Creationists mock Evolution for saying that all humans "came from monkeys".

Creationists apparently prefer their belief is that all humans came from Incest...

:owned:

Creationsim ?
pwnt

Good thread.

Creationsim ?
pwnt

Dats a crazy av and sig you've got there.

Creationists mock Evolution for saying that all humans "came from monkeys".

Creationists apparently prefer their belief is that all humans came from Incest...

:owned:

I believe there has been a corollary to the Christian conventional wisdom that implies there were other people on earth besides Adam and Eve. I can't vouge for the details, for I am not one of God's chosen people. And I have been told, as recently as today, that I will I will burn in hell. However, I did eat dinner next to New Creation Ministries in Olive Branch, Missississpi tonight, and can stop in tomorrow and get a legitimate response.

man, i believe in god. But creationists are idiots. most churches are accepting more about science and moving forward. Pity there are still some apes around (creationists)

Creationists fling poo.

Creationists should take a Anthropology class, they might learn some things.

Creationists apparently prefer their belief is that all humans came from Incest...

Well incest isn't forbidden in the bible. In some sections it even seems to be approved of. So yeah, they probably do prefer that belief.

Creationists mock Evolution for saying that all humans "came from monkeys".

Creationists apparently prefer their belief is that all humans came from Incest...

:owned:

Yup, I never understood that shit.

I remember when Rampage Jackson did an interview about why he turned to God, he mentioned the dreams he had and a conversation with a religious uncle (or some other member of his family) who said something like "do you have such low self esteem that you believe we came from monkeys" or something like that. Manipulative crap.

Creationists should take a Anthropology class, they might learn some things.

the question is would they accept it

man, i believe in god. But creationists are idiots. most churches are accepting more about science and moving forward. Pity there are still some apes around (creationists)

What's interesting is people still consider themselves as religious or as believing in god despite the fact that they don't believe their own holy books. The burden to believe in meaningless holy books seemly total unworth the trouble.

Humans didnt evolve from monkeys.

Humans didnt evolve from monkeys.

Your correct according to evolution humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but it's not the modern monkey.

Posted by a Scientist.


You are here: Science >> Evolution Of Man

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

Also here is a couple of videos for you too look at regarding this matter:
Evolution of Man video (http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man-video.htm)

http://www.zymetrical.com/images/products/chatteringteeth.gif

first of all theres 5, possibly 6 stories of creation in the bible, chapter 1 and chapter 2 of genesis are two completely contradictory stories of creation, so if someone is a creationist, which of these stories are they to believe. Obviously, and all bible scholars who are of the jewish, islamic, or christian faith will agree, these are all etiologies, explanations for why the way things were to the best of the abilities of the different sources Genesis came from. These are all to be read as creation myths, and any learned Christian does not believe in creationism, the same myths of creation existed well before the hebrew people even existed, as well did the story of the flood and the events surrounding passover. Anything besides instant creation can be looked at as evolution, but this does not imply the validity in naturalistic/materialistic evolution or darwinism, which has recently been coming under heavy fire by scientist everywhere finding flaws with darwinism...living fossils. the cambrian explosion, the chance that life could have even ever come into existence in our early atmosphere and so on and so on ...

The creation stories are simply metaphors which were made to help people thousands of years ago understand how God made the Earth. God made the Earth but not in 7 days. The 7 days Genesis story is a metaphor.

God didn't make shit. At least if he did, he'd be a moron to claim this piece of crap.

Yes, with all my omnipotent power let me make a world of death, decay, flaws, and imperfection. Wa-lah. A masterpiece.

You'd think anybody who spent any time here would realize quickly that this joint couldn't possibly been made by a "perfect" being.

The creation stories are simply metaphors which were made to help people thousands of years ago understand how God made the Earth. God made the Earth but not in 7 days. The 7 days Genesis story is a metaphor.

god is a metaphor

Uy you bunch of atheists.

god is a metaphor

Righty-O.

Creationists mock Evolution for saying that all humans "came from monkeys".

Creationists apparently prefer their belief is that all humans came from Incest...

:owned:

lulz.
uhh.
we are all one.
made from teh original dust and lust.
incest viewed solely as an offensive idea is lulz.
fucking silly humans with their super massive blackhole judging, simple minds and misinterpretations.
FTI.


ps.
evolution alone as a way to explain all the facets and terrors of existence is hilarity and it makes me want to rip off the heads of tiny elephants.
and that image makes me cry.
plz.
evolution is for retards.
turn back now.
jesus hates you.
PWNDT.

Uy you bunch of atheists.

Even if i wasnt atheist, it wouldnt help ur cause

everything that ever was, ever will be, never was and never will be has always existed.
as form and nonform.
coming and going.
implode and explode.
+
we come from the sons of god and the daughters of man.
the end.
=
iamcoconuts






















ps.
aliens ate my anus.
pss.
zelda.
psss.
fuckaphasianhandcaps.
iquit.

Drunken posting FTW

The creation stories are simply metaphors which were made to help people thousands of years ago understand how God made the Earth. God made the Earth but not in 7 days. The 7 days Genesis story is a metaphor.

Try telling that to the fundamentalists..

The creation stories are simply metaphors which were made to help people thousands of years ago understand how God made the Earth. God made the Earth but not in 7 days. The 7 days Genesis story is a metaphor.

How insightful of you.

So we can stretch the Bible however we want, right? Everything in it is a metaphor.

*cough*tautology*cough*

The creation stories are simply metaphors which were made to help people thousands of years ago understand how God made the Earth. God made the Earth but not in 7 days. The 7 days Genesis story is a metaphor.

How do you know which particular parts of the bible are literal truth, and which parts are metaphors? The only person who could possibly know that would be Jesus. So Jesus, aka Rob, your cover is blown. Jesus, now that I've got a direct line to you, I've been praying for a Wii for christmas. You'd better deliver or else I'll stop believing in you.

Damn, jesus, why copying buddhism????

How do you know which particular parts of the bible are literal truth, and which parts are metaphors? The only person who could possibly know that would be Jesus. So Jesus, aka Rob, your cover is blown. Jesus, now that I've got a direct line to you, I've been praying for a Wii for christmas. You'd better deliver or else I'll stop believing in you.

A good way to do that is try to live your life by the Ten Commandments. Not that I believe in "Hell" per se, other than the one you can create for yourself on earth, but generally if you look at the 10 Commandments they are a sound system for keeping peace and love together.

Also the Seven Deadly sins and their destructive nature is becoming more and more apparent in the 21st Century.

I don't, however, believe that we should take all these literal statements from a book that could have been altered any number of times over the last 2000 years, for purposes of holding power and controlling people. I also don't think the bible should be used to instill fear in people because fear leads to hatred.

A good way to do that is try to live your life by the Ten Commandments.

Okay, but which 10 commandments? The 10 commandments are listed in three separate places in the bible (Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Exodus 20:3-17, and Exodus 34:12:26) and each of these listings are different. I'll go with the list from Exodus 34:12:26, as that is the most recent one.

1. Make no covenant with the people where thou goest.
2. Thou shall not worship any other god.
3. Thou shall not make any molten gods.
4. The feast of unleavened bread shall thou keep.
5. The first offspring from every womb belongs to me.
6. Rest on the seventh day.
7. Observe the feast of weeks.
8. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
9. The first of the fruits of thy land belong to me.
10. Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk

Umm, okay. So Kronker, how is following these commandments supposed to keep peace and love together?

The bible is so actually so contradictory that I find it impossible to believe in any rational sense that it’s the divine word of an all wise being.Sure its laced with some good moral teachings and nice parables but as a whole It’s a joke.

