Creation and Evolution - Deconstruction Analysis

[Eternal Enigma]

This thread is meant for the deconstruction analysis of creation and evolution. You're supposed to provide the reason why you do not believe in one or the other and explain how you came to that conclusion. Be as detailed as you can while being as respectful as possible to people with the opposite view.

Keep in mind these are just two theories out of many and all of them could be wrong. I'm not simple minded so I understand and accept that possibility.

Creation is just a theory...

Evolution is just a theory...

Creationists use real world examples to come to the conclusion that everything was created with a purpose and possibly by forces we've yet to understand. The data that is collected and put together is a theory of what could be; not what is.

Evolutionists use real world examples to come to the conclusion that everything evolves and changes over time. The data that is collected and put together is a theory of what could be; not what is.

Both of these theories try to explain our origins by compiling evidence to use as proof of one being more correct than the other.

Neither of these theories are proven and thus they're neither right or wrong so arguing about them achieves nothing.

I can share the views of either of these theories and I can criticize either of them equally without allowing my personal beliefs to get in the way. I understand and accept the fact that not everyone is as in control of themselves as I am.

This is not a religion thread: The theory of creation has nothing to do with religion. Creation is the theory that a God created everything and it explains how it works. Religion is something we created trying to interpret what God wants us to do, which is completely different from how the universe formed or how we got here.

[Ibelieve]

The problem with evolution is what created the first cell? matter/energy... what created matter/energy? Stephen Hawking argues in his book The Grand Design that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Well, he may be the best mathematician on earth, but he is a terrible philosopher.. John Lennox laughs at him, and simply poses the question: Who created the law of gravity?

[Wanderlust]

The problem with evolution is what created the first cell? matter/energy... what created matter/energy?

Biological evolution does not answer the genesis question. It answeres how we got from the beginning of life till now.


Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Well, he may be the best mathematician on earth, but he is a terrible philosopher..

Philosophy should not get in the way of quantifying how the universe started. Philosophy is arbitrary, specific historical evens "ie creation of the universe" is not.


Who created the law of gravity?

It came about when the universe started, it was spontaneous and random. Unless there was a creator, but apparently the universe was designed to hide the creator.

If there are only two possibilities, non existence and existence then any number of existences are inevitable in a timeless nothing.

[transcend]

creation has to be happening all the time.. subatomic particles pop in and out of reality..the best explanation for that behavior is that they are not as solid as we think.. so the holographic universe is becoming more and more accepted as a possible reality..

many problems with theories about creation is that they are often just questions about how space/time operates.. i personally think the 'big bang' is bad science along with black holes.. because anything that exists outside of space and time is also without motion.. and if space/time/motion isn't present then it isn't reality in our physical 3D.. the big bang theory is full of problems.. like some galaxies being older then the age of the universe.. or what is called the back ground radiation has no source location.. and further neutron stars explain black holes just fine without the big dark whirlpool into nothingness..
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/217.jpg
what is life anyway? because many things seem only half alive like big organic molecules and very small viruses.. so it seems that because form and function are the same thing in biology and in quantum physics then every bit of matter and energy is a type or form of information.. a bit.. and the whole thing adds up to a supercomputer.. one that can communicate with itself across 18 billion light years in a -27 seconds.. or the curve of the event horizon of the known universe divided by planks constant.. or whatever.. lol.. ;)

so the whole universe is alive in some way.. everything has some level of intelligence or information.. and organic chemistry and water are super abundant in the universe.. and there is intelligent chemistry.. it really is very close to the way eywa is in avatar..

[Scott]

I believe in evolution, but I also believe there was an Adam and Eve. The thing with the bible is you don't get the full picture, I mean its pretty obvious the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

[Eternal Enigma]

The Bible is a culmination of many stories that have been passed down through an extended period of time and it's been rewritten and translated many times so I'm sure as happens with most stories some of the details have been changed or obviously exaggerated. Do I believe Moses lived for 900 years? No I do not. What one must do when they read the Bible is understand that the concept of time and the understanding of the world was much different back then. We're speaking of times before people even thought the world was flat so these were very simple people. Since the concepts and level of understanding are so different from us it makes the Bible a very difficult read. I personally become tired of the repetitive nature of it. You should also understand that the written words of the Bible are from stories that were passed down from generation to generation before ever becoming ink on paper. That doesn't mean the Bible has nothing to offer you because there are lessons and teachings within the Bible that are still useful. The Bible actually has quite a bit of recorded history in it. Within the writings you see them talk about the wars in the Middle East and what they were originally about (no it wasn't over oil). These wars have been ranging on for thousands and thousands of years. Why the United States believes we can just swoop in and stop it is beyond me because it states in the Bible that these wars will continue till the end of days. When you have wars that have been ranging on for more than 10,000 years it isn't too difficult to believe that these wars will still be under way long after all of us Avatar fans are dead and gone.

There are some positive things that go along with religion. I really do believe that it's good to have a society that believes in a God because just imagine how bad things would have already become if people did not have a sense of an ultimate consequence. Our concept of what's right and wrong would be completely different without God. We would live in a completely different type of civilization possibly without anything we currently have. Our past history worked the way it did because of the belief in God and without that belief it could have changed everything. We could be living in a world where you could be sitting in your living room and some people could come and kill you and there would be no police or any repercussions because people would not have developed that defined sense of right and wrong. When I see people who seem to want God, the Bible, and creation to go away I don't believe they understand how that aspect of our world helps to bring balance to their life and what sort of negative impact it would have if it was to ever go away. More and more people are no longer believing in God and just have a look at how bad the world is becoming.

Where do you believe the concept of God came from? Do you believe one day one of those half primate half human beings suddenly came up with the idea that there is a being that created everything? Something happened long ago and as some alternative theories suggest it very well could have been aliens, but early humans experienced something that made them come up with the concept of God. This is why people who do not believe in God or creation should be reading the Bible and not calling it garbage because you have an outsiders view of it and perhaps you can interpret what they're saying better than someone who is a believer. In the Bible it says that God was active with the people on Earth. Well, are they talking about an alien and that alien's son is going to bring all his buddies here (the return of Christ) and kill us all? There are many interpretations. The Bible actually gives you a physical description of God in the only way those simple people knew to describe what they were seeing. So with modern man being more knowledgeable we can now try to figure out what these people were seeing or what these experiences could really be. Instead of being closed minded and saying it's just a bunch of garbage.

