rules and regulations and had to be 1) recreated if it already existed 2) invented to fit what we do know. In which case, who invented it first? Or did scientists just stumble upon a system to which there are keys and facts the depths and likes of which they are still plumbing and may never completely know and if they ever do figure it out, at that time we will have reached perfection/utopia.

Science may simply be part of the system by which God indeed has things rolling. If, indeed, he is perfect and made us in his image, he may be trying to evolve us toward something more worthy, and something more perfect than we are. Short of physically reaching his hand/will/whatever down upon us and manipulating our minds and selves, he has left us to do it on our own, in which case we DO have a hand in our own destiny (NOTE: PooPooMaster). He may manipulate the factors AROUND us, but he himself does not manipulate us actively.

Retroactively, perhaps. For those who are highly religious, that's them manipulating themselves in his honor, not him telling you subconsciously and in person to pray 5x a day or to not eat from an unblessed kitchen. Yet, there's some residual influence left behind in texts. I take this with a grain of salt and admit I have not read them all, and do not know the original versions or the names of the chapters. But, if his reasons make some sort of sense (don't eat pigs cause they are filthy animals) then fine, it makes sense, more power to those who don't eat pork.

Back to evolution here ... so, our destiny is unknown but to the best of our knowledge is just "do the best you can." Which is kind of like, we don't know why we're here but let's just imagine it's to become better than what we are. What we are in the grand scheme of things we don't know either but let's just stick to that for know cause there's a lot we don't know and to avoid further mistakes we might as well keep learning to avoid them and hope the point of our existence comes to light. I personally believe that point is perfection, complete knowledge, enlightenment, whatever, but that will have to happen for EVERYBODY, a world where all is known and we are perfect beings.

We can't gain this with help. We have to do it on our own, otherwise there is no point and we've learned nothing, we've had the easy way out. In the meantime, God is experimenting. He's running his own experiment but it's not for fun. Maybe it is, I don't presume to know his mind, but I imagine that he WANTS us to achieve perfection, but because he wants us to earn it, he chooses to do only certain manipulations of the world around us to give us chances to improve, and to leave it at that. The adversity and the joy and the sorrow around us is all to teach us, and we are all here to learn, in order to reach some point, which I think is perfection. It's the classic parent-child dynamic - we do this to our own children, do we not? You will become better than you are, and you will become a better version of yourself that I myself judge fit to be in the world and know is good. Usually that involves some self-image and ego problems, and in a way, God may be intending us to become better than him, who knows. But in the meantime, he wants us better than we are. What that is on his scale, who knows. Maybe he wants us equal. Probably impossible, but who knows. Maybe we will be equal in every way but just not omnipotent/omniscient.

3. quote PooPoomaster: "My problem is that I need proof. There is plenty of evidence in the science category that tells me we are here because of evolution."

Like i said, science proving evolution does not disprove God (or a similar being). God may indeed have created the world in such a way that there is a system, which we discover now as science, but in the end it all points toward the same thing. Whether we give HIM credit or not for it is up to each person.

4. quote Zephyrus: "That's just our human nature. We're too stupid to understand the universe we live in, so we tend to break everything down into tiny bite-sized chunks that we can understand. "

it's really funny, cause he meant this about making up gods. but, if you think of it, isn't this the exact same thing we do for science?? that IS science. little chunks we call "theories" and then test-run. and we do it all so we can make sense of the world.

5. quote, TWT Commish: "To me, saying God doesn't exist is an easy way of making up for sin. That's not meant as an insult, but I think it can work both ways - the human mind has a reason to make God up, or pretend He does not exist. "

As OG said, he is not denying that he sins. And, specifically, while saying God doesn't exist could be a way to avoid making up sin for some people, that's not necessarily the truth for all people and there are multiple reasons and multiple results for choosing not to believe in God. The main one, which we've already heard here is the most basic of all human internal law: I have no proof that he exists. Tied to that one is, I have to see it for myself. That's a double meaning there. WHen people say it, they mean visually, they want proof. They want to see someone come back to life before their eyes after being shot, or God walk out of the clouds, or whatever. But, in a way they may be also be saying exactly that - no amount of yapping from anybody else is going to make them believe. They will have to see FOR THEMSELVES. (that emphasis there is not pointing at anybody here, i'm stressing a point).

And, Christians are certainly not the only ones spending time during their day ruminating on the bad they've done. Atheists and agnostics can do it too. They may not think of it as "sin" (since they disregard the bible and the rules that make sins sins) but they can still see them as trespasses against others and the order of the world and this ties into what OG said. And this makes choosing not to believe in God just to avoid being punished highly unlikely. Everyone always says that and it's like they're just not cutting anybody any slack. (no offense, I'm just a tad frustrated that always seems to be the case). someone said that to me once and I'm not even without religion!

6. quote Zephyrus: "But what they sometimes fail to realise is the actual size of the universe, and by this alone, every random event has a small probability of happening, which in a universe of this size can become significant. "

But we don't know the size of the universe nor our size in terms of it. Science can yap all it wants but if there are multiple universes around us then we've got a limited knowledge base. science is only trying to make sense of what it knows in it's limited space range (earth/any universes/galaxies we know of) and cannot presume that at any given time it's found it all. say we're a house in a fenced-in yard. scientists are sniffing all over the yard and may think they've got it all figured out but there's still a little gate that leads out to the street, and the neighborhood, and the next street, and ... etc.

7. quote, TWTCommish: "Yes, something is bound to happen somewhere - but here? What are the odds that we're once of the very few planets out there this lucky?

Also, keep in mind, that if you believe in evolution, you have to believe in either billions upon billions of other humanoid races on other planets who have died out, or you have to believe in this earth being nearly TRILLIONS of years old, and that millions upon billions of other human-type figures, mutated and different from us, tried to survive, but didn't.

I just find that hard to believe. "

why? later in these posts i think you say that the bible never covers it. depends which bible you use, my friend. and which holy book, cause there are multiple ones. somewhere i read, and i can't remember specifically which version, in the English (non-Hebruw) bible, that God did indeed say something to the effect of, "You are not the only children I have created" or something like that. Or , You are not hte only children I have put on this world."