*THou shalt not kill is a reasonable commandment.

However in Judges 21, God himself orders the mass murders of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, [except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married]. There's many other examples of mass murders ordered by this benevolent and divine creator in the OT, so does that not make God a hypocrite,and is he actually divine?
And if he was almighty,why didnt he just wipe out these people himself with a cyclone or something?Was he a coward?Did he need someone else to do his dirty work for him?
Theres enough philosophical and moral questions & implications with this one contradictory commandment to fill a book.

I like the recent one posted above, very creative. On a sidenote they should make some new ones like - thou halt not waste time on internet, tv , though shalt workout as frequently as possible etc. seeng how the times have changed

The bible is so actually so contradictory that I find it impossible to believe in any rational sense that it’s the divine word of an all wise being.Sure its laced with some good moral teachings and nice parables but as a whole It’s a joke.

*THou shalt not kill is a reasonable commandment.

However in Judges 21, God himself orders the mass murders of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, [except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married]. There's many other examples of mass murders ordered by this benevolent and divine creator in the OT, so does that not make God a hypocrite,and is he actually divine?
And if he was almighty,why didnt he just wipe out these people himself with a cyclone or something?Was he a coward?Did he need someone else to do his dirty work for him?
Theres enough philosophical and moral questions & implications with this one contradictory commandment to fill a book.

I tend to disagree with anyone that says the Bible is contradictory because they read something that someone else wrote on their web page then they believe that's what it actually means. Unfortunately, it can bring people against each other in settings such as these. You have every right to live your life the way you see fit. God merely gives you His unconditional love and actually seeks to bring you closer to Him. He does this every day. For example, you are here, debating religion and His word. Through this maybe you will attain a better understanding of it and realize His plan for your life. Maybe you will actually pick up the Bible and read the part you have quoted in context to see what is being said there for yourself? And in turn this may give you a better understanding of why God does what He does and for what purpose.

My take on this is such, We are all fallen short of the glory of God and no man is innocent in God's eyes. This is why Jesus came to save us.

Now for your comment on Judges... God did not command the people to be killed this was from the Isrealites, not from God. Also read Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no kind in Isreal: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

I hope that helps.

To try to answer some of the other posts in here including the first post that started this thread.

As with any group, be it secular science, funde creationist or anything inbetween. There will always be varied levels of comprehension and understanding. If their job doesn't revolve around it, chances are, they really aren't going to pursue the kind of knowledge needed for this kind of discussion.

So to start with Bruce Lee's post: I would suppose that some Christians believe we came from incest. However the act of incest wasn't prohibited for 1500 years. Because the sin condition hadn't caused the deterioration of us enough to cause birth defects like we see today. With that being said... Adam and Eve were separately created, so there's no issue with defects there. Cain's wife would have likely been a distant cousin or a sister or even a close cousin, it wouldn't have mattered since sin hadn't entered into the world until about 130 years after Adam and Eve were created. They likely had many children before Cain and Abel. The reason Cain and Abel are mentioned is because once sin entered the world, Adam and Eve knew the signs (Gen 1:14) that Christ was to come. So Cain was the first that they thought would be the promise or Christ, but he wasn't, he was a murderer. Every God fearing person mentioned in the Bible were awaiting the Promise, which is Christ to come and take away the sins of the world. We are born into this world as it is today. I couldn't imagine being in a world that was perfect and seeing it fall into the curse, and how they would have been tortured by this on a daily basis, constantly hoping that each child was the promise that God told of and placed in the stars for all to know.

Most of what I've seen from Christianity leads me to believe that the majority of its followers are detached from what, in my opinion, is god.

Eesh.

A minute ago I was trying to put this in words, but it forced me to confront the idea of what god really is. It's come down to god being either the Earth, or the human mind. And since the Earth is only perceived to be so beautiful by the human mind, then I'd say it's definitely the latter. If it is true that we've somehow sprung from this rock, though, I'd say there's not much point to debate the issue, taking as a given the idea that creator and creation are one. That makes you god. The problem is that we're so spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually detached as a society that we can't see past all these distractions, often technological, to grasp the true divinity. Instead we conveniently package "god" into an hour at your corner church complete with the burning of shit-on-a-stick, the sprinkling of gibberish water, the singing of pretty tunes of optimistic faith, and repetitious mutterings that purvey to me a sense of insecurity, because if your faith really is so strong, then why do you have to keep reassuring yourself of all this?

Now, if our superior consciousness is what we're going to call god here, than maybe it might be of some interest to discover the origin of this awareness, this intelligence. Theories, theories, theories...you could actually refer back to the biblical metaphor of "god" creating man and woman. In this context it would be god creating the man as we know him today, with his elevated consciousness that sets him apart from ye beasts. It would represent the (evolutionary?) mind-shift. This really doesn't do us much good, though, seeing as how, well, it doesn't really explain anything, just packages it into a neat little metaphor for all the little kiddies to read about in Sunday school.

Possibly my most favorite human being of all time, Terence Mckenna (link (http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm)), had his Stoned Ape Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_hum an_evolution), which points to the psilocybin-containing mushroom as being the catalyst for the most recent shift in human psycho-evolution (made up words, anyone?). Following his Amazonian experiment with shamanic psychedelics, during which he claims to have tapped into the deoxyribonucleic hyperdimension and attained the most arcane knowledge by speaking directly with the sentient mushroom (through the species of Stropharia cubensis, to be specific), he wrote a little diddy that I refer to as, "The Mushroom Speaks." Link here (http://deoxy.org/mushword.htm). Check it. That is, if you're actually still reading this. If you are, I congratulate you.

So where have I taken this? The mushroom is god? There certainly has been a fair shair of ancient cultures worshipping some kind of fungus. I'm trying to do more research into this right now but this shitty ass computer won't connect to half the websites I'm trying to access. Fuck it. I'm done here.

Most of what I've seen from Christianity leads me to believe that the majority of its followers are detached from what, in my opinion, is god.

Eesh.

A minute ago I was trying to put this in words, but it forced me to confront the idea of what god really is. It's come down to god being either the Earth, or the human mind. And since the Earth is only perceived to be so beautiful by the human mind, then I'd say it's definitely the latter. If it is true that we've somehow sprung from this rock, though, I'd say there's not much point to debate the issue, taking as a given the idea that creator and creation are one. That makes you god. The problem is that we're so spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually detached as a society that we can't see past all these distractions, often technological, to grasp the true divinity. Instead we conveniently package "god" into an hour at your corner church complete with the burning of shit-on-a-stick, the sprinkling of gibberish water, the singing of pretty tunes of optimistic faith, and repetitious mutterings that purvey to me a sense of insecurity, because if your faith really is so strong, then why do you have to keep reassuring yourself of all this?

Now, if our superior consciousness is what we're going to call god here, than maybe it might be of some interest to discover the origin of this awareness, this intelligence. Theories, theories, theories...you could actually refer back to the biblical metaphor of "god" creating man and woman. In this context it would be god creating the man as we know him today, with his elevated consciousness that sets him apart from ye beasts. It would represent the (evolutionary?) mind-shift. This really doesn't do us much good, though, seeing as how, well, it doesn't really explain anything, just packages it into a neat little metaphor for all the little kiddies to read about in Sunday school.

Possibly my most favorite human being of all time, Terence Mckenna (link (http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm)), had his Stoned Ape Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_hum an_evolution), which points to the psilocybin-containing mushroom as being the catalyst for the most recent shift in human psycho-evolution (made up words, anyone?). Following his Amazonian experiment with shamanic psychedelics, during which he claims to have tapped into the deoxyribonucleic hyperdimension and attained the most arcane knowledge by speaking directly with the sentient mushroom (through the species of Stropharia cubensis, to be specific), he wrote a little diddy that I refer to as, "The Mushroom Speaks." Link here (http://deoxy.org/mushword.htm). Check it. That is, if you're actually still reading this. If you are, I congratulate you.