I can have two views of people with the opposite view of me. While I can see people who believe in evolution as unwittingly going in the wrong direction by moving society away from the concept of right and wrong by removing God and the ultimate consequence from the equation; I also see these people as a huge asset for looking at the information surrounding creation and God and being able to help to interpret what these people are talking about. We should be taking our modern knowledge and look at this through our educated eyes to try to figure out what they were seeing and experiencing. That type of interpretation is not religious and is actually more like a scientific investigation. NO ONE is investigating what these people could have been experiencing because this is such a controversial subject. The hardcore believers refuse to try to analyze the Bible, God, or creation (same thing with evolutionists). If I try to discuss it with my father he'll storm out of the room because he doesn't believe we're supposed to talk about it and he believes talking about it is somehow sinful. He believes if you try to figure it out you'll go to hell. I believe it's important to discuss it especially with the invention of new theories like evolution. These two theories will never be answered if people aren't discussing them. I also believe that people who believe in the opposite theories could benefit by peacefully talking to people with the opposite view. In order to do that you've got to be able to look at your own belief and take it apart with the open minded view that it could be wrong.

Obviously since I mentioned aliens I'm extremely open to other possibilities outside of what I believe in. All I said is that I do not believe in evolution, which is just one of many theories out there. I can easily explain why I lean more towards creation than evolution and I can do it without calling anyone names. I can also take both of these theories apart and show you that if you look at both theories in full they both sound like bullsh!t. Honestly neither of them make any sense. If the posts can remain realistic and civil I'll post my view and I hope you'll post your view as well. Remember to include why you believe what you believe. Just saying "there's nothing to debate" or "this is ignorant" explains nothing. If I told you I believe in creation just because... that wouldn't be a good enough answer.

I understand there are those of you who believe there's nothing to discuss and that's fine; stay out of it, but for those of you who are willing to peacefully discuss it then you should do so.


How to talk about this subject without causing a nuclear explosion:

Think before you post... try typing what you're going to post outside of the forum and read it to make sure you're not coming off too aggressively. Don't get mad and type up some mean message and quickly post it. In reviewing my posts I delete little bits and pieces from my posts all the time because I feel like they may be coming off too aggressively. In the society thread what was being said did make me very angry and in the post I typed up in Notepad I had lots of hateful remarks throughout my response, but those hateful remarks did not get posted. I still got that aggression out by typing it or getting down on paper so to speak. That's why therapists tell you to keep a journal. I did not post those remarks so it did not cause any problems, but I still typed them out as if I was going to post them and it made me feel better. Then I edited my post removing all of the negative remarks.

I believe people would be more open minded and more willing to realistically talk about it if this subject is approached differently.

Don't make your posts insinuate that your theory is the correct theory. Neither of them have been proven. Don't call people names or suggest anyone is ignorant or inferior. Just peacefully state your view and explain how you came to that conclusion and just maybe if evolution is real we can evolve and come up with a really interesting and productive conversation that will lead us to enlightenment.

[Scott]

Very well written, Eternal. You had a lot to say and you showed it with great patients and respectfulness to a very sensitive topic.

We were a different people only thirty some odd years ago, so yes a thousand years or two is like night and day to say the least. I can think of one common denominator of back then and now that most people want, to love and be loved. A father collapses in a field two thousand years ago is rushed to by his family no differently than a man falling at work today. Love, is simply, the most powerful thing we have ever known. people change, but love stays the same. The world changes, but love stays the same.

In my eyes, love must be older than the very first campfire or cave painting, even older then the first grunts of purposeful speech. Some will call it a simple biological mechanic to help perpetuate a species, but many others, myself included, call it God. We do this because love speaks to us, in our hearts. It has a voice we recognize but can't explain why. So overwhelming is this voice its very easy for me to understand how easily people can become misguided by it. After all, its the most powerful thing we have ever known.

[Aihwa]

I believe God created evolution. Do I win the double whammy of ridicule?

A reasonable viewpoint.

[Ibelieve]

Are humans the only species to feel love? If so... design?
Discuss

P.S. the law of gravity came about by random, spontaneously... I would like to suggest that the Bible, and crazy things like the trinity or God's infinite mercy and justice are equalled by 'science' (which is really only a guessing game in this topic)

[Eternal Enigma]

Very well written, Eternal. You had a lot to say and you showed it with great patients and respectfulness to a very sensitive topic.

We were a different people only thirty some odd years ago, so yes a thousand years or two is like night and day to say the least. I can think of one common denominator of back then and now that most people want, to love and be loved. A father collapses in a field two thousand years ago is rushed to by his family no differently than a man falling at work today. Love, is simply, the most powerful thing we have ever known. people change, but love stays the same. The world changes, but love stays the same.

In my eyes, love must be older than the very first campfire or cave painting, even older then the first grunts of purposeful speech. Some will call it a simple biological mechanic to help perpetuate a species, but many others, myself included, call it God. We do this because love speaks to us, in our hearts. It has a voice we recognize but can't explain why. So overwhelming is this voice its very easy for me to understand how easily people can become misguided by it. After all, its the most powerful thing we have ever known.

Thank you Scott ^_^ I see you.

You've just mentioned something that directly leads into a concept that I came up with long ago pertaining to love.

I was having trouble with the ladies as guys often do and I began to think about love. It is very powerful and is one of the best things our world has to offer. So I was left wondering why it's so difficult to get someone to love you? Everyone wants to be loved because everyone knows it's a great feeling and logically love should be easy because everyone wants it. Logically if you're nice and caring someone should love you, but they don't; not always. This fact of life bothered me to the point where I found myself pacing in my room night after night for years trying to figure it out. That's when a completely new concept entered my mind. Something I had never thought of before.

I hope this comes across the way I intend. It's not meant to be preachy it's meant to show one of the reasons why I personally value creation.

The thought that entered my mind was "now I know how God feels... you do nice things and not everyone loves you." That was one of those defining moments that worked to change my view of life completely.

Love is a wonderful thing and is something we all want and seek, but love isn't a given so we may face many who do not, will not, or cannot love us. So I applied that to God.

Results:

God provides you with the lesson of love to show you how difficult it is to get just one person to love you so that you can better understand God's situation.

God's situation:

God as a creator would logically seek the love of those that are created. God seeks the love of billions of people and not all of them love God or even believe in God's existence.

My conclusion:

Love is God's way of showing us the difficulty of getting just one person to love us so that we can see how God feels.

God is not a person that you can see or walk up to and start a conversation with so God can be forgotten.

All God wants are friends just like you or me...

God wants to be loved just like you or me...

Trying to prove God doesn't exist is just like those who are trying to prove we're the only life in the universe... does anyone really want to prove that life has no meaning and we are completely alone? What exactly would that accomplish?