Now, when he said it, he might have meant world in an entirely nonspecific sense, in which case, the entire plane he is practicing his creating on may be the "world" he means, under which there are multiple universes and planets, within which one tiny thing called Earth exists.

And, having said we are not the only children he created ... and with my believe science is indeed completely the system by which he has created and developed us, that he has done the same with others. I do believe there are other beings out there. Somewhere. Maybe it's just one other planet with humans exactly like us. Maybe it's 15 other planets with humanoids. Maybe it's 5 gazillion with beings with no discernible or recognizable appearance (light, water, spirit, who knows) or maybe they look like dolphins and whales. But i do believe their out there.

The other thing is humans have a penchant for having no basis to believe in outside things because they have not known them or seen them, and the only sure thing is believing in self-existence because "I think therefore I am" and you see others like you ... So the habit is to have so much faith in oneself/the human race that you can carry none whatsoever for anything beyond you. The human ego is selfish that way. It can't conceive there's anyone better or different (thus, the clash of races and the destructive nature of humans through their evolution still visible in our "civilized" societies today) and when we do encounter those things, we are angry, jealous, or scared. Confused of course, but we don't like what we see.

Thus the intense fear and fascination with the "other", who is not the "self". We refuse to believe in an "other" until we see one or enough other people (a majority) tells us they exist. Because the current # of people in the world who believe in "alien" life is not the majority, the rest of the world dismisses us (for yes, i'm one) as x-philes and sci fi fanatics and people with fanciful imaginations. And that will remain the way it is until we encounter others different from ourselves.

8. PooPooMaster: "Who can honestly say that for at least a moment...you had your doubts that God exists?"

of course. that's a natural part of life because the majority in the world has religion. it's as common as brushing your teeth and wondering if you really have to, or doubting the authority of your parents. we all doubt socially learned things at some point. the point as social beings is to learn for yourself why it's a socially practiced and common thing. which is why if you are born into a religion you will always have to face yourself at some point. i do not believe there is anyone born on earth into a religion who does not ask themselves at some point if they have natural faith or practice only what they are told; and/or if they really believe the religion they practice.

we have all apparently done that ourselves too, cause that's why we're here discussing and we have so many views.


9. Zephyrus: "Nah, I don't think it was likely that they were just dropped in to start the Human race...actually, there are different ways of interpreting the Genesis chapter of the Bible, which would view the "day" as a symbolic period, and which doesn't contradict evolution."

I agree that the bible, as in all things, is open to interpretation in many ways. and, the point of language and translation - a KEY factor that has ramifications for all those who practice a religion based off of a book. short of God himself having burned his thoughts into the page to never be altered or changed in any way and to reflect forever and immutably exactly what he said, we will never have the exact meaning, we will never know exactly what he meant or why for everything, and the fluid status that gives to religious books (to me) gives fluid meaning to what facets of religion come from it.

thus, the fact that God may not have even meant a "day" the way we think a day goes. and there are entire BOOKS filled with thousands of words that someone other than God chose to put there to represent what he said - or supposedly said. THe original Hebrew ... the different tomes ... the different English and Latin versions ... and then, the Koran ... think of it. That is a LOT of room for error. I'm not saying there's no truth to them now. Just that I think it's likely there are a lot of mistakes. But, that doesn't mean you still can't read them and believe in most/all/some of what they say.

10. TWTCommish: " The Bible is open to interpretation in many ways, but I'd have to say that isn't one of them. "

Why should this one passage not be open to interpretation and others are? I'm sorry, I know I seem to harping on you a lot Chris, but it's not you and I don't mean to disparage your thoughts. I totally repect them and I know where you're coming from and it's not like it doesn't make sense or that you don't have a reason to believe what you believe. I just disagree.

Ok, back to the quote - one part of the bible can't be any less fluid (in my opinion) than any other. we don't know what's fact and what isn't, what was wrongly translated, wrongly transcribed, and which chapter it was. None of this was saved on disk with spell-check and utter attention to exact translation. And translation in itself is an arrogant thing because if a person who speaks an entirely different language seeks to write the foreign words of a person speaking to them, there is no way in (you know what :) that you are gonna get it right. No way. You'll get it mostly right, or kinda right, or sorta right. But 1) you'll lose the writing if it's been aged, if the handwriting is bad, if someone misspelled or whoever wrote it made mistakes 2) you'll lose the speech cause cognitive recognition between languages works differently. The best you can get is an approximation, a near-hit and therefore, a lot of room for error.

11. OG: "Also if Adam and eve are to be the representations of humans....Please give me a date in history when they appeared..and what followed..the Sumarians? Egyptians>? and where do they relate to the dinosaur bones... ?

I can tell you why Adam and Eve do not fit into the equation, and its rather simple. During the time when Adam and Eve were thought of, when the bible was created, Dinosaurs, Homo Habilus, Neandrathal man, Cro-Magnon man, Homo Erectus, and all the others were not known at the time. There was no way that information could have been known, which is why Creationism offers no explaination for it. "

ok, archaeological evidence ... who knows when the heck they were made. i'm thinking after the dinosaurs dude. the other thing, and help me on this, my knowledge of the bible is fuzzy, but in genesis, adam and eve are in some unknown paradise. that paradise does not have to be earth. they could have been in some location unreachable to us (dimension/another planet) and when kicked out they landed on earth. or, when kicked out, they travelled until they found earth. and, we don't know the state of the universe when God made it. it may have been like atlantis and disappeared from earth (rather than being on earth, or being earth itself). not knowing the state of the universe (only knowing the state of earth, as God (we believe) describes it), it could have all been one plane in the middle of which a gated eden sat, and when he kicked the kids out the entire relation of things changed. eden could also have been some pretty island in the sky that flew away or evaporated and left the bad children behind and went off to cruise the cosmos. who knows.

now, remains. the remains of human beings have to be in a location that can preserve them for us to find them. the soil, the air, or whatever will allow this. so who's not to say the happy couple just didn't disintegrate, finally? or that they're there, just so many layers down below it'll take centuries to find them and because they could be anywhere it's highly unlikely we'll ever find them anyway?

ok, and just because no one who wrote the bible knew of the reality of evolution does not mean they are incapable of co-existing. so what if creationism can't offer the dates and facts to coincide with things like dinosaur bones? there are plenty of scientific texts out there with theories we use today that had no notion of things we know now - does that disprove them? no, it just limits their scope. so, the bible was worried about things like progeny and religion and life lessons and such, not about when exactly on the carbon dating timeline adam and eve were created. i'm sure adam and eve fit in there somewhere. either they existed before the dinosaurs or after, but i mean, come on, does when really matter? i mean, it'd be nice to know and it'd be a fascinating discovery and would probably make all the religious people even more self-righteous cause now they have proof they're not crazy, but it's not terribly important. those whom it matters to most are those who want/need visual/factual proof, which i've discussed already, and in the end, hey, i'm sorry. i can't SEE science and in fact only see actions and reactions, but I believe it exists. why not do the same with some greater system that uses science and which can be temporarily named "God"?