So where have I taken this? The mushroom is god? There certainly has been a fair shair of ancient cultures worshipping some kind of fungus. I'm trying to do more research into this right now but this shitty ass computer won't connect to half the websites I'm trying to access. Fuck it. I'm done here.

I did check out the terence mckenna stuff i do like a majority of hi views but frankly his magic mushroom theory is ridiculous to say the least, not to mention that it backed by absolutely no facts.

I did check out the terence mckenna stuff i do like a majority of hi views but frankly his magic mushroom theory is ridiculous to say the least, not to mention that it backed by absolutely no facts.

Oh, definitely, he said that himself.

When I read True Hallucinations I had already been a fan, but half the time I was reading that book I'd be shaking my head in awe. At one point his brother claimed that any question prefaced with the word "Dennis" could be asked and answered telepathically. And yes, Terence did ask questions and get answers to them in his mind, an example being the scientific name of some random plant species.

Instances like these make me wonder if my psychonaut idols truly are insane...

Posted by a Scientist.


You are here: Science >> Evolution Of Man

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

Also here is a couple of videos for you too look at regarding this matter:
Evolution of Man video (http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man-video.htm)



thanks for the informative views on evolution and i congratulate you for cleverly guising your post. i read that site's 'about us' and well surprise surprise, they're christians. oh wait, followers of jesus, as they claim

also, i see alot of people here confusing evolution, which is a fact, and darwinism, which is as unreliable a theory as creationism.

im not happy with any sort of creation theory that exists, because non are fact based enough or likely enough to be considered proof of our origins.

it's a horrible time to be a man. we have to decide between 3 choices (more i know, but for example):

1. an all-knowing, all-powerful being that's always existed and lives in the sky doing magic created us;

2. the big bang. plausible until you ask yourself, where the fuck did those elements come from if they are the originators of all matter;

3. like the scientologists say; aliens. well fuck me, it's just as crazy and out there and void of evidence as the other 2.

to be honest, i don't have an answer or some sort of mind-blowing theory, but im searching.

i pick number two. pick number two deegs or i'll think your a dick.

well, it's the one i like, but not enough for a thickly browed man such as myself.

you havent read enough long and boring books on the subject then

also, i see alot of people here confusing evolution, which is a fact, and darwinism, which is as unreliable a theory as creationism.

im not happy with any sort of creation theory that exists, because non are fact based enough or likely enough to be considered proof of our origins.

it's a horrible time to be a man. we have to decide between 3 choices (more i know, but for example):

1. an all-knowing, all-powerful being that's always existed and lives in the sky doing magic created us;

2. the big bang. plausible until you ask yourself, where the fuck did those elements come from if they are the originators of all matter;

3. like the scientologists say; aliens. well fuck me, it's just as crazy and out there and void of evidence as the other 2.

to be honest, i don't have an answer or some sort of mind-blowing theory, but im searching.

Number three can be tied back to number two because where did those aliens come from?

I thought life could not be created in the lab setting using the things that were supposed to be around when it came into existence on this Earth. This suggests exogenesis as a possibility, again bringing us back to the question, "If life here came from elsewhere, where did the universe as a whole come from?"

I read an account of a man who had been on some home-brewed ayahuasca, and at one point the conclusion stuck him: the big bang was a conscious decision. All that is and has existed is there because it willed itself to be there.

I'm to bring up some taoism on Google, but I have to settle for this because I'm in something of a hurry.

Everything I have studied of Tao, is creator and creation are one; dao and all of life are one; only ego creates this separation. You meditation should reveal this, I'm suprised you have not.

Most of what I've seen from Christianity leads me to believe that the majority of its followers are detached from what, in my opinion, is god.

Eesh.

A minute ago I was trying to put this in words, but it forced me to confront the idea of what god really is. It's come down to god being either the Earth, or the human mind. And since the Earth is only perceived to be so beautiful by the human mind, then I'd say it's definitely the latter. If it is true that we've somehow sprung from this rock, though, I'd say there's not much point to debate the issue, taking as a given the idea that creator and creation are one. That makes you god. The problem is that we're so spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually detached as a society that we can't see past all these distractions, often technological, to grasp the true divinity. Instead we conveniently package "god" into an hour at your corner church complete with the burning of shit-on-a-stick, the sprinkling of gibberish water, the singing of pretty tunes of optimistic faith, and repetitious mutterings that purvey to me a sense of insecurity, because if your faith really is so strong, then why do you have to keep reassuring yourself of all this?

Now, if our superior consciousness is what we're going to call god here, than maybe it might be of some interest to discover the origin of this awareness, this intelligence. Theories, theories, theories...you could actually refer back to the biblical metaphor of "god" creating man and woman. In this context it would be god creating the man as we know him today, with his elevated consciousness that sets him apart from ye beasts. It would represent the (evolutionary?) mind-shift. This really doesn't do us much good, though, seeing as how, well, it doesn't really explain anything, just packages it into a neat little metaphor for all the little kiddies to read about in Sunday school.

Possibly my most favorite human being of all time, Terence Mckenna (link (http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm)), had his Stoned Ape Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_hum an_evolution), which points to the psilocybin-containing mushroom as being the catalyst for the most recent shift in human psycho-evolution (made up words, anyone?). Following his Amazonian experiment with shamanic psychedelics, during which he claims to have tapped into the deoxyribonucleic hyperdimension and attained the most arcane knowledge by speaking directly with the sentient mushroom (through the species of Stropharia cubensis, to be specific), he wrote a little diddy that I refer to as, "The Mushroom Speaks." Link here (http://deoxy.org/mushword.htm). Check it. That is, if you're actually still reading this. If you are, I congratulate you.

So where have I taken this? The mushroom is god? There certainly has been a fair shair of ancient cultures worshipping some kind of fungus. I'm trying to do more research into this right now but this shitty ass computer won't connect to half the websites I'm trying to access. Fuck it. I'm done here.

Alot of writing to describe a circular and self defeating debate. God isn't the Earth, nor are we or our minds God. Unfortunately your view can only be disproved by you accepting our current reality, and from reading your post, I would say that's not a possibility. No offense.

Number three can be tied back to number two because where did those aliens come from?

I thought life could not be created in the lab setting using the things that were supposed to be around when it came into existence on this Earth. This suggests exogenesis as a possibility, again bringing us back to the question, "If life here came from elsewhere, where did the universe as a whole come from?"

I read an account of a man who had been on some home-brewed ayahuasca, and at one point the conclusion stuck him: the big bang was a conscious decision. All that is and has existed is there because it willed itself to be there.

I'm to bring up some taoism on Google, but I have to settle for this because I'm in something of a hurry.

If life couldn't be created by chance on earth, or any other planet, then there has to be a Creator, and sustainer. If evolution doesn't account for a beginning, then the science of evolution can no more account for our beginning then any other metaphysical viewpoint. The big bang theory has some problems with it as well. Even from it's current originator. There are problems with the red shift theories, white hole cosmology, among many other things. I think astronomy is one of the easiest disciplines to show God's existence and disprove the evolutionary theories of today. Look at the recession of the Moon: At it's current recession rate (taking into account the tidal changes upon its distance) at just 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been part of the earth. If the earth and the moon are both supposed to be 4.55 bil years old, then when the moon either broke off from or strode beside the earth, there would have been some major consequences that we would have been able to know about. There aren't.