In my mind if people take the mind set "why believe in God," which is the ultimate symbol of good vs. evil; then perhaps people will stop believing in other good things such as love, peace, freedom, self expression, and creativity. People want to get rid of Christmas and basically in today's times Christmas is just people giving other people gifts and decorating their homes with lights. What's wrong with that? There are organizations actively trying to stop Christmas and take away your right to decorate your home with lights. I try to understand what sort of world we're working to create by removing all of the good, but I lack the ability to understand it because it isn't logical. The alternative of living in a world where people no longer believe in anything good doesn't sound like a very nice place to live. That's one of the reasons why I lean more towards creation because I'd like to believe in something good even if it as a theory is never proven. It's better than the alternative, which is basically anarchy and complete chaos once everyone realizes there's no reason to do the right thing anymore. Notice how as the numbers of people who stop believing in God rise... the more wars we have. :\

So I most definitely hope love is forever because that means there is still good in the world. I hope there's still good in the world for a very long time.


Side note: For the purposes of showing everyone who reads what I write that I haven't been brainwashed in any way I'll add this. I have never been to church... ever. My parents never taught me about God or religion... (my father believes you'll go to hell if you talk about it). There was a family Bible always lying around so I picked it up and read it, which is the best way to do it because church tells you what to read and what to believe. That's not how God intended it. I think for myself. Just like you none believers I dislike it when people try to shove religion down my throat too. What most of them bring to the table... that's not God and most of them are hypocrites anyways.

[Scott]

"Now I know how God feels...you do nice things and not everyone loves you." I felt so heavy soaking up what you had to say, Eternal. I think any man who has dreamed to move a mountain in the name of love has felt some semblance of what you have expressed. And that is only the half of it; for every man who has accomplished great and wonderful things in the name of love there is another man who dreamed the same but could not make his dream flourish.

My heart reels for such men of broken hearts and shattered dreams. How many of them reach the end of life so wrenched by misery that love has been washed away with a lifetime of tears. What dose God do with all the broken people? I can imagine what I would do if I were in God's shoes. This is how I feel like I meet God face to face, and to see how much of Himself has been given to a wretch(said with a smile) like me. With all the effort and patients He has shown me, it is simply impossible for me to imagine Love is anything less than forever.

[_Omaticaya_]

So I most definitely hope love is forever because that means there is still good in the world. I hope there's still good in the world for a very long time.

Loved your whole post mate, as usual :nwink: And regarding this last thing you said, Yes, there is still good in the world matey, and Love, can be forever, and surely exists, it's just that all of this is covered up and suffocated by the mostly negative things in life, but it's there, LOVE and GOODNESS, always prevail in the end, I see you Eternal

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

so,what are we called if we don't believe in either evolution or creation,and are not an atheist,pagan,or right-winger religious crazy? i'm describing me,btw.:)

[Scott]

so,what are we called if we don't believe in either evolution or creation,and are not an atheist,pagan,or right-winger religious crazy? i'm describing me,btw.:)

I would call you Human. I would also tell you there is no right way or wrong way to ponder "Why" as long as you do it in a peaceful manner.

[Eternal Enigma]

Debates do not have to be negative or argumentative even though a lot of the times that's how they end up. Instead of this being a thread where people fight; because this is a sensitive topic, it should be a place where you can come and express your view, but in doing so you must explain how you came to that conclusion and you must do so while remaining as respectful to those with the opposing view. Everyone must also understand that out of the dozens and dozens of theories out there in regards to how our universe was formed and where life came from; creation and evolution are just the two that are the most popular. Neither of these theories have been proven just like the dozens of others that exist. So people from any side should not come here in an authoritative tone stating that their theory is the correct theory. If anyone comes to this thread to try to change someone else's view then they've mistaken the purpose of this thread. I'm not trying to make anyone believe in anything they don't want to believe in, but I do see this topic as an opportunity for growth through the transaction of personal concepts the world may not have considered. There will be those who are unable to stay in control and what everyone needs to understand is this is an emotionally driven topic for many. So by rule of thumb if you read something and become angry don't immediately respond to it. Try going to another thread to clear your head. What causes problems with topics such as this one is people from both sides post things that are meant to be hurtful and cause anger and what ends up happening is emotions get the best of people and when they read something they dislike or what sounds like an attack they just quickly type a response and post it straight away, which causes big problems. If while typing your response you become angry or type harder on the keyboard then clearly you should not post whatever you're typing.

If this thread can remain peaceful I'll post a theory deconstruction analysis of both of these theories. I'm already writing it, but I'm taking my time with it so I can be as fair and balanced as possible. I'm starting with the deconstruction analysis of creation so what I'll be doing is taking creation apart highlighting the many aspects that make absolutely no sense. I'm going to do some other things with it as well, but I'm working to make it sound as scientific as possible so that it doesn't come off preachy. Then I'll also do the same thing with evolution where I'll take it all apart and show you what evolution looks like through my eyes. That way you'll see my take on both of these theories side by side and you'll gain a better understanding of why or how I've come to the conclusions I have.

Neither of these theories make any sense and I'll go ahead and give you a small preview of the concept I'm going with...

God and Creation...

A being existing "somewhere" suddenly decides to create a universe with the future plans of eventually creating life... Why? Who is this being? Where is this being? and if creation is the base formula then who created God? If God exists in a place who created that place? See, in the theory of creation you run into the issue of "What came first; the chicken or the egg?" It's difficult to assume that God is alone and came from no where. At some point spontaneous life has to happen... somehow.


Believe me when I say I'm not closed minded. ^


Big Bang leading to Evolution...

In our world everything exists within something else... Water is in a river, air is in our atmosphere, blood is in our bodies.

Earth is in space, our solar system, and our universe. So that leads me to this question... What is our universe inside of? and what's beyond that?

Whatever our universe is inside of long ago spontaneous life began. A tiny atom, which would one day become our huge universe was in its infancy.... It existed that way, until it happened... an explosion trillions of times more powerful than a nuclear explosion expanded the atom into what we see as our vast universe today. The heat generated by the explosion formed hydrogen (the fuel for suns) and thus the cycle began.

-

In both of those theories our universe is created very suddenly and from no where. When you hear how it all takes place from the point of view of both of these theories you'll find that you have more questions than answers. There's something bigger than we are currently able to comprehend regardless of what theory you believe in and to say "the case is closed we've got it all figured out" just shows how little we really know.

I'll continue with this later and I'll reply to your posts next time because I've got to get to bed early tonight.

I will go ahead and state that the way Scott and I have begun to toss ideas around is how I would like for this thread to work.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i suddenly like where this thread is going...

[Wanderlust]

In both of those theories our universe is created very suddenly and from no where. When you hear how it all takes place from the point of view of both of these theories you'll find that you have more questions than answers. There's something bigger than we are currently able to comprehend regardless of what theory you believe in and to say "the case is closed we've got it all figured out" just shows how little we really know.