12. mormons: i actually went to high school where there were a few, and the interesting thing was they dressed entirely like everybody else. nothing sexy or revealing, and nothing terribly confinind. none of the suits. like regular people. the few were actually a family (unless there were others I didn't know of) and their son was our senior class president, and he was in our speech and drama club (an actor) and did everything along with everybody else and never tried to "spread the word." then, we all graduated, and i heard the guy went off to do his 2 year thing (they all do it, i can't remember what it's called) and i think that's where they travel door to door and stuff in the US. but, i think he chose to do it a different way and is back in south korea (where we went to high school) out in the countryside and living with the monks. he's still mormon. i don't quite get what he's doing up there (learning from them or trying to convert the local populace) and i didn't want to be rude and ask.

whew!!! thanks for reading!! ;)

Don't have time to reply to everything, so I'll say this:

1) The reason that one isn't open to interpretation is because I just don't think it is - it's clearer than the others. It was a matter of opinion. I thought that much was obvious...

2) When I'm talking about not being able to believe it about millions of other species, I'm talking about this planet - I don't think there have been millions of mutated humans here on Earth that have died out - if you believe in Darwin's theories or most theories of evolution, that goes with it. Doesn't seem too likely to me.

3) I understand that not everyone "blocks out" God because of their own sins, but I think plenty do. Some don't like the idea of someone more powerful and more in control than they are - they think a God means they have no control. Things like this can be concious or subconcious, and I think most Non-Christians have something similar to that going on.

Wow Miriam, that's one HELL of a post (excuse the pun :) ) If it took me ages to read the thing, it must have taken even longer to type up!!

I'll write a reply to OG's post first...

You got most of it correct. The first of our hominid ancestors was Australopithecus Afarensis known as "Lucy" (After the Beatles song "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" :)) It was basically an ape, but it was the first to walk upright and it had a forward-pointing thumb. Then came the other Australopithecines which varied from region to region, but were very much like Lucy. After them came Homo Erectus, which as you said had a less protruding jaw and forehead, bigger brain and had a more stocky appearance. Homo Habilis was the next in line, which was the first hominid to start using tools, built fires etc. and they were the first to move out of Africa. These guys evolved into Homo Sapiens, which is where the lineage gets confusing. Cro-magnon man came from Africa, through the Middle East and into Europe. At this time, the ice from the last ice age was retreating in Europe, which opened up new frontiers for the Cro's. They ran into the Neanderthals there, and it is thought that they never inter-bred, rather existed in an uneasy truce for a long period of time. Neanderthals were pushed back eventually until they died out (it is thought that the Cro's had the advantage of speech, they could communicate with and coordinate the group). This gave them the slight "edge", and Neanderthals eventually died out. The placing of neanderthals is confusing, some scientists place them as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, whereas others believe they had nothing to do with us, and should be placed in their own genus.

It is thought that according to the Bible, the Earth is about 6,500 years old (so about 4,500 years B.C. is as far as history goes). Sumerians came from the "fertile valley" in what is now Iraq about 6,500 years ago. What is surprising (this is the clincher for X-philes) is that stories have been found in Sumerian tablets that mention a garden called E'de-en (I think that's the correct spelling), and that the Sumerians believed that a "race of giant people" came down and "taught them civilization". I forgot the name of these giants, I'll write another post when I remember for anyone interested
Basically, everything we know came from the Sumerians through the Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks, then Romans and finally to present day civilization. Perhaps that's where the link between evolution and a Supreme Being (or Beings as it might be) exists...

Also, think about it, if God really did come down in the form of Jesus Christ as his son 2000 years ago, and started babbling something about how he created the universe (or multiple universes as it were), quantum physics and evolution, do you think anyone would beieve him? Hence, the way the bible is today, a collection of stories, rather than something that can be subjected to scientific method, and hence this debate :)

By the way, for anyone interested, dinosaurs were waaaaaay before humans! They existed between 150 million and 65 million years ago; in contrast, humans split from apes as recently as around 4 million years ago!

Wow, isn't it remarkable that we can look at a rock with an imprint of something on it and tell you, within one million years, how old it is? :rolleyes:

C'mon, people! I've said it before, and no one will address it: look at history, and you'll see that the facts say that a lot of what we know now will be disproven later.

It has always been human nature to jump to conclusions on scientific matters, and now there's even more motivation for scientists to "find" things - moreso than ever. Don't these things taint all these supposed findings even a little?

Well, I gotta reply to some of the remarks in the other posts, so here goes!

1. Chris: "Wow, isn't it remarkable that we can look at a rock with an imprint of something on it and tell you, within one million years, how old it is?"

Well actually we can, sometimes with even more accuracy. Here's a link if you're interested in the principles of isochron dating, which is used to date rocks: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

I've noticed that both Commish and thmilin have mentioned the validity of science and scientific method...

2. Chris: "C'mon, people! I've said it before, and no one will address it: look at history, and you'll see that the facts say that a lot of what we know now will be disproven later."

That is true, that is the whole point of science. Scientific investigation involves proposing a theory or hypothesis, and then testing it. And of course, it has to be replicable by other scientists (otherwise it can be rigged) Back in the past, scientific method wasn't even established, so many errors were made. You're right Chris, in the Middle Ages it was believed that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe...if that's what you mean by "disproven later" then I apsolutely agree with you! However, what about Newton or Einstein? Their theories and laws hold even today (after all, if you push a ball, it moves away from you :) )

3. thmilin: "Because science may have the math and numbers, but recall that math is INVENTED. I've taken the math and i've dealt with the quantum physics people (not heavy duty but i have). and it's INVENTED. You know, in courses I've taken that break down something as simple as light, when you get down to the microscopic level, you get down to THEORY. Not even necessarily FACT."