Number three can be tied back to number two because where did those aliens come from?

I thought life could not be created in the lab setting using the things that were supposed to be around when it came into existence on this Earth. This suggests exogenesis as a possibility, again bringing us back to the question, "If life here came from elsewhere, where did the universe as a whole come from?"

I read an account of a man who had been on some home-brewed ayahuasca, and at one point the conclusion stuck him: the big bang was a conscious decision. All that is and has existed is there because it willed itself to be there.

I'm to bring up some taoism on Google, but I have to settle for this because I'm in something of a hurry.

yea, i just threw #3 in for humour and to show that it's just as plausible as the other two as far as the creation of earth life is concerned. where the aliens came from, is their problem, lol. let them figure it out and then relay it to us.

If life couldn't be created by chance on earth, or any other planet, then there has to be a Creator, and sustainer. If evolution doesn't account for a beginning, then the science of evolution can no more account for our beginning then any other metaphysical viewpoint. The big bang theory has some problems with it as well. Even from it's current originator. There are problems with the red shift theories, white hole cosmology, among many other things. I think astronomy is one of the easiest disciplines to show God's existence and disprove the evolutionary theories of today. Look at the recession of the Moon: At it's current recession rate (taking into account the tidal changes upon its distance) at just 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been part of the earth. If the earth and the moon are both supposed to be 4.55 bil years old, then when the moon either broke off from or strode beside the earth, there would have been some major consequences that we would have been able to know about. There aren't.


what is God to you? is it simply the entity that made things possible to exist, or do you put your faith in a religious God?

i find it humorous that you say that things cannot come from nothing and must be designed, but in the next breath say that God is responsible. if so, what designed God? he could not have come out of nothing, right?

you havent read enough long and boring books on the subject then


thanks, but i have. i WANT to believe. it makes sense. but where did the elements come from, beets? if that could be answered, it would be enough for me. it can't and it is not.

it's more acceptable to me than the religious dictator making me out of mud.

In the end science is just as much faith based as creationism.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

The above link shows how improbable the the universe really is

For example:

"Strong nuclear force coupling constant if larger no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable, if smaller no elements other than hydrogen"

It is highly unlikely that all these conditions could come together randomly. Atheists attempt to explain this with the idea of a multiverse. The multiverse does make the probability of the universe occuring greatly increase, but there is no evidence of the multiverse making it just as faith based as a Creator.

what is God to you? is it simply the entity that made things possible to exist, or do you put your faith in a religious God?

i find it humorous that you say that things cannot come from nothing and must be designed, but in the next breath say that God is responsible. if so, what designed God? he could not have come out of nothing, right?

Let's look at it this way... If God created time for us as stated in Genesis. Then there was no time before God created it. Which means God is. Just is. As in always is, because there's no time to discern a beginning or an end for God. If God created time for us, then God will also know when that time is complete. He is, even now, pulling in the rope on time to the end. At which point He will make a new Heaven and new Earth for us that will be outside of time, forever.

Conversely, God created us, we are the created beings so I would suspect we couldnt' completely fathom what it's like to have existed and not been created. We see birth and death around us daily. Everything on earth dies a natural death right?

So here's an interesting question for you. What of the trees. Trees such as the redwoods or Bristlecone pines. They have no natural predators or enemies. Yet there are no trees older than 4,000 to 5,000 years old?? Where are the 10,000 and 20,000 year old trees? Or even 8,000 year old trees?

Let's look at it this way... If God created time for us as stated in Genesis. Then there was no time before God created it. Which means God is. Just is. As in always is, because there's no time to discern a beginning or an end for God. If God created time for us, then God will also know when that time is complete. He is, even now, pulling in the rope on time to the end. At which point He will make a new Heaven and new Earth for us that will be outside of time, forever.

Conversely, God created us, we are the created beings so I would suspect we couldnt' completely fathom what it's like to have existed and not been created. We see birth and death around us daily. Everything on earth dies a natural death right?

So here's an interesting question for you. What of the trees. Trees such as the redwoods or Bristlecone pines. They have no natural predators or enemies. Yet there are no trees older than 4,000 to 5,000 years old?? Where are the 10,000 and 20,000 year old trees? Or even 8,000 year old trees?

While your arguement for God makes sense there is no evidence behind it. If you just want a plausible theory why not settle for the multiverse idea? Neither it nor God have any evidence for them so both are equally possible IMO.

Tress with tougher bark would be hard for insects to chew up, trees providing more shade(creating a habitat) would draw more animals to them, and inturn the animals would fertailze the trees. Just because the trees are 4000-5000 years old doesn't mean that's when the first trees existed. Climate change and geographical change could destroy/create trees.

Let's look at it this way... If God created time for us as stated in Genesis. Then there was no time before God created it. Which means God is. Just is. As in always is, because there's no time to discern a beginning or an end for God. If God created time for us, then God will also know when that time is complete. He is, even now, pulling in the rope on time to the end. At which point He will make a new Heaven and new Earth for us that will be outside of time, forever.

Conversely, God created us, we are the created beings so I would suspect we couldnt' completely fathom what it's like to have existed and not been created. We see birth and death around us daily. Everything on earth dies a natural death right?

So here's an interesting question for you. What of the trees. Trees such as the redwoods or Bristlecone pines. They have no natural predators or enemies. Yet there are no trees older than 4,000 to 5,000 years old?? Where are the 10,000 and 20,000 year old trees? Or even 8,000 year old trees?


well that's the same explanation that i used to get from priests at my high school. it's simplistic and definitely a great way to cap off a debate? case closed, right? wrong.

i refuse to make a blind leap of faith towards anything when there are other plausible explanations. don't get me wrong, im not dismissing it, im simply taking it with a grain of salt, much like the big bang theory.

as for the trees, well, every living thing must come to its end. it's like asking why there aren't any 300 year old men alive. well, why do you think? does it mean that men have only existed for 100+ years?

im not sure if with that question you are trying to imply that that's how old the earth is, but lets nip that at the bud before it comes up. you should take a walk through some of those old forests and in it you'll find trees as old if not older than any alive today laying on the ground rotting.

well that's the same explanation that i used to get from priests at my high school. it's simplistic and definitely a great way to cap off a debate? case closed, right? wrong.

i refuse to make a blind leap of faith towards anything when there are other plausible explanations. don't get me wrong, im not dismissing it, im simply taking it with a grain of salt, much like the big bang theory.

as for the trees, well, every living thing must come to its end. it's like asking why there aren't any 300 year old men alive. well, why do you think? does it mean that men have only existed for 100+ years?

im not sure if with that question you are trying to imply that that's how old the earth is, but lets nip that at the bud before it comes up. you should take a walk through some of those old forests and in it you'll find trees as old if not older than any alive today laying on the ground rotting.


There are explanations equal to a creator, but none are more plausible.

While your arguement for God makes sense there is no evidence behind it. If you just want a plausible theory why not settle for the multiverse idea? Neither it nor God have any evidence for them so both are equally possible IMO.

Tress with tougher bark would be hard for insects to chew up, trees providing more shade(creating a habitat) would draw more animals to them, and inturn the animals would fertailze the trees. Just because the trees are 4000-5000 years old doesn't mean that's when the first trees existed. Climate change and geographical change could destroy/create trees.

true, in fact, the Bristlecone pines are estimated to be able to live 1000 years longer than the oldest one alive today... Why aren't there any older? This was the point I was making with the tree issue. Of course we can count it all to deforestation and the like. Only no one really is interested in cutting up a bristlecone pine to make a log cabin out of.