I agree, one question answered opens 100 more. We are along way from having the capability to figure it all out.

[Aihwa]

I agree, one question answered opens 100 more. We are along way from having the capability to figure it all out.

Evolution however, is pretty much established.

[_Omaticaya_]

Evolution however, is pretty much established.

:O OMG that just spoilt EVERY single word Eternal Enigma said... Yall can't help it can't you... Whatever, just believe what you want you fellas , one day (hopefully) you'll realize a human is: guess what? A human. And a monkey is a: monkey. So let's say it Plain and Stupid, the _Omaticaya_ way: Why are there still monkeys? What happened, was there a congress one day like: Okay, you monkeys, you will evolve the next few years into humans, it is decided. While you other monkeys, you just keep doing ya thing guys. *Gets ready for the haters*

[Scott]

Hold on. We can do this without shooting each other.

Aihwa, you have to understand the Bible is the holy spirit put into words. The Word is sacred just like the way the Tree of Voices is sacred to the Na'vi. You and I do not have that level of connection, although fortunately for me I have a close friend who shares with me his deepest thoughts about it. Outsiders like us were most likely introduced to science first, so we have this hard-lock that prevents us from seeing the Word the way a child would; with an unobstructed view.

Omaticaya, Science is not the enemy of God. Men will employ any weapon in reach to use it against their enemies, including science and religion. And those two spheres of influence have been at each other throats for centuries. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior just as surely as dinosaurs worked the Earth. I bridged this gap because I could not find the Word as a little boy desperate and in agony, so the Word found me! It's not just in the book, its all around us and inside us.

The Word and evolution tell two very different stories of where we come from and how we got here. I think they are both necessary and vital; without the Word man would be hopeless, and without science man would be unimaginative.

Hope and imagination.

[Scott]

And how is that attitude any more noble than the religious zealots who, I agree, behave badly?

If someone wants to believe the house of God is made of candy and we all come from His bag of Skittles, I think that person has the right to. And when discussing belief, in a mature fashion, we don't label a type of belief as ignorant or evil, especially when the person were talking with has not been convicted or even accused of the heinous crimes your comic strip alludes to.

Ok, there are things about some religions I do not like. I have an aversion to them. I do my best to control myself when confronted with those things that really bug me out. I don't always succeed, but I always try. You should at least try. You do evolution no justice at all with this this kind of crap.

I've had many conversations with Omaticaya, and although I have never met him and likely never will, I would trust him with my life.

[Eternal Enigma]

"Now I know how God feels...you do nice things and not everyone loves you." I felt so heavy soaking up what you had to say, Eternal. I think any man who has dreamed to move a mountain in the name of love has felt some semblance of what you have expressed. And that is only the half of it; for every man who has accomplished great and wonderful things in the name of love there is another man who dreamed the same but could not make his dream flourish.

My heart reels for such men of broken hearts and shattered dreams. How many of them reach the end of life so wrenched by misery that love has been washed away with a lifetime of tears. What dose God do with all the broken people? I can imagine what I would do if I were in God's shoes. This is how I feel like I meet God face to face, and to see how much of Himself has been given to a wretch(said with a smile) like me. With all the effort and patients He has shown me, it is simply impossible for me to imagine Love is anything less than forever.

See that's the great thing about time being forever because one of the greatest things we've ever known (love) can last for eternity as long as people will continue to believe in it. I am thankful that we get to experience it on the level that we do. I wish we could experience it on the level that the Na'vi do.

I believe the lessons you learn in life allow you to be on equal terms with God. That's what they're designed for. I don't believe that you, me, or anyone else should fear God. There's a difference between fearing someone and respecting them. In this case I believe creationists have misinterpreted the meaning of God's actions or perhaps something was lost in translation from one language to another. God gives everyone even those who are broken the chance to fix their life themselves. God doesn't control every aspect of every person's life. God allows the cards to fall where they may and if someone needs to learn a lesson something is sent to them to teach them that lesson. God will send you these lessons until you finally get it. I base that on my personal experiences because I have gone through some things that seem unlikely to ever happen on their own so I must believe something else was behind it.


Loved your whole post mate, as usual And regarding this last thing you said, Yes, there is still good in the world matey, and Love, can be forever, and surely exists, it's just that all of this is covered up and suffocated by the mostly negative things in life, but it's there, LOVE and GOODNESS, always prevail in the end, I see you Eternal

That's the beauty of love mate. It can shine through even in moments of great sorrow. ^_^


so,what are we called if we don't believe in either evolution or creation,and are not an atheist,pagan,or right-winger religious crazy? i'm describing me,btw.

You're someone who has a neutral point of view where you do not believe in either theory, which is actually very valuable especially in a subject like this. That means you should be able to talk about it without allowing your emotions to drive you and that can allow you to think of other possibilities. People just like you have come up with alternatives such as alien intervention. How did the people in Egypt and Rome cut stone straighter than what a modern laser can? Why did cavemen draw images of "vehicles" in the air on the walls of caves? These are valid questions that are part of other theories and remain unanswered just like many questions around both creation and evolution. None of these theories answer everything.


I agree, one question answered opens 100 more. We are along way from having the capability to figure it all out.

We are a very long way from understanding it. As you said we do not have the capability of grasping what any of this means, which is why I'm not set on saying any one theory is better than the other. We do not have 100% proof for any theory and there's a huge margin for misinterpretation on both sides. People misinterpret the Bible all the time so likewise I would imagine that things that are used as proof of evolution can be something that someone has misinterpreted. Sort of like how people see Jesus in toast or the virgin Marry in a window... if you look for something eventually you'll find it. I believe that's the case for both sides they're looking for something so hard that if they find one little thing they run with it.


:O OMG that just spoilt EVERY single word Eternal Enigma said...

I don't believe so... Aihwa just views evolution as being more established than creation. I'm sure Aihwa has never spoken to someone like me who can break it down without allowing emotions to get the best of me. Creation does skip over the existence of the dinosaurs, but in the same way evolution skips over paranormal activity, which is just as real as the bones left by the dinosaurs.

I have two separate upcoming posts. I've got an excellent deconstruction analysis of both of these particular theories in the works complete with photos and videos. I'll cover the dinosaurs and things that make no sense with creation and I'll do the same thing with evolution and cover things that make no sense with evolution.


You're prepared to say every biologist on the planet is a liar, every scientist on earth is wrong, and geologists are part of an evil cabal propagating the myth that the earth is older than 6 thousand years. (<-- that's how old the bible claims it is).