Sorry Miriam, have to disagree there. Math is invented based on observations of the universe around us. If you say it's not fact, can I therefore conclude that 1+1 is not equal to 2 because it is just fabricated to suit our needs? As far as light goes, it is hard to understand (which doesn't mean that it's inexplicable by mathematics). What it is basically is the wave/particle duality, because based on observations light sometimes behaves as waves (i.e. electromagnetic radiation) and sometimes as particles (i.e. matter). I can't really explain more without going into quantum physics...

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been tested to such a huge extent (with no major flaws or violations of the universe being found) that it is considered to be more an axiom or fact(something that is assumed automatically without requiring proof) rather than a theory. And it works very well countless times in explaining what goes on on the atomic level, which can't otherwise be explained.

4. thmilin: "But we don't know the size of the universe nor our size in terms of it. Science can yap all it wants but if there are multiple universes around us then we've got a limited knowledge base. science is only trying to make sense of what it knows in it's limited space range (earth/any universes/galaxies we know of) and cannot presume that at any given time it's found it all. say we're a house in a fenced-in yard. scientists are sniffing all over the yard and may think they've got it all figured out but there's still a little gate that leads out to the street, and the neighborhood, and the next street, and ... etc."

Sorry once again, scientists actually do know the size of the observable universe, and every possible calculation shows that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. We are not even a grain of sand in the desert of the universe, we're even less significant.

Finally, a final note about evolution. Regarding microevolution, no one claims that a dog can turn into a whale (after all, dogs can't really swim ;) ). What it does claim is that, for example, Chimps and humans share a common ancestor (a common misconception is that we evolved from apes as we know them today), and upon analysis of our DNA, 98.4% is exactly the same...there is more genetic variation between a zebra and a horse or the African and Asian elephants (which I would say are pretty similar). Chimps can learn human sign language, they can use grammar and syntax (not like parrots), but this is straying from the point.

Well, all this proving and disproving has made me tired, so I'm outta here!

I read a bit from your links, and I'm sorry, but I'm unimpressed. How exactly can we determine how this isotope was at first? Things can change very easily over time.

Regarding Einstein and Newton: I never said that NO theories are correct later, but a lot of them are not. As such, I don't like people taking these things as fact.

In fact, I think it takes a lot of audacity to claim these things as absolute fact.

Like I said: no one can deny that most discoveries - even more recent ones, are proven to be less than entirely factual later on. Let's learn from history and start declaring things as theory, rather than fact. Gravity is a theory obvious enough to claim as fact - evolution and carbon-dating are not.

It's human nature to think we know more than we do - we've been doing it for as long as we have records to show.

Just as an addition to my previous post, the name of the race of Giants that the Sumerians referred to is Anunnaki, and they apparently came from a planet called Nibiru, which revolves around our sun every 3,600 years in a plane that is perpendicular to that of the Earth and the other planets. Apparently, Sumerian clay tablets depict the solar system with all nine planets including Pluto (which wasn't discovered until the 1930's) in a circular orbit (thinking which was millenia ahead of its time). The expert on this is some guy called Zecharia Sitchin, he translated the tablets...well, I'm not saying this is true or that I necessarily believe this, just presenting some of the facts :) Hey, even I'm open to some nice X-files speculation :D

Here's a link to an interview with Sitchin, it's actually quite interesting to read if you have some spare time:
http://www.metatron.se/asitch.html

The link I posted regarding isochron dating is just one of the methods being used. The original state of the isotope can change over time (i.e. there can be outside disturbances), but many of these can be verified from the surrounding soil/rock/whatever. And of course, many samples are taken, and statistically their average is found, which is how dating works. If one particular sample is tainted or spoiled, would it mean that a thousand samples taken at various places or by different people would also be tainted and spoiled?

I never claimed that evolution was a fact or an axiom. It is after all still called the "Theory of Evolution", which is rather a collection of many theories. Since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been hailed as one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century, perhaps of all time, do you think that many scientists would have tried to dispove it? The point that I was trying to make is that it is a very sound theory, and as far as the atomic level is concerned, it works impecably well.

I may just take you up on your claim. Since you say that many of the theories are not correct or disproven later on, can you give me one example?

Also, can I ask you another question? Since I mentioned Chimps in my post, how do you explain the extraordinary similarities? If God had indeed fashioned Man in his own image, why create Chimps which are 98.4% identical, that share many of the same instincts, feelings and behaviours?

God decided to make man-like animals - I don't see any contradiction. I've read that MOST animals are over 80% similar in DNA anyway, and most more. Pigs, apparently, are even more "human" in terms of DNA than apes. Doesn't mean they all evolved from each other.

As for claims: you listed a couple yourself. It's common sense, and no, I cannot list more than a few, because I'm not a historian - however, I consider it common sense, and I don't see anyone disagreeing.

Ack, I spend too much time on these things. :)

Well, some people really can be called pigs because they are much more closer to them in behaviour ;D
Actually, to tell you the truth, Chimps are by far our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The reason why we use pigs and mice in research is that, indeed, they do share some of the key genetic elements as us humans, but the more important reason is because of cruelty to animals. Since we eat pigs, they don't consider it any less humane to do research with them. "Chimponauts" as they called them were the first "Americans" to go into space, and since then, research on Chimpanzees has been widely blasted by animal rights activists as being very inhumane, because of their likeness to us. I've read a lot about this, and I've done a lot of research. Basically, they do everything like us: they love and hate, have families, care for the young, respect the old, they have social hierarchies, grieve for the dead and even wage war. They are the only known species that has been observed to systematically destroy members of their own kind (warring groups of Chimps have been observed in Tanzania). This is far too similar for me to be coincidence.

Something that struck me as being a bit odd: how can it be "common sense" that a theory will be automatically proven wrong after a while? The ones I listed were an obvious example of wrong medieval thinking, but I can't think of any that have been completely proven wrong and changed the way we look at our universe...