I'm sure you will disagree with me with what I'm about to say, however I will give you where I'm coming from just so you can figure out where to go from there. I understand what science has to gain and each respective expert in their field has to gain and what they are motivated by. Discover is in the business of selling you magazines, doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate their information is. Since it isn't considered a peer reviewed journal. Nature is what you would consider peer reviewed. I prefer to take things that are spoken of in the Bible then go and find out how accurate they are with today's science. I tend to take something that the Bible states over what some guy living off grant monies is going to say. Let's be honest. Me being a Bible believer, might possibly lose my head if I found some ancient jawbone or the like and knowing I could get a few mil in grant monies, would probably say it was 7 mil years old and stand behind that for the noteriety. People write articles and books for one reason... to make money. That's really what it comes down to. People feed you the bulls hit and it's up to you to determine what's true and what isn't. In my case, I've settled that the Bible is about the only thing that isn't B.S. nowadays.

true, in fact, the Bristlecone pines are estimated to be able to live 1000 years longer than the oldest one alive today... Why aren't there any older? This was the point I was making with the tree issue. Of course we can count it all to deforestation and the like. Only no one really is interested in cutting up a bristlecone pine to make a log cabin out of.

I'm sure you will disagree with me with what I'm about to say, however I will give you where I'm coming from just so you can figure out where to go from there. I understand what science has to gain and each respective expert in their field has to gain and what they are motivated by. Discover is in the business of selling you magazines, doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate their information is. Since it isn't considered a peer reviewed journal. Nature is what you would consider peer reviewed. I prefer to take things that are spoken of in the Bible then go and find out how accurate they are with today's science. I tend to take something that the Bible states over what some guy living off grant monies is going to say. Let's be honest. Me being a Bible believer, might possibly lose my head if I found some ancient jawbone or the like and knowing I could get a few mil in grant monies, would probably say it was 7 mil years old and stand behind that for the noteriety. People write articles and books for one reason... to make money. That's really what it comes down to. People feed you the bulls hit and it's up to you to determine what's true and what isn't. In my case, I've settled that the Bible is about the only thing that isn't B.S. nowadays.

I already answered this climate and geographical changes are a reason why you wouldn't be able to find any older living trees.

So basically you think modern science is a bunch of BS and just people trying to get rich, but then you check what the bible says with modern science to see how accurate it is? That's rather contradictory, you either believe what scientists come up with is true or you don't.

And I'm not defending science as I believe that eventually in the talk of origins it becomes just as faith based as your God.

yikes. religion is much bigger business than science. if most scientists were interested in money, they would be televangelists.

There are explanations equal to a creator, but none are more plausible.

agreed

ummm the Big Bang is A FACT
And so is evolution
The earth is around 3-4 billion years old and universe is 13.7 billion years old.
These are FACTS

Albert Einstein once said
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

I already answered this climate and geographical changes are a reason why you wouldn't be able to find any older living trees.

So basically you think modern science is a bunch of BS and just people trying to get rich, but then you check what the bible says with modern science to see how accurate it is? That's rather contradictory, you either believe what scientists come up with is true or you don't.

And I'm not defending science as I believe that eventually in the talk of origins it becomes just as faith based as your God.


No my friend, not at all. I appreciate your views as they are closer to a non-biased position than anyone's in here. That's great! We do all have a certain amount of presuppositions though. Like the guy above that said the Big Bang and evolution are facts.

No I don't think that science is all a bunch of BS. But wouldn't you agree that science works fine without the assumptions of long ages or anything not observed for that matter. No one has witnessed the supposed big bang, or any jump from one species to another in evolution, or even whether there was a massive world swallowing deluge. However, the difference I see is the Bible is a very well tested document with historical, archealogical, ancestral, and manuscript evidence. This is actually shown to be more accurate than other historical documents and ancient manuscripts. Why not refer to it for historical accounts? Science works just as well if not even better without assuming things that are unscientific. What does millions or billions of years do to impact any scientific theory in a positive way? I don't think it does at all. Sure there are adaptations and speciations, Christians believe this. Actually I beleive the current definition of evolution is pretty much what Christians accept as a fact (change in allele frequencies over time). But the assumption comes in when they say these changes caused the goo to you, or the fish to come on land and pop out legs then make a fire and start cooking all his relatives. Evolution doesn't deal with beginnings. That is it's downfall. There cannot be an end result if you don't have a beginning. There are many theories of evolution and differing beliefs, they cannot all be correct, therefore they cannot co-exist. There is but on reality, and you can either accept it, or live in conflict with it. It's up to you to determine what that reality really is. I respect your views and am not trying to attack them, as I can tell you seem to be a pretty rational and on the level blogger. I appreciate that!

ummm the Big Bang is A FACT
And so is evolution
The earth is around 3-4 billion years old and universe is 13.7 billion years old.
These are FACTS

Albert Einstein once said
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

I believe last time I checked both of those are still labeled theories.

Oh and the current estimate of the age of the earth is either 4.55 billion years old, or 6,000 years old.

There are some interesting sites on the development of the age of the earth as we currently accept it today. There was alot of movement to it's current age as they had to make room for several evolutionary postulations.

Here's an excerpt about it:

How old is Earth? (scientific methods)


In 1897, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation. The age of Earth was calculated to be about 24-40 million years based on the laws of thermodynamics.
Unknown at the time was that the Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay)


In 1899, John Joly (Irish) calculated the rate of delivery of salt to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers flow to the sea, therefore, evaporative concentration of salts can be calculated.
By this method, the age of oceans will equal the total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added (grams per year)

Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.

Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay minerals, salt deposits.


In 1860, the thickness of total sedimentary record is divided by average sedimentation rates (in mm/yr) and calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910, the same measurement yields about 1.6 billion years old.
Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to 112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at least 150,000 m. The average sedimentation rates are about 0.3 m/1000 years. At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million years.

Problems: This calculation does not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.

Charles Lyell (1800's) compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. He estimated about 80 million years for the Cenozoic Era alone.

Radioactivity is discovered by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years for the oldest rocks.
In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the decay of uranium and published the age of a sample of urananite based on Uranium-Lead dating to be 1.64 billion years.

Mass spectrograph was used after WWI (1918). Led to the discovery of over 200 isotopes. Many radioactive elements can be used as geologic clocks since each element decays at its own nearly constant rate. Once this decay rate is known, geologists can estimate the length of time over which decay has been occurring by measuring the amount of radioactive parent and the amount of stable daughter elements.

So far, oldest dated Earth rocks are 3.96 billion years. Older rocks include meteorites and moon rocks, where Moon rocks from the Lunar highland are about 4.5 billion years old, mare basalt rocks are 3.2 - 3.8 billion years old. Meteorites are all older than 4.5 billion years.

I believe last time I checked both of those are still labeled theories.


Yeah theories that have been PROVEN
Any astrophysicist will tell you the Big Bang(stupid name that caught on) is a FACT.
And any anthropologist will tell you that Evolution is a FACT and is happening right before our very eyes.

evolution is a fact. the big bang is a plausible THEORY. no one was there and no one can explain where the original elements came from. like blevunly said, to take the big bang as fact, is making as much of a leap as creationists.

No my friend, not at all. I appreciate your views as they are closer to a non-biased position than anyone's in here. That's great! We do all have a certain amount of presuppositions though. Like the guy above that said the Big Bang and evolution are facts.