If I look at a PC repair manual from 1995 the information in it will also be out dated. Scientists say Earth is more like 6 billion years old and our universe is only 13 billion years old. I personally feel that our world and our universe is older than we could possibly comprehend.

I don't believe scientists are lying or are otherwise purposefully misleading us. They're taking evidence that they've collected and have come up with a theory of something that could be. They're doing this to the best of their abilities with our current technology and level of understanding.

Scientists talk about climate change and how the world is getting warmer (because of us), but in the days of the dinosaurs scientists say that the climate was much warmer than it is now. The ice age cooled our world down, which caused the larger dinosaurs to die off and what we see as "global warming" is just the Earth still thawing out. So scientists aren't always looking at the entire picture. They can be wrong.

[Wanderlust]

Aihwa, you have to understand the Bible is the holy spirit put into words.

You should also understand that absolutely none of it is verifiable. Every idea science puts forth exists because of phenomena in the real world. The holy books of the religions are stories passed down through the generations. You only have the word of believers and self promotion by the texts.

[Eternal Enigma]

In regards to your other post Aihwa.... that huge picture up there...

Don't bring religion into this because that's something else completely... there are too many religions to contend with. This is just about creation and evolution... Yes, with creation I am mentioning God because that's part of the creation theory. I'm not mentioning any specific religion and I'm not going to. So you're responses are about a conversation that isn't being had.

If your posts are only going to be about hating religion or being anti-religious I'm going to have to ask you to please not post here.

This is not a religion thread, that's against forum rules.

[Aihwa]

In regards to your other post Aihwa.... that huge picture up there...

Don't bring religion into this because that's something else completely... there are too many religions to contend with. This is just about creation and evolution... Yes, with creation I am mentioning God because that's part of the creation theory. I'm not mentioning any specific religion and I'm not going to. So you're responses are about a conversation that isn't being had.

If your posts are only going to be about hating religion or being anti-religious I'm going to have to ask you to please not post here.

This is not a religion thread, that's against forum rules.

Creationism is religion seeking approval in the real world. It goes hand in hand. You started this thread with the full knowledge that you're trying to match fiction to fact. Also, creationism is not a scientific theory, its a hypothesis, use your terms right. (and a pretty poor hypothesis too, what with the "not one shred of evidence" thing going for it)




And how is that attitude any more noble than the religious zealots who, I agree, behave badly?

If someone wants to believe the house of God is made of candy and we all come from His bag of Skittles, I think that person has the right to. And when discussing belief, in a mature fashion, we don't label a type of belief as ignorant or evil, especially when the person were talking with has not been convicted or even accused of the heinous crimes your comic strip alludes to.

Ok, there are things about some religions I do not like. I have an aversion to them. I do my best to control myself when confronted with those things that really bug me out. I don't always succeed, but I always try. You should at least try. You do evolution no justice at all with this this kind of crap.

I've had many conversations with Omaticaya, and although I have never met him and likely never will, I would trust him with my life.


The issue is, people don't just "beleive" this stuff, they demand others believe it. For example, the candy god. What if followers of this hypothetical god demanded (and through the democratic process) banned skittles because it violates their "morals" simply because their religion teaches that eating skittles is a sin? (prime example in the real world would be Gay Rights) The majority seems unable to keep religion "private"

[Wanderlust]

Scientists talk about climate change and how the world is getting warmer (because of us), but in the days of the dinosaurs scientists say that the climate was much warmer than it is now. The ice age cooled our world down, which caused the larger dinosaurs to die off and what we see as "global warming" is just the Earth still thawing out. So scientists aren't always looking at the entire picture. They can be wrong.

Rubbish example. We have a great picture when it comes to climatology. You just haven't cared enough to absorb up all the info about it.

The world was around 4 degrees warmer than cooled to present temps over 40 million years and varys up and down dramatically during these periods. The ice age began 2 million years ago and continues until today. We are currently in an interglacial, the ice age alternates between glacials and interglacials. There have been 6+ cycles of glacial and interglacials during the current ice age. The Earth is predicted to enter a new glaciation in 15,000 years unless the cycle is broken. There actually really is no normal temperature for the planet since it varies up and down over time. Global Warming is a problem for us due to the rapid change it could bring.

The ice age or cooling of the planet was in terms of being 4 degrees cooler was not a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. A variety of declining environmental problems and large catastrophes did them in.

___

Science rewires itself with new evidence, that's the beauty of it.

[Scott]

You should also understand that absolutely none of it is verifiable. Every idea science puts forth exists because of phenomena in the real world. The holy books of the religions are stories passed down through the generations. You only have the word of believers and self promotion by the texts.

The connection to the Holy Spirit is like the connection to a parent. The later is verifiable through blood testing, but face it you take it on faith(I have yet to meet a person who remembers their moment of birth). Once that connection is made the stories become the Word, and a bond is made. The bond, the loyalty and love, become what is written. The Bible becomes a cornerstone, the foundation from which a soul may build upon with assurance.

In Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. I don't have a deep enough bond to the Bible to believe that as it was written. I can, however, imagine that one day for God may well be billions of years for us. Were all looking for some kind of assurance in this crazy world, something that will never desert us. One thing I know for certain, the Bible will never abandon anyone who cries out for its comfort. That's love...from a book.

I didn't have that book. I needed a foundation, I needed a wall from the pain, and started building very young. Principles became my Word. Things like Honor and Integrity became my foundation for a sullen looking defensive wall. I kept building, and that ugly wall eventually became a beautiful castle, all because I knew things like honor and integrity would never ever desert me. If someone tried to tell me honor was just a story I would be defensive about it. So try to think of one concept that you have total assurance of, and relate the feeling you have with what people have for the word and you will get the idea.

[Wanderlust]

So try to think of one concept that you have total assurance of, and relate the feeling you have with what people have for the word and you will get the idea.

I often do that and i have an idea of the purely emotional attachemnt people get to an idea to same themselves from hopeless indifference.

I can't do it on faith, because faith is completely arbitrary. There are and endless number of faith based ideas and every one believes that it is true one. Speculation taken as infallible truth.

To be definite, i am a Skeptical Agnostic in terms to a creator. I am Not an Athiest, though i have abandoned all religious ideas. An Athiest would know more than anyone and the same way with theists. If there is a creator than the relationship between it and this universe is way more complicated than we can hope to know any time soon, much surpassing the knowledge proposed by the holy books. The modern day religions were formed when we did not have access to the realization of the true scale of things. Remember, we are lost in a universe that is unimaginably vast and complicated with hundreds of trillions of galaxies. Each place as real as this one.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

[Eternal Enigma]

Creationism is religion seeking approval in the real world. It goes hand in hand.