By the way, I really enjoy this thread ;D I just hope I'm not enraging anyone or provoking fights with the claims/arguments I'm making! It's purely a friendly discussion!! ;D

I don't understand the question: you listed the common examples - the obvious ones. I'm saying I agree with those, and that those are examples of how major world views can be commonly held and proven wrong.

People thought the Earth was flat. They thought the Sun was God. They thought the Earth was much smaller than it was. If I do some research I will find others - but I'd rather not have to.

As for the Chimps: yeah, they're pretty intelligent, arn't they? I think that is all built into them. However, the fact remains that if you stick a bunch of Apes on a planet by themselves and come back 1,000 years later, they'll still be eating bugs off of each other's backs and squeeling - they won't have made houses and cars and other things like that.

I beg to differ, and I have a perfect example of it. There was a test done in Africa with a small group of monkeys living together in the wild. Scientists would feed the monkeys rice, but all they would do is toss it out to them(these monkeys lived on the beach) and the grains of rice would get mixed with the sand and the monkeys wouldn't be able to eat it(they couldn't see it). But there was one monkey, a female, that learned after only a few days what to do. It picked up a big handful of the sand/rice mixture and dumped it in the shallow water. The sand would sink, and the rice would rise. Pretty cleaver.

As for them building houses and cars, of course not. The only reason that humans have invented houses and cars is because it became a neccisity. People needed a place to stay, and a more reliable, faster mode of transportation. What is a monkey going to need with a car? As for houses though. I have seen documentaries of chimps building huts out of the bases of trees using a mud mixture.

If you want cars, your gonna have to wait alot longer than 1,000 years.

The rice thing is hardly what I'm talking about - I'm not saying Monkeys have no ability to solve any problems whatsoever - but they cannot reason they way we do. Not even close. They survive on instincts - we do as well, but we also survive with our Wits - we make things easier on ourselves all the time.

Monkeys simply do not do that. Nothing does other than man. That's the point I was trying to make.

Chris - those points i made, somewhere in there i said i'm just going off your own points, not necessarily saying you have no basis and that I don't respect your own beliefs in the validity of your own points. i wanted to stress that i am not picking on you or seeking to debunk any of you beliefs and/or prove you wrong. I'm just following tangents based off what people said in this thread, and both you and Zephyrus made more comments ... so i had lots of responses.

ok, now:

1. Chris: " The reason that one isn't open to interpretation is because I just don't think it is - it's clearer than the others. It was a matter of opinion. I thought that much was obvious... "

It wasn't obvious. You said you didn't think it was open to interpretation and didn't say why. So now I know it's cause you think it's clearer. I still think though that "clearer" is relative and that based off my "translation" theories that a concrete and immutable understanding of the bible at all in its entirety or any one chapter (genesis included) is impossible unless God tells us himself.

2. Chris: "When I'm talking about not being able to believe it about millions of other species, I'm talking about this planet - I don't think there have been millions of mutated humans here on Earth that have died out - if you believe in Darwin's theories or most theories of evolution, that goes with it. Doesn't seem too likely to me. "

again, why? it's the likeliness factor i don't get. i ean, why is it unlikely? we don't know what god did or chose to do prior to our existence and he may have indeed had some practice shots. then again, he might not have. i'm not arguing for or against it, i'm just arguing it's as likely as anything else. it may seem extraordinary and unlikely to the christian from faith beliefs, but a belief in god is just as extraordinary to the non-believer.

3. Chris: "I understand that not everyone "blocks out" God because of their own sins, but I think plenty do. Some don't like the idea of someone more powerful and more in control than they are - they think a God means they have no control. Things like this can be concious or subconcious, and I think most Non-Christians have something similar to that going on. "

whoah, that's a real heavy generalization. that's why i had something to say on the topic earlier. but you're sticking to your guns, and that's your prerogative. feeling you have no control is not a natural conclusion to avoid responsibility for sin. to wish to avoid that responsibility you have to BELIEVE in sin. the only way to believe in sin is to believe in the bible and in god. how is that possible if you don't believe in god?

4. Chris: "It has always been human nature to jump to conclusions on scientific matters"

i would argue this against both science and religion. it is also human nature to jump to conclusions on religious matters. those conclusions are based on "fact" statements/lessons (and relative interpretations) from texts. the same goes for science. yet theories can be disproven, and, i believe, so can many of the theories that come from people (televangelists, pastors within churches, parents teaching their children) who draw ways of living (parallel to ways of science) from these texts. it is ALL relative. neither science nor religion will ever have it completely right until they both get all the data from the big boss man (or beings) himself.

so, to chris, i'd say: just because things can be disproven does not mean the whole thing (science) or most of it is bunk.

and to zephyrus: just because things have remained "true" and seem to "work" when tested again and again does not mean the whole thing (science) should be the rubric by which the world goes.

basically, i take both religion and science with a grain of salt.

5. zephyrus: "Sorry Miriam, have to disagree there. Math is invented based on observations of the universe around us. If you say it's not fact, can I therefore conclude that 1+1 is not equal to 2 because it is just fabricated to suit our needs? As far as light goes, it is hard to understand (which doesn't mean that it's inexplicable by mathematics). What it is basically is the wave/particle duality, because based on observations light sometimes behaves as waves (i.e. electromagnetic radiation) and sometimes as particles (i.e. matter). I can't really explain more without going into quantum physics... "

actually, who's to say that 1+1 does not equal 1? to better understand anything i think deconstruction is necessary. to see the whole picture you need to get out of the frame. that is all i am arguing here. what bests works for us now in this frame of reference might indeed wholly support that 1+1 is 2, and i would agree that it suits us in the living of our lives and the rules our currently civilization is based on. but what if at some point we evolve to beings that don't even need numbers? or where all knowledge makes sense on some other level or in some other way where 1+1 = 1 and nothing is separate and all things are equal?