No I don't think that science is all a bunch of BS. But wouldn't you agree that science works fine without the assumptions of long ages or anything not observed for that matter. No one has witnessed the supposed big bang, or any jump from one species to another in evolution, or even whether there was a massive world swallowing deluge. However, the difference I see is the Bible is a very well tested document with historical, archealogical, ancestral, and manuscript evidence. This is actually shown to be more accurate than other historical documents and ancient manuscripts. Why not refer to it for historical accounts? Science works just as well if not even better without assuming things that are unscientific. What does millions or billions of years do to impact any scientific theory in a positive way? I don't think it does at all. Sure there are adaptations and speciations, Christians believe this. Actually I beleive the current definition of evolution is pretty much what Christians accept as a fact (change in allele frequencies over time). But the assumption comes in when they say these changes caused the goo to you, or the fish to come on land and pop out legs then make a fire and start cooking all his relatives. Evolution doesn't deal with beginnings. That is it's downfall. There cannot be an end result if you don't have a beginning. There are many theories of evolution and differing beliefs, they cannot all be correct, therefore they cannot co-exist. There is but on reality, and you can either accept it, or live in conflict with it. It's up to you to determine what that reality really is. I respect your views and am not trying to attack them, as I can tell you seem to be a pretty rational and on the level blogger. I appreciate that!

Micro evolution is fact we both agree on that. And I will say that macroevolution hasn't completely convinced me either, but it has alot of evidence going for it. More so than the Creationists have for a world 6,000 years old in which every species could fit on an arc. Again not saying it didn't happen just saying what I percieve the evidence of favoring.

I don't see why you are trying to hit so hard on evolution. It's a process that very well could've shaped everything. And theres nothing to say that God didn't use evolution to shape man. Being that he is all knowing he would know what exact the first organism he made would turn into. Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.

You should really check out the link I posted on the page before this. It shows all the constants that had to come and have to remain in check to sustain life in the universe. As I explain in that post when scientist try and justify how this could've occured they do so by taking just as big of a leap of faith as Christians. Making them equally plausible views from a true scientific standpoint. Which is why I am a much hated(atleast by atheists) 50/50 agnostic.

evolution is a fact. the big bang is a plausible THEORY. no one was there and no one can explain where the original elements came from. like blevunly said, to take the big bang as fact, is making as much of a leap as creationists.

Hey I agree with everything you said here. :sifone:

evolution is a fact. the big bang is a plausible THEORY. no one was there and no one can explain where the original elements came from. like blevunly said, to take the big bang as fact, is making as much of a leap as creationists.

The universe is NOT eternal
Radiation from the big bang is everywhere around us
And this is how it all started

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSZqhqR5XKM

The universe is NOT eternal
Radiation from the big bang is everywhere around us
And this is how it all started

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSZqhqR5XKM

If the universe isn't eternal then where did all the matter before the big bang come from?

The universe is NOT eternal
Radiation from the big bang is everywhere around us
And this is how it all started

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSZqhqR5XKM

I cannot argue with you on your views, because you have stated them as a belief system. So since you are very dogmatic about it, I respect your point of view, however I do not share it with you. We can agree to disagree.

Micro evolution is fact we both agree on that. And I will say that macroevolution hasn't completely convinced me either, but it has alot of evidence going for it. More so than the Creationists have for a world 6,000 years old in which every species could fit on an arc. Again not saying it didn't happen just saying what I percieve the evidence of favoring.[QUOTE]
So every species couldn't fit on the Ark is a good reason why the Bible is false and the world isn't 6k years old? I can receive that. However, did you know that only 1/3 of the ark was reserved for the animals? The remaining was for food and for all the people that were to get on the ark with Noah. Remember he preached for 120 years. No one came. Being that the world was one continent and it never rained and mists covered the ground and watered everything at that time. I could see why no one believed him. Noah wouldn't need every species upon the ark. Merely superspecies, which likely existed at that time. A cat species, a wolf species, a horse species, etc... Makes for a lot more room this way. For this story to be true then Noah had to also have Dino's upon the ark. They would have been smaller species or babies, but not necessarily. See alot of these parts aren't mentioned in the story because it isn't necessary to the message. The message about Christ. That's what the Bible is. It tells us where we started, what happened and why Christ had to come and die for us. And that Christ will eventually return for us. Everything else isn't as important if it doesn't pertain to Him. Yes there are great life lessons and you can learn more about the nature of man from the Bible than any psychology hero. But that is a sidenote.

[QUOTE]I don't see why you are trying to hit so hard on evolution. It's a process that very well could've shaped everything. And theres nothing to say that God didn't use evolution to shape man. Being that he is all knowing he would know what exact the first organism he made would turn into. Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.[QUOTE]
Why would God create something then wait 3.5 bil years to be praised for it? Why wouldn't God just make men and animals in their adult form from the beginning? Just as it says He did?

[QUOTE]You should really check out the link I posted on the page before this. It shows all the constants that had to come and have to remain in check to sustain life in the universe. As I explain in that post when scientist try and justify how this could've occured they do so by taking just as big of a leap of faith as Christians. Making them equally plausible views from a true scientific standpoint. Which is why I am a much hated(atleast by atheists) 50/50 agnostic.

I can tell we will be discussing this for a while and I'm looking forward to it. Steel sharpens steel. The more we learn by working together, the better off we will be.

I cannot argue with you on your views, because you have stated them as a belief system. So since you are very dogmatic about it, I respect your point of view, however I do not share it with you. We can agree to disagree.

You can argue all you want, I enjoyed reading a couple of responses. Especially about Noah's Ark.
Although it's really not a belief system at all. Just scientific conclusions based on the facts. That me and just about ALL astrophysicists believe to be true.
Could it be wrong??? probably not
But at this stage in our human evolution, these are the facts.


Oh is is kinda funny that Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, was the one to help develop the BIG BANG and the idea of the universe in an atom/cosmic egg. Which resulted in our ever expanding universe.

If the universe isn't eternal then where did all the matter before the big bang come from?

What matter???
The universe at one point was as small as an atom, maybe even smaller

[QUOTE=blevunly;867153]
So every species couldn't fit on the Ark is a good reason why the Bible is false and the world isn't 6k years old? I can receive that. However, did you know that only 1/3 of the ark was reserved for the animals? The remaining was for food and for all the people that were to get on the ark with Noah. Remember he preached for 120 years. No one came. Being that the world was one continent and it never rained and mists covered the ground and watered everything at that time. I could see why no one believed him. Noah wouldn't need every species upon the ark. Merely superspecies, which likely existed at that time. A cat species, a wolf species, a horse species, etc... Makes for a lot more room this way. For this story to be true then Noah had to also have Dino's upon the ark. They would have been smaller species or babies, but not necessarily. See alot of these parts aren't mentioned in the story because it isn't necessary to the message. The message about Christ. That's what the Bible is. It tells us where we started, what happened and why Christ had to come and die for us. And that Christ will eventually return for us. Everything else isn't as important if it doesn't pertain to Him. Yes there are great life lessons and you can learn more about the nature of man from the Bible than any psychology hero. But that is a sidenote.

Good point, I was just making an example. Why in your opinion does he say take two of every animal and then say take seven of every clean animal?

Christ dying on the cross wasn't humanities fault, it was God's. That is the way he set everything up. Because being all knowing means when he created humans the certain way he did he knew exactly what they would do and so he must've wanted them to do it, otherwise he would've changed something. Everything ever done in history always links back to the original cause which is God.

Why would God create something then wait 3.5 bil years to be praised for it? Why wouldn't God just make men and animals in their adult form from the beginning? Just as it says He did?

Why does God even need to be praised? Is he that vain?

What matter???
The universe at one point was as small as an atom, maybe even smaller

ok then where did the atom sized matter come from?

ok then where did the atom sized matter come from?

If I had that answer this thread wouldn't exsist...
But thats all the Big Bang really says is at one point the universe was really small and really hot. Then boom it started expanding and is still expanding to this day.