The theory of creation has nothing to do with religion. I'm not sure how I could have you understand that fact. Creation is the theory that a God created everything and it explains how it works, which can be done on a scientific level. Religion is something we created trying to interpret what God wants us to do, which is completely different from how the universe formed or how we got here and as such is off topic. I've removed religion from the equation. I'm talking about the hardware and you're talking about the software.

I'm sorry that in the past you've been confronted by religious whack-jobs who themselves could not see the difference, but I can assure you I'm nothing like them.

I'm also sorry if they ever tried to force their view on you or if they tried to make it sound like what you believe in is wrong. They did the wrong thing.

I'm not them...

Have you read my posts? Did you see where I mentioned the fact that I've never been to church? Did you see where I also mentioned that my parents never taught me about God or religion? This is not something that was taught to me over the years through brainwashing techniques. I come from a family where no two people believe the same thing so my views are completely my own and have not been forced on me. Likewise I would never force my views on others as in trying to make them believe it. I'm only going to post my view and how I came to that conclusion and I hope others do the same. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not like my posts are anti-evolution and I'm not saying what I believe is right. If you would read my posts (and future posts) I come down pretty hard on creation because there are unanswered questions.

Scott is the only evolutionist here who seems to be willing to try to see the other point of view. He understands that I'm not trying to force him to believe anything. From this he will understand why I do not believe in evolution. Hopefully in return I'll gain an understanding of why he does not believe in creation. What will this accomplish? The understanding and acknowledgement of a fellow human being.



We have a great picture when it comes to climatology.


I agree, one question answered opens 100 more. We are along way from having the capability to figure it all out.

:|

We can't even get an accurate weather report from one day to the next. I can't expect them to understand the climate or what the weather patterns were like billions of years ago. A lot of science is observation... there are experiments you can conduct, but science is also made up of a lot of speculation. When you're dealing with something that does have a lot of guess work in it I cannot take the information they provide about something from billions of years ago as absolute fact. There is an incalculable margin for error when guessing about prehistoric times.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Evolution however, is pretty much established.


what have you been smoking out there?! lol


30532

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior just as surely as dinosaurs worked the Earth.


well,this is a first,lol. the churches that i was brought up in,the christians did not believe in dinosaurs or their fossils in museums,said that the skeletons were man-made and the work of the devil,and so forth. me,i believe the dinosaurs DID exist,but i still don't buy evolution or some almighty presence snapping it's fingers,'let there be light!'. both are ludicrous and impossible to prove,imo.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

we are lost in a universe that is unimaginably vast and complicated with hundreds of trillions of galaxies. Each place as real as this one.


this line gives me a total helpless feeling of drifting alone in the cosmos,in a semi-working spacesuit,slowly running out of precious oxygen...

30552













* it's just me,can't help it.*

[_Omaticaya_]

You're prepared to say every biologist on the planet is a liar, every scientist on earth is wrong, and geologists are part of an evil cabal propagating the myth that the earth is older than 6 thousand years. (<-- that's how old the bible claims it is)

Humans are not monkeys, we share a common ancestor, and ancestor who is now dead and gone. (as it diverged into apes, and humans) The "humans are monkeys" line comes from creationists who seem incapable of understanding quite simple concepts, however I think this picture pretty much sums that up.


http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/241.jpg
You see?! They're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain... So, you prove once again you're totally in love with today's world mate; and for sure, you have NO idea, what faith is or who God is, but this was clear anyway so let's go on. Funniest thing about these post like yours is that you're convinced a stupid picture and a few posh words can make the other person look totally out of line and wrong *Shakes head* Let me see, you're telling me, that because somebody threw a mothafukin mortarboard in the air and studied science for a few years, that person has it all? And I know sh1t? Seems to me that's your message, well, you see, that's the whole point Allycat made a thread to hate this society, it's not about how many books you've read and how many years you've studied, if you're a believer, you don't need a degree, you don't need to pay University, all you need is the Bible, yeah, the Holy Bible, that book everyone hates, that book that people in countries with persecutions, makes missionaries of God risk their life, to bring some Bibles for the people, believers scattered around the world in hostile places to christians. Anyway, I'll go on, or I'll be off-thread too much, altough in my opinion, you can't have a Evolution vs Creation thread, WITHOUT religion in the topics :D whatever, Aiwha, keep your pictures to yourself I don't need them and I could send you trackers about creation and God just as you do to me about evolution, but a drawing can't change your mind, only faith can. Oh and one last thing, dude you even said, as the Bible claims, the world would be about 6-7 thousands years old, I cant remember exactly because I'm not as Well-Read as you, so, how could all your million-year-evolution fair from a cell in the water to Lennox Lewis happen that fast?

[Scott]

well,this is a first,lol. the churches that i was brought up in,the christians did not believe in dinosaurs or their fossils in museums,said that the skeletons were man-made and the work of the devil,and so forth. me,i believe the dinosaurs DID exist,but i still don't buy evolution or some almighty presence snapping it's fingers,'let there be light!'. both are ludicrous and impossible to prove,imo.

My mother enrolled me in Sunday school and had me attend church just enough to get some pictures of me looking oh-so-cute gowned in white for my first communion. It all ended after that, just some pictures for a photo album, something to brag about while popping another can of beer with drunk friends. I was never offered anything of substance regarding faith, not from my mother and not from the church I attended briefly.

I don't blame them for not noticing me, I was very young and very shy. I was living in what was nearly a vacuum so what ever little bits of knowledge regarding faith I did come upon I had to digest it without anyone's help. I had to formulate my own opinions and write my own scriptures so to speak. And somehow I did. I remember having a children's book about dinosaurs; but I can only remember one illustration, one that helped define me forever. A little boy and his dad walking by a stream with a modern field of grass and trees around it, superimposed upon this modern image is another, ghostly, image from a distant time with dinosaurs and ancient plants. With no dad of my own, that simple little image was the spark that helped introduce me to the father. I think that was the first time I thought of Jesus as more than just a beatific drawing or sculpture.

Maybe it was just a child yearning for companionship, but I swear I believe Jesus was with me that day long ago. We walked together and he showed me that dinosaurs once walked where we did and he showed me how awesome and loving a father can be. So yeah, that's how I can put the two together. I've not thought of that in a long while, Ja'k. Thank you very much for reminding me of it!!!