i would phrase that for how things are now, you have stated it exactly: these things work "because it is just fabricated to suit our needs? " math is indeed invented. man created it. he created symbols to represent ideas that represent how the world works. man created the single line that represents a single object. perhaps that is why he trusts it more than he trusts religion - HE made it, not some voice in the sky. this may be why he depends upon the scientific domain rather than the spiritual. he is breaking it, as others have said here, into small parts that he can understand. the world may very well exist in such a way that small packets are not necessary and there is a larger scope (rather than numbers/formulae) to understand it in. i'm not saying it DOES. i think so. but i'm not so confident as to tell the world it must believe me. :)

as for quantum physics... dear friend, is spent an entire YEAR studying all and every facet of light. quantum physics included. i now know things that i will never be able to shake ... terribly useless but interesting information (for me:) . anyway, i know how light works. at the basic level, i still believe it's all theory. to have the notion that light even behaves as a "wave" or as "matter" is invented in itself. i'm not saying it's untrue or not right or implausible. i'm just saying it's invented. which it is. cause only man invented that idea or those terms to couch it in.

more zephyrus: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been tested to such a huge extent (with no major flaws or violations of the universe being found) that it is considered to be more an axiom or fact(something that is assumed automatically without requiring proof) rather than a theory. And it works very well countless times in explaining what goes on on the atomic level, which can't otherwise be explained. "

"which can't otherwise be explained" - that's the clincher here. who's to say that in 20 years or 100 someone isn't gonna find another way to explain it that also works and doesn't seem to fail the requisite examinations? will it disprove Einstein? or will there just be multiple ways to see it? and the other point - man seeks a way to explain things and therefore makes up rules to fit that. that's what that phrase also implies.

6. ok, zephyrus quoted me talking about the universe: ". thmilin: "But we don't know the size of the universe nor our size in terms of it. Science can yap all it wants but if there are multiple universes around us then we've got a limited knowledge base. science is only trying to make sense of what it knows in it's limited space range (earth/any universes/galaxies we know of) and cannot presume that at any given time it's found it all. say we're a house in a fenced-in yard. scientists are sniffing all over the yard and may think they've got it all figured out but there's still a little gate that leads out to the street, and the neighborhood, and the next street, and ... etc."

Sorry once again, scientists actually do know the size of the observable universe, and every possible calculation shows that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. We are not even a grain of sand in the desert of the universe, we're even less significant. "

your statement does not disprove mine. i said that scientists are sniffing in a YARD. and that science is only making sense of what it KNOWS. i did not say that scientists don't know (or think they know) the size of the OBSERVABLE universe. I'm saying there is an inherent flaw in determining the relation of things from the house (earth) to the yard (the observable universe) when there is an UNknowable universe beyond it. there is ALWAYS going to be something more that scientists haven't found, don't know, and for however much they find out, they won't know something else.

as for calculations that the universe is expanding, that's the knowable universe. what about the universe out there scientists haven't encountered yet? it's concentric circles and we don't know how far those rings go.

also, i made that statement in relation to YOUR comment:

quote Zephyrus: "But what they sometimes fail to realise is the actual size of the universe, and by this alone, every random event has a small probability of happening, which in a universe of this size can become significant. "

where it seems you're arguing that the size of the universe is rather constrained, at least enough to make some probability and it's happening "significant" where in this argument you've just posted that :" We are not even a grain of sand in the desert of the universe, we're even less significant. "

which i agree with, by the way, but this seems to contradict what you said before. which was what i was responding to before anyway. tell me if i'm wrong, but i'm making that link, between US being significant and random events/their probability being significant because you were speaking of random events in relation to humanoid races having just "happened" upon this planet and the likelyhood, which Chris thought was unlikely.

ok, my hands are tired ... ;)

Chris, what I was saying doesn't actually contradict what you were saying... The theories we currently have are as good as our guess gets. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone will figure out something that works better than what we have now (well at least I hope so), but untill then, these theories work the best. Put it this way, I'm open to anything and everything new!

Chris: "As for the Chimps: yeah, they're pretty intelligent, arn't they? I think that is all built into them. However, the fact remains that if you stick a bunch of Apes on a planet by themselves and come back 1,000 years later, they'll still be eating bugs off of each other's backs and squeeling - they won't have made houses and cars and other things like that."

What you say is true. But hell, we didn't evolve in 1000 years either! It tooks us, say, four and a bit million years to make a car...
And of course, if you stuck apes anywhere they would continue to be apes, because that's the way they have adapted to suit their ecological niche. We didn't evolve from them, we both evolved from a common ancestor...but if you stuck anything on a planet and came back after a few million years, then there would definitely be some change.

Chris: "...but they cannot reason they way we do. Not even close. They survive on instincts - we do as well, but we also survive with our Wits - we make things easier on ourselves all the time.

Monkeys simply do not do that. Nothing does other than man. That's the point I was trying to make."

My friend, let me ask you exactly what makes us human, and what separates us from the Chimps? Our ability to reason? They can solve math problems, use language, plan for the future...for heaven's sake, they can plan things ahead!! To be able to solve a problem, does it not require that they visualise it, think of a solution and then put it into practice?? They do all these things, perhaps (I admit) not nearly as much as humans, but the characteristics are still there.
You might argue that it is the soul that separates us from them...the ability to repent for your sins? Well, I have read many stories about Chimps intentionally or unintentionally inflicting harm on other chimps or people, and then later on feeling sorry for it and trying to make up...my question is where exactly do we draw the line?

thmilin: "...man created it. he created symbols to represent ideas that represent how the world works"

I couldn't have put it better myself! That is exactly what we do with math, and exactly what we do with science. We create symbols to represent what we see, and then we test these symbols against reality to see if they work...when someone proves that the symbols are wrong, they go and invent new ones...that's hitting the nail right on the head :D

Quoting myslef (no, I'm not being egocentric :)) "But what they sometimes fail to realise is the actual size of the universe, and by this alone, every random event has a small probability of happening, which in a universe of this size can become significant. "

What I was trying to say with this is that in terms of probabilities, since we are here, then the probability of a random event happening like us must be more than zero. Therefore, even if it's someting like one part in 10^10,000,000, it still has a chance of manifesting itself in this ever expanding universe. The other quote where I said that we were smaller than a grain of sand in the desert, i was commenting on our significance in the grand scale of things. :)

Miriam:

1 - Glad it's obvious now.

2 - Why? Because it doesn't seem likely to me. Why do you think it does? There's nothing to argue about here - just my opinion. Some things feel right, and others do not - and seeing as how there is no fact either way, I'm going with my gut.