[QUOTE=xcept68;867221]

Why does God even need to be praised? Is he that vain?

Does an omnipotent being even have feelings like that?

If I had that answer this thread wouldn't exsist...
But thats all the Big Bang really says is at one point the universe was really small and really hot. Then boom it started expanding and is still expanding to this day.

And that's why science in that regard is faith based, it never explains where the original matter of everything came from. If it's not eternal then it must've came from nothing which is impossible.

[QUOTE=blevunly;867229]

Does an omnipotent being even have feelings like that?

According to The Bible he does, as it talks of him being sad and angry.

According to The Bible he does, as it talks of him being sad and angry.

It has been a very long time since I read the "good" book...wouldn't an omnipotent God be past such pety indifferences. And wouldn't it know what was to happen, so wouldn't it have epected it all along and thus not have been angry or sad.

It has been a very long time since I read the "good" book...wouldn't an omnipotent God be past such pety indifferences

You would think so, but it doesn't seem like it. I always question his omnibenevolence.

You would think so, but it doesn't seem like it. I always question his omnibenevolence.

haha:owned:

I'm still in a good mood after reading about Noah's Ark in this thread...

Noah took 2 of every kind of animal upon the ark. He took seven of every clean animal on the ark. Remember that when Noah landed he built an altar and sacrificed one of every clean beast to God. God smelled the sweet savour of this and said that man could eat meat. I would imagine that having 3 pairs of every clean beast would have made for keeping the clean beasts multiplying faster than the unclean beasts. Of which most food is taken from anyways. Who eats lions these days? He also took 7 of each bird.
God is one God in three persons, as we are made in His likeness. God the Father (soul), God the son (flesh) God the Holy Ghost (spirit). Jesus existed before everything else was made, and through Christ all was made. Meaning that things in the Old Testament (burning bush, flaming pillar, among other things was Christ). Christ is the called the Word of God. The word became flesh and walked among us. Christ was fully man and fully God at the same time. He had wept, laughed, suffered, and loved. However His diety side healed, walked upon water, taught, died and rose again, and ascended into Heaven. I'm sure I'm far off the beaten path of what I was speaking about... I need to go back and re-read and correct it. Ok, it's a bit jumbled, but I'm going to post it. Then answer Zilla

haha:owned:

I'm still in a good mood after reading about Noah's Ark in this thread...

Glad to hear!

I have a question for you. What first convinced you that the Big Bang was the answer? I mean it wasn't like you were a Bible literalist then you read about the Big bang and you suddenly burned your bible right?

I too was well informed as a child on evolution, the big bang and all other things like the ages of dinosaurs and how long ago they died out, etc. They actually give kids dinosaur books to read in Kindergarten!!! Like a K grader can pronounce those animal names... I see it as an easy way to indoctrinate kids into evolutionary theories. Let's see: A child goes to school 5 times a week and likely only to church once a week, if they are in a religiously active home. As they grow up, they may pull away from church more, and realize that all the evolutionary teaching in school conflicts with church, then likely decide to stop attending church alltogether. The parents don't make the effort, then wonder when their children at the age of 12-16 become distant, and looking for answers in weird friends and drug habits. yeah, that's about how it happens.

Glad to hear!

I have a question for you. What first convinced you that the Big Bang was the answer? I mean it wasn't like you were a Bible literalist then you read about the Big bang and you suddenly burned your bible right?

I too was well informed as a child on evolution, the big bang and all other things like the ages of dinosaurs and how long ago they died out, etc. They actually give kids dinosaur books to read in Kindergarten!!! Like a K grader can pronounce those animal names... I see it as an easy way to indoctrinate kids into evolutionary theories. Let's see: A child goes to school 5 times a week and likely only to church once a week, if they are in a religiously active home. As they grow up, they may pull away from church more, and realize that all the evolutionary teaching in school conflicts with church, then likely decide to stop attending church alltogether. The parents don't make the effort, then wonder when their children at the age of 12-16 become distant, and looking for answers in weird friends and drug habits. yeah, that's about how it happens.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, you come straight out of a comic book

i went to a catholic high school. never bought into it.

Man, you come straight out of a comic book

okay.

Hey, tell me what kind of comic books you read? Your parents are okay with you reading them? Or do they make you wait until your homework is done?

Just messing with you, don't take offense to my jokes. So I would be interested in your point of view if you would like to share it with me and everyone else that comes in here, unless you are worried what others might say about it, then you don't have to talk about them.

i went to a catholic high school. never bought into it.

I grew up around a lot of kids that were Catholic. I attended church as a kid but certainly wasn't Christian. I always thought the Catholic church services were very weird. There were always stories in school about all the catholic school girls were sexaholics but because of their religion only let guys put it in their asses. But I'm sure they were just rumors.

okay.

Hey, tell me what kind of comic books you read? Your parents are okay with you reading them? Or do they make you wait until your homework is done?

Just messing with you, don't take offense to my jokes. So I would be interested in your point of view if you would like to share it with me and everyone else that comes in here, unless you are worried what others might say about it, then you don't have to talk about them.

nopes, dont want to get caught in the religion vs science trap. But you seem like a nice guy who has a very good understanding of christianity. So I am curious as to what is sin. Can you explain it please?

nopes, dont want to get caught in the religion vs science trap. But you seem like a nice guy who has a very good understanding of christianity. So I am curious as to what is sin. Can you explain it please?

I will do my best and start it out, then you can build on this question with more questions.

Sin was the original disobedience of God by man brought about by the enticements of Satan.

Eve chose the Tree of knowledge because that's what the serpent guided her to take from. Had she eaten from the Tree of life she would have lived forever. This is why the Cherub with the flaming sword was to kick Adam and Eve from the garden and prevent anyone from entering so that no one could eat from the tree of life. So that they wouldn't live forever in their sin or fallen state.

Sin immediately affected all of Creation and continues to deteriorate creation. For example, incest as you know it wasn't a bad thing for 1500 years after the sin, because there weren't birth defects or ill effects from this act until sin had further deteriorated our make up.

So according to the Bible; by one man, sin was brought into the world and by one man (Christ) we are free from our sins, however we have to accept it. God does not want to force anyone to love Him or make you spend an eternity with Him in the afterlife if you don't want to. That would be a fate worse than hell for someone who spent their entire breathing life trying to avoid God, then to die and have to be forced to spend ETERNITY with the very thing you have spent your life avoiding? HA HA. So I know I went off the path a bit, but that's the way I see our choice.

The Bible states that sin will again be wiped off the earth and be no more, meaning we won't even have a sin nature or a desire to want to sin. Namely there won't be things that are considered sin. Just as Adam and Eve had only one commandment, which is to not eat of the tree. They probably lived about 130 years before the fall. Plus they had to be convinced to eat from the tree in the first place by one of God's greatest and wisest creations. Sin is necessary to test our faith. An untested faith is not a real faith. Just as an untested champion is not a real champion... right?

I will do my best and start it out, then you can build on this question with more questions.

Sin was the original disobedience of God by man brought about by the enticements of Satan.

Eve chose the Tree of knowledge because that's what the serpent guided her to take from. Had she eaten from the Tree of life she would have lived forever. This is why the Cherub with the flaming sword was to kick Adam and Eve from the garden and prevent anyone from entering so that no one could eat from the tree of life. So that they wouldn't live forever in their sin or fallen state.

Sin immediately affected all of Creation and continues to deteriorate creation. For example, incest as you know it wasn't a bad thing for 1500 years after the sin, because there weren't birth defects or ill effects from this act until sin had further deteriorated our make up.