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i love missing posts...reminds me of censored family-grams from my past. i despise censorship in all its forms,even a missing post i don't agree with or hate. what gives?:grumpy:












* from debate to discussion...so confoozed *

[Eternal Enigma]

No worries. I requested that the thread be moved and for some changes to be made (religion related posts being removed) to help move the thread away from a thread destroying religious debate. The reason behind the removal of posts is so that anyone new to the conversation wouldn't come and read what was written and get the wrong idea of what this thread is supposed to be. That's also why I decided to have the name changed so that it no longer sounds like a challenge being "this" verses "that." I also wanted it to be moved to a general discussion so that it's clear that this is not a debate or something for people to fight over. This is supposed to be a place to share your view of these two theories and how you came to that conclusion. So it's no longer about who's right or who's wrong and the thread is supposed to help to provide a realistic understanding of why people believe in something one way or the other that answers that question beyond "just because." That takes the level of understanding beyond someone believing that someone else is just ignorant. Once you know why someone believes in something or doesn't believe in something it makes more sense when you see the reasoning behind it.

So this thread gives anyone the opportunity to provide their own thoughts and just toss around ideas as peacefully and respectfully as possible while keeping in mind this has nothing to do with religion.

Many thanks to Lon.

[Scott]

This was a noble attempt at listening. Maybe it should have come with a warning like we often see on a DVD, "the views expressed here are the sole property of" you get my point. I don't have a problem with editing out comments that only serve to incite, but with a topic like this there has to be a far broader grey zone to operate in. The reason for this is simple; dialogue stripped of all emotion tends to lose meaning as well. I don't want to see people getting upset over personal attacks-such demeaning things don't belong in any discussion-but when you have a group of people sit around this imaginary table you want them to bring their passion with them because that passion helped define the very view they are trying to express.

I want to thank Eternal Enigma and Lon for having us welcome at their table. And I want to thank the community for being so intelligent, imaginative, and caring.

[ScottWashburn]

I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if I repeat things that others have said.

First off, the basic question/premise of this thread is flawed. Evolution is not a theory. It is a proven, scientific fact. Living things evolve. We've seen it happen with our own eyes. The recent phenomena of drug resistant bacteria is evolution in action. There are numerous other examples. Asking someone if they 'believe in evolution' is like asking them if the 'believe in gravity'. We often hear about "Darwin's Theory of Evolution." This is a misnomer. Even in Darwin's time most men of science already accepted the fact of evolution. They just didn't understand how it happened. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was an attempt to understand how the process worked. His theory was "Natural Selection" as the process by which evolution works. Darwin's theory is now accepted by every reputable scientist in the world.

As for creationism, it is a religious belief and thus not provable. It can be lumped with all the other creation myths that constitute nearly all human religions. They are not scientific, they are faith. That is, beliefs that are accepted despite a lack of evidence to support them. The notion that there is a god and that he/she/it created the universe has no factual evidence to support it. I might add that atheism is also a religious belief since there is no evidence to support the idea that there is no god, either.

The only evidence we have of anything is that the universe exists. Science indicates that it was created about 14 billion years ago (give or take). What caused it to be created is a total mystery. We have no evidence of any kind to support any theory on how the universe came about. Therefore we are left with only two choices: Either 1) It just happened, or 2) something/someone caused it to happen by some outside action. There are many variations on the hows and whys, but they all boil down to those two choices. Since there's no evidence to support one over the other we are left with a coin-toss. A 50-50 chance. Heads it was God, tails it just happened.

But neither choice disqualifies evolution. Evolution is a fact and is here to stay.

[NAvi_warrior64]

I don't care about the beginning so long as i live the middle until i see the end. this is my philosophy of life.

[Aihwa]

Still legitimizing an unscientific hypothesis with no grounding in reason or fact.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

There are many variations on the hows and whys, but they all boil down to those two choices. Since there's no evidence to support one over the other we are left with a coin-toss. A 50-50 chance. Heads it was God, tails it just happened.


lol...humor is all that gets me through the day in this crappy existence on this polluted hellhole of a planet. a coin-toss you say...okee dokee.:)

30674 30675











* winning! derp *

[Replica]

Ah our constant wanting to fully comprehend and understand our universe and existence. I tend to sit on the evolution side of the fence here. I consider myself a more realistic person than an optimistic person and I just find creationism more unrealistic instead of a proper viable reason as to how we came to be. It just seems to conflict too much with history as we know it and what have found over years in terms of our past. But the interesting I find is that, within all this soul searching and fact finding to discover how it all started, absolutely nobody is ever willing to accept the concept that the universe has always just existed. We're always trying to give reason to the existence and creation of everything but maybe it's one of those things you just can't answer because there is no answer. Maybe the universe has always existed and always will. There is no beginning or end. There's just time. Somehow I get the feeling i'm on my own with this though, particularly here among all of you but perhaps this idea isn't as crazy as it seems.

[ScottWashburn]

LOL! Well done! But you should have used a penny or a dime! They have "In God We Trust" on one side :)



lol...humor is all that gets me through the day in this crappy existence on this polluted hellhole of a planet. a coin-toss you say...okee dokee.:)

30674 30675











* winning! derp *

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ oh,the irony. :) i still feel like i'm on a hamster wheel in here,or any thread that deals with this subject,or religion,or politics,lol. * scratches head bewilderedly *


30689

[Aihwa]

LOL! Well done! But you should have used a penny or a dime! They have "In God We Trust" on one side :)

The only reason they do is because of the Red Scare in the 60's.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

The only reason they do is because of the Red Scare in the 60's.



McCarthyism,HUAC,and The Red Scare,was actually in the 50s. i'm a big cinema fan,and the commie scare severely depleted the ranks of writers and directors in Hollywood in the 50s,and is one of the most un-american times since slavery and the salem witch 'trials'. the scumbags in congress have never properly apologized for the grief,terror,and life-ruination caused to these Americans,and to this day,i am downright ashamed of this country at times. grrrrrrr

i find it hugely ironic that we are spending trillions of dollars and countless lives of our servicemen and women,to bring freedom to these oppressed countries,and we ourselves,are perpetrators of censorship,tyrannical tax code and collection,and spied on by a domestic jack-booted thug agency called homeland 'security',more like the gestapo. *shaking my head*

[Eternal Enigma]

Scientists are just people and to say they're always right is like saying the president is always right or the police officer who pulled you over and gave you a ticket for no reason is always right or that the referee (at whatever sporting event) is always right. These are just people and scientists are known to oppose each other. It's not as if scientists are this one big entity and they all agree with each other. You can find one scientist who says one thing is so and fifteen who say it isn't and they're all getting the same information... it's just all in the interpretation.