3 - It could be dead-on accurate. We'll never know. However look at it from my standpoint: I believe it is NATURAL and CORRECT to believe in God, therefore anyone who does not must have something that's blocking them in one way or another.

The four most popular atheists of all time were all very screwed up in their childhood, BTW. I'm willing to elaborate a bit.

4 - Yes, people jump to conclusions in both. No argument there.

Yup, it just means we should be skeptical of these things and not take them as Gospel (no pun intended).


Zeph: I understand your point - obviously I can't say for sure what Apes would do after, say, a million years instead of 1,000. I still think they'd be apes, however. :)

What's the difference between us and them? Well: who are there more of? Who has dominated the planet? Apes have intelligence, but in a very different way from us. They don't lie awake at night wondering about God, and they can't reason out complex equations the way we can.

Chris: "What's the difference between us and them? Well: who are there more of? Who has dominated the planet? Apes have intelligence, but in a very different way from us. They don't lie awake at night wondering about God, and they can't reason out complex equations the way we can."

Actually, I agree with you (in contrast to my previous posts ;)) Obviously, we are superior to the Chimps in a hell of a lot of ways, their existence depends on us right now. The point which struck me was how much similar to us they are, how our destructive nature exists in them, as well as our capacity for love and forgiveness. I simply find this fascinating, and it was after reading a book about this that I started becoming interested in evolution and their similarity to us (the book dealt with a scientist, how he taught sign language to a chimp, how the chimp community started to communicate between themselves using this new sign language, and how it was passed on to one of the offspring without any intervention on behalf of humans - simply fascinating! :D)

I've also thought about a lot of the points in this thread (shows what I do with my spare time :)), and I've managed to figure out where I stand. My belief is that God does exist, in some form or other, that he did create Man, and that the tool he used to do this was evolution...if you think about it, it's not too impossible!

Not impossible at all - not what I believe in, but not ridiculous or insane or anything. A reasonable conclusion. :)

And yes, the things animals do is amazing at times. They have some reason - but I still believe there is an invisible line somewhere that animals will never cross.

I can tell you exactly what that invisible line is. It is the ability to imagine. I know animals can dream and solve problems which use brain power and thinking, but human beings are the only creatures on earth that can actually imagine. Think out step by step what somethig will do, chimps can do that. But chimps can not visualize what the results of there actions will be. The only animal that can do that, is a person.

I do see people as animals though. I think they are just animals who have a better advantage of the other animals. Were king of the jungle!

LOL - interesting way to put it. But yeah, I think you're right. I used to say it was the ability to reason - which is only half right. They can reason things out a bit, but not in the same way.

King of the Jungle...LOL.

Chris, I've got to ask you as part of this discussion...I know a lot of the arguments that evolutionists use to prove their point, and a lot of the attacks that some of the creationists make upon them...but surprisingly enough, when I think about it, I haven't heard almost any arguments that prove the other side's point of view, it's almost as if by attacking and refuting evolutionist's arguments, then it is assumed that by default the other side is correct!

So, are there any arguments that specifically support the case of the creationists?

You'll need to be more specific: are you looking for a list of reasons why I believe in God?

No, not really. I have realised from your threads the reasons why you believe in God, and of course I can respect that. What I was referring to specifically is that, in this thread, you have come up with a lot of arguments in reply to mine about evolution, the creation of the world etc. They were all contradictions and rebbutals, but I haven't seen any specifically that supported the opposite case (i.e. for the creation of Man/the world as in Genesis, the age of the universe...these kind of things).

Belief in creationism is different - the reason we don't have loads of supposed scientific evidence in our favor is because we know that it won't prove anything: because the bias is there on both sides, and always will be.

Evolutionists, however, like to harp (not generalizing here) on things like "Evolution is Scientific" - implying that people believe in Religion because they were taught to, and anyone who looks at the supposed "facts" and reasons it out will come out supporting Evolution. This isn't the case, of course.

As you can see, the mentality is different. As such, evolutionists seem to try a lot of different scientific experiments to "prove" their beliefs, when I just don't see it happening on either side.

I also believe, from a purely religious standpoint, that since everyone OUGHT to (IE: I believe it is natural, the way we were created) believe in God, that perhaps they're searching for proof for their beliefs with more vigor because they're afraid of being wrong.

That's going to sound insulting, but it's not. It goes back to my earlier belief that if God is real and the way he is portrayed in The Bible, then he has created us TO believe in him, and that anyone who doesn't will have certain irregularities present: such as a chronic desire to prove their case against Him.

Hope that explains it a bit. :) Not trying to be rude - and I have my problems like everyone else. I just think they stem from human nature, rather than denial of God.

I agree with you that we ought to believe. But not specifically in God (as you can see from the fact that there are hundreds of religions around the world). The fact is that it is our human nature to believe in something larger, more potent than us (speaking of course in general terms) in order to compensate for our own flawed nature. That's what it comes down to, I think.

Speaking about evolutionists in general, they find it hard to accept everything in the Bible at face value, so they try to find some additional answers. Of course, pure, hard-line evolutionists eventually hit a wall beyond which they cannot go further with science. They start thinking about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, and of course, it doesn't explain everything. Theoretically, the smallest definable amount of time is 1*10^(-43) seconds which is known as Planck time. Beyond that, time becomes irrelevant, as does asking the question "What happened before the Big Bang?" On the other hand, saying that God created the universe eventually leads to the question "What/who created God?" and the answer is that no-one created him, that he was always there. Of course, that argument is a bit hard to accept, and I think both sides are at a loss to explain what really created the universe and how/why.

Evolutionists don't just think up scientific experiments and bend the data to suit their needs/arguments. What they do try to do is figure out and explain what they observe (i.e. fossils of hominid ancestors etc). The main finding is of course that what they observe seems to contradict everything that religion teaches us. They are presented with two alternatives: blind faith in something they have never seen, or the other concrete, more real and more substantial alternative.

But what it seems like is that Creationists spend more time harping on the beliefs of evolutionists, trying to prove to them how ridiculous these beliefs are, whereas they don't come up with any alternatives of their own...

If your willing to except that God was always there, I don't think you should try to dismiss that the particles that started the big bang could of just always been there.