So according to the Bible; by one man, sin was brought into the world and by one man (Christ) we are free from our sins, however we have to accept it. God does not want to force anyone to love Him or make you spend an eternity with Him in the afterlife if you don't want to. That would be a fate worse than hell for someone who spent their entire breathing life trying to avoid God, then to die and have to be forced to spend ETERNITY with the very thing you have spent your life avoiding? HA HA. So I know I went off the path a bit, but that's the way I see our choice.

The Bible states that sin will again be wiped off the earth and be no more, meaning we won't even have a sin nature or a desire to want to sin. Namely there won't be things that are considered sin. Just as Adam and Eve had only one commandment, which is to not eat of the tree. They probably lived about 130 years before the fall. Plus they had to be convinced to eat from the tree in the first place by one of God's greatest and wisest creations. Sin is necessary to test our faith. An untested faith is not a real faith. Just as an untested champion is not a real champion... right?

Ok, adam and eve always had god to tell them directly what to do and what not to do. Say I want to do something and i dont happen to have a bible with m at that time or i forgot what is sin according to the bible, how would i knw if what im about to do is sin or not?

Ok, adam and eve always had god to tell them directly what to do and what not to do. Say I want to do something and i dont happen to have a bible with m at that time or i forgot what is sin according to the bible, how would i knw if what im about to do is sin or not?

Because it's written upon your heart.

God states that those that have not heard His word will be judged according to the laws written upon their hearts. Which means that the jungle living people in such a remote place that were never ever able to hear of Christ will also be judged by the laws written upon their hearts. I am no judge and no man can even fathom the depths of the fairness of God's judgement, but from what I understand that person will receive less lashes than the person who heard, understood, but denied it.

Noah took 2 of every kind of animal upon the ark. He took seven of every clean animal on the ark. Remember that when Noah landed he built an altar and sacrificed one of every clean beast to God. God smelled the sweet savour of this and said that man could eat meat. I would imagine that having 3 pairs of every clean beast would have made for keeping the clean beasts multiplying faster than the unclean beasts. Of which most food is taken from anyways. Who eats lions these days? He also took 7 of each bird.
God is one God in three persons, as we are made in His likeness. God the Father (soul), God the son (flesh) God the Holy Ghost (spirit). Jesus existed before everything else was made, and through Christ all was made. Meaning that things in the Old Testament (burning bush, flaming pillar, among other things was Christ). Christ is the called the Word of God. The word became flesh and walked among us. Christ was fully man and fully God at the same time. He had wept, laughed, suffered, and loved. However His diety side healed, walked upon water, taught, died and rose again, and ascended into Heaven. I'm sure I'm far off the beaten path of what I was speaking about... I need to go back and re-read and correct it. Ok, it's a bit jumbled, but I'm going to post it. Then answer Zilla


Exactly how big was this boat?
And wasn't Noah like 500 years old...don't you think he's a lil old to be taking on a project of this magnitude?
And what did the animals eat while on the boat...cuz animals eat other animals?

And what about black people, Asians, and Native Americans??? Did Noah take some of them on the boat too.

I'm really not trying to sound like an ass.

And I did attend church for many years as a child. I never liked it then and I still don't like it. I think the world would be a much better place without any religion.

Because it's written upon your heart.

God states that those that have not heard His word will be judged according to the laws written upon their hearts. Which means that the jungle living people in such a remote place that were never ever able to hear of Christ will also be judged by the laws written upon their hearts. I am no judge and no man can even fathom the depths of the fairness of God's judgement, but from what I understand that person will receive less lashes than the person who heard, understood, but denied it.

so i should follow what my heart says and as long as i do that it is not a sin right?

Exactly how big was this boat?
And wasn't Noah like 500 years old...don't you think he's a lil old to be taking on a project of this magnitude?
And what did the animals eat while on the boat...cuz animals eat other animals?
Let's see, the boat was approximately 45 ft tall, 75 ft wide and 450 ft long. That's the equivalent of 524 box cars of a train. Three levels, plasma screens on each level. Some of the giants that were on earth were able to swim and give birth to Tim Silvia, Semy Schlitt, and Hong Man Choi. :popcorn: okay I made that part up. A couple things to mention is God makes a big deal about man not eating meat before the flood and all animals only eating plants. This doesn't mean that all animals only ate plants, for example maybe after sin, the conditions changed. There would have been no need of poisonous stingers and the like in a non-fallen world. I simply think that the animals whether meat eating or not could have also survived on a non-meat diet. Noah would have had to bring food on board. A good example would be trees wrapped or in pots that would still bear fruit and seeds. In addition to much dry food. Not to go into the whole logistics of the Ark, but There was likely a blowhole, or an open point in the center of the bottom of the boat that would have been built up high enough to keep the water out and allow for throwing out waste into the ocean and allowing fresh air to come in. The ark wasn't a boat like some pictures depict, but more of a floating box. It wasn't mean't to get anywhere, just to keep from capsizing and keep everyone safe until the flood had aswaged.

And what about black people, Asians, and Native Americans??? Did Noah take some of them on the boat too. ever see someone of another race and say they resemble my friend.. if they were not black, or white or whatever. Well divergence happened at the tower of babel. (we can discuss this later if you like).

I'm really not trying to sound like an ass.

And I did attend church for many years as a child. I never liked it then and I still don't like it. I think the world would be a much better place without any religion.

I don't think you sound like an ass. Oh and for not liking church now, you sure are taking in months of sermons all in one sitting. I too think the world will be a much better place without any religion. There will be no Baptists, methodists, pentecostals in Heaven. Just people.

so i should follow what my heart says and as long as i do that it is not a sin right?

you cannot use me as your crutch. Two truths are both true at the same time always.

One is God is sovereign... and the other is man is responsible.

actually divergence happened 60,000 years ago when humans first left africa. by way of microevolution, certain traits were favourited according to the new environments that they found themselves in. through natural selection, different races evolved over time.

you cannot use me as your crutch. Two truths are both true at the same time always.

One is God is sovereign... and the other is man is responsible.

You still didnt answer my question, if the laws are written on mans heart, following his heart should suffice, isnt it????

actually divergence happened 60,000 years ago when humans first left africa. by way of microevolution, certain traits were favourited according to the new environments that they found themselves in. through natural selection, different races evolved over time.

Sure, if you believe the state established religion of evolution. If divergence happened 60,000 years ago, how come historical written records are all about the same age... around 5,000 years. All languages arose at the same time. There are no language-less societies. What did people do for the other 55,000 years to communicate? You'd think in that time they would have at least scratched something onto a rock? Or a piece of wood? Not trying to be sarcastic, so please don't take it that way, but there just is absolutely no proof of these 60,000 year old peoples, other that a few fragmented bones. No one found any records written down anywhere. Just guesses. I'm certainly not going to stake my eternal salvation on some crusty extinct monkey bones.

You still didnt answer my question, if the laws are written on mans heart, following his heart should suffice, isnt it????

No. Because no we are not perfect. Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? Therefore you have already sinned. And the wages of sin is death. That's why we need a perfect sacrifice to go in our place. The only difference between a Christian and a non-believer is that the Christian sins but they get back up when they fall down. A Christian isn't perfect, just forgiven. Of course this doesn't mean that a Christian should stay in sin because they have grace. Because the very example of the life that a Christian leads is the thing that pulls people to God. If a Christian lives life as a pagan and rude and evil to others, then people will not want to come to know God because of a mans actions.

I say, no because you cannot live perfect. No one can, and this is why Christ had to come and take our place. All you have to do is accept Him into your heart then you will not have to try to be perfect. I hope that helps.