I couldn't agree with you more. It happens every single time this type of arguement comes up.

As for when time started, I don't think it ever did. I think time and space were just always there and will always be there. I know that sounds weird but its hard to explain.

Just a funny question, when the clock was first invented, how did the inventors know what time to set it to? I know there were sundials, but sundials don't have minutes and seconds....

There's a very simple reason for us "harping" on those things - I thought I had explained it, but I'll give it another go. :)

Most of us believe that neither side can prove things with experiments that way - they're biased and it's in the person's interest (finanically as well, sometimes!) to "discover" these new things.

As such, I (can't speak for everyone of course) believe that both sides trying to do so is probably going to produce tripe, which is why you probably won't see many Christians trying to prove God's existence with experiments. So, why don't we? Like I said: we don't believe it can be proven that way. We also debunk the evolutionist's experiments for this same reason.

So basically, we're not CLAIMING to have all the answers or concrete proof - but we're telling others that they don't. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.

The whole thing about time is pretty confusing when you think about it...but I know for sure that the smallest possible definable instant (after the big bang) was 1*10^(-43) seconds. Space and time were in fact not always there, they were created with the massive explosion of matter and energy that happened with the Bang. In fact, the theory goes that space, time, matter, everything, was compressed in on infinitely dense point, and then it all exploded :). As the explosion went outward, space increased (and is still increasing) and time came into being...that's basically what the theory says.

As one scientist put it, "First there was nothing. Then it exploded." ;D

They measured the time by the sun and the stars...don't think seconds appeared untill much more recently, when equipment to measure time got more sophisticated...actually, how they determined that the day is specifically 24 hours long I have no idea...perhaps had something to do with a circle...any ideas anyone???

Why didn't they go with 100 hours instead? Or even better, one hour? pretty confusing, ah?! :D

They chose 24 hours because a 24 hour cycle (roughly) represented one day - one sun going up, and one sun setting. If it took the sun longer to go once around, they'd have changed accordingly. :)

Basically, it is not possible (according to scientific methodology) to either bias or forge results, because they have to be replicable by other scientists, otherwise everyone would agree it's hogwash. The biases/interests/financial gains of one scientist might not be such of another in another part of the world. What is common between them is scientific method. And any claim that is made is published in the Nature magazine, which is a peer reviewed publication (or it could be some other similar peer-reviewed mag). So if what some scientist claimed was balloney, made up to make him more famous or get him rich, it would get blasted by his peers.

By the way, do you believe that ALL scientific experiments are foney out of the same reason?

"So basically, we're not CLAIMING to have all the answers or concrete proof - but we're telling others that they don't."

I have never heard anyone put it so well, other creationists (I use the term broadly) should make note of this example :D

Hey Chris, that was the question actually...why set the hour to be the length that it was?? Why wasn't one hour what we percieve today as two? Then one day would only have twelve equal parts... ;D

Oh I see what you mean. I forget why, but I do recall reading explanations for why time is the way it is. I don't believe it is just sort of random. :)

And no, I don't believe all science is tripe - what I really mean is that it needs to be taken with many, many grains of salt. :) We can't even agree on what consists of a healthy diet, and we're claiming we know that a rock is 60 million years old? Just doesn't seem reasonable.

Anyway, that's as well as I can describe it. Thanks for the kind words, though. Arguments like this force me to re-examine my beliefs. :)

No probs :) You hit the nail on the head with that one! A lot of people whom I've met which were at my throat a thousand times worse than you (:)) don't even know why they're doing it, they just sort of do it!! :D They'd say just about ANYTHING just for the sake of saying something in the hope of putting me down, you wouldn't believe (I think that if claiming the world was flat would help their argument, they'd say it)!! At least you have structured arguments ;)

These sorts of discussions tend to become a bit heated, and yeah, they usually force people supporting both sides to re-evaluate themselves, but I guess that was the point in the first place!

I was going to bring that up eventually. If a scientist were to forge results they WOULD be found out and wouldn't have a career any more. I've never once heard of a scientist who faked results just to keep their funding which is why I never really understood why you(Chris) felt this way.

I'm not talking about faking results - but a lot of these things have people drawing conclusions on what MIGHT be, rather than what is. Hypothetical things.

Thats the way all scientific theories start out, with a hypothesis.

Yes, I know. :) All I mean is that I think too many of these people set out looking for proof to support their non-Christian beliefs, if you see what I mean.

It's hard to avoid that kind of bias, but I think it effects things. I am not talking about total forgery - but you'd be surprised how you can "spin" some things.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I'm going to try to post in this thread less. :) Very tiring. I might reply if someone catches my eye, and I won't just run away, because I'm the only person here to defend these ideals.

LOL Chris :)! This has been quite a discussion! Is it the longest one on the forum, I haven't checked?! You know what, I think we should change the title from Evolution to Chris vs. The World ;D!!

I just bought the 3rd and 5th installment of the Earth Chronicles today. I really wanted the first one, but it was misshelved and I couldn't find it.

What's that? :)

Its the series that Zeph mentioned earlier, the first book being called The 12th Planet. It is the translation and explaination of the ancient Summerian texts that tell of giant beings from another planet visiting them. I don't believe it is true, yet but it is a very intriguing idea.

Hey OG, you definitely have to tell me what the book's like after reading it! I haven't seen it in any book store, jut heard about it recently...personally I thought it was a fascinating idea, and sure as hell it would explain a lot of things :)!!

Just thought of something interesting...

Did you all know that we as the human race are all very related? Some people think there are differences between the caucasian/black/asian races (which of course is the basis for many racist theories), but these differences are so miniscule they can almost be ignored...

Our genetic potential as a species is really limited. This is attributed to our *near* extinction about 100,000 years ago where there was what was called a "bottleneck" effect in the population (akin to tipping a bottle full of marbles up-side down, only a few come out, the rest get stuck). It ould have been due to disease, famine, or whatever, but there was an estimated 10,000 humans left on the whole earth! Simply put, there is more genetic variance between, say, two elephants or dogs or even chimps, than there is between the entire human race...

So much for individuality :D

Hehehe something funny just occured to me!

This discussion can be effectively termed an "evolutionary dead end" :D !!!!

How I love laughing at my own jokes, it's uncanny ;)