I've read many posts with people talking about all of this evidence, but I haven't seen any displayed. To come in here and say "science is correct because it has more evidence" isn't enough. I look at the dinosaurs and other types of evidence (and the possibility of alien intervention), but are you willing to look at the existence of spirits or other alternative pieces to this puzzle? It's about not being so closed minded and being able to be objectionable not only about something you don't believe in, but to be able to take your own belief system apart. I'm able to do it as I'm currently working on "Creation - Deconstruction Analysis" and I'm going to go over how it works and all of the things that make absolutely no sense and even though it's what I believe in I am able to do that. Then I'm going to do the exact same thing with evolution to display as my evidence that neither of these theories are able to explain everything.

Just because you don't view something as evidence because you don't believe in it either doesn't mean it's not real or shouldn't be counted as evidence. Think about how frustrating it is that some creationists do not believe in the dinosaurs, but also think about how equally frustrating it is when evolutionists do not believe in spirits. Both of these things exists, but people on both sides fail to even consider them for whatever reason.

These two theories are equal in terms of the numbers of people who believe in them, evidence, and inconsistencies. They're both on equal terms of being just one part of a bigger picture. A picture that we have absolutely no understanding of. We can't even get to other planets so we aren't even able to explore other possibilities that haven't even been thought of yet because we haven't found them yet. So to say that we have a definitive answer is unbelievably small minded.

I look beyond suggestive evidence... for example.


This is a display of a human skeleton next to a gorilla skeleton. This display is misleading by suggesting something that isn't true.

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/extras/not-available.gif
This was an image of a human and gorilla skeleton standing upright next to each other.

The photo below is the proper way of displaying reality as it is not as we would like for it to be.

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/extras/not-available.gif
This was an image of a human standing upright and a gorilla standing on all fours as it does in reality.

This display doesn't suggest anything and anyone who views it can draw their own conclusion instead of having it drawn for them.

[Aihwa]

Scientists are just people and to say they're always right


Centuries of study and learning says they are, your religion says they're not.


Now lets see who we're going to listen to here...

[ScottWashburn]

I've read many posts with people talking about all of this evidence, but I haven't seen any displayed.

It's kind of hard to distill down hundreds of years of scientific research into something that can be displayed on a forum like this. :) If you are truly interested then I suggest you find the excellent "NOVA" program on the trial in the Dover, Pennsylvania school district over Evolution-vs-Intelligent Design. NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) It lays out the case very thoroughly for both arguments and shows that while there is mountains of evidence to support evolution there just isn't anything at all to support Intelligent Design. It should be noted that the judge, a conservative Republican, was bowled over by the evidence presented by the pro-evolution witnesses and totally disappointed by the 'evidence' presented by the Intelligent Design people. He ruled decisively in favor of evolution.


To come in here and say "science is correct because it has more evidence" isn't enough.

But it's all we've got :)

Science can actually explain things. Religion, spirituality, call it what you will, can't explain anything. All it can do is supply feel-good fantasies for people who can't deal with the idea that someday they will die. Or provide reassurance to people so arrogant they can't accept that they are just a random biological accident rather than specifically 'created in god's image'.

If we humans ever want to get anywhere it's time we grew up.

[transcend]

you dont need aliens to explain god although they may exist and may have visited earth.. and you do not need to feel that religon has no objective proof.. nature is one vast miracle and you are part of it and you have intelligence.. entropy does not win, information does.. when you realize that a feed back loop between the observer and the observed is a fundamental part of reality you will see intelligence also is a fundamental part as well.. and when you experience the oneness of god through your right brain you will have no more doubts about an intelligent universe.. its called communion or mystical experience and people have said this for thousands of years.. they are talkibng about a real experiednce.. ''i am with her jake.. she is real''... science and religon should be viewed as the same thing..

cant post as often because i wont be around a computer for awhile but very glad to see this topic discussed a lot.. :)

[visualizer]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Peter and Rosemary Grant yet? Peter and Rosemary Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant) Their work is famous. And as far as I can see, what more proof do you need of evolution? (In order to get a better idea of their work, you might want to watch the NOVA episode on them or read more about the work, but basically it details all of their observations of evolution)

[Scott]

It's kind of hard to distill down hundreds of years of scientific research into something that can be displayed on a forum like this. :) If you are truly interested then I suggest you find the excellent "NOVA" program on the trial in the Dover, Pennsylvania school district over Evolution-vs-Intelligent Design. NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) It lays out the case very thoroughly for both arguments and shows that while there is mountains of evidence to support evolution there just isn't anything at all to support Intelligent Design. It should be noted that the judge, a conservative Republican, was bowled over by the evidence presented by the pro-evolution witnesses and totally disappointed by the 'evidence' presented by the Intelligent Design people. He ruled decisively in favor of evolution.



But it's all we've got :)

Science can actually explain things. Religion, spirituality, call it what you will, can't explain anything. All it can do is supply feel-good fantasies for people who can't deal with the idea that someday they will die. Or provide reassurance to people so arrogant they can't accept that they are just a random biological accident rather than specifically 'created in god's image'.

If we humans ever want to get anywhere it's time we grew up.

Science only exist because mankind has an insatiable desire to explore ourselves and our surroundings. What exploration would there be without the stir of passion? What point is there in overcoming an obstacle if we don't feel good about it? How can we dream of new things without fantasy?

Your science, Scott Washburn, owes everything it is to the superstitions of man. God made science.

[ScottWashburn]

Science only exist because mankind has an insatiable desire to explore ourselves and our surroundings. What exploration would there be without the stir of passion? What point is there in overcoming an obstacle if we don't feel good about it? How can we dream of new things without fantasy?

Your science, Scott Washburn, owes everything it is to the superstitions of man. God made science.

Sorry, but you sound like the idiots who claim aliens built the pyramids. Those claims are not just stupid they are insulting. They insinuate that man isn't smart enough to have built them themselves. Well sorry, but we are smart enough to have done all the great things we've done (like create the movie "Avatar" :) ) We didn't need the help of aliens and we didn't need the help of a god. We did it all, by ourselves. Nobody helped us. And that's something to be darn proud of. What we need to do is abandon all the phony-baloney religions we see around us and start the Church of Humanity. Celebrate the good and the genius of people. Revel in our own glory. Our imaginations created the gods when we needed them to fill our insatiable need to know why when we couldn't answer those questions ourselves yet. But now we can (at least some of them, always more to be found out) and we don't need our gods anymore. So onward humans! Onward! :)

[Scott]

Intelligence will not inspire a man to climb a mountain. In fact, intelligence will warn the man to beware the mountain, because its so dangerous. So men who climb mountains must be idiots; men who dared sail the storm ridden seas were idiots. Men who took to the skies in flimsy flying machines were idiots.

How do you even stand to stay with us, Scott, its obvious we are nothing but a bunch of idiots that insult your mighty presence.

Tell me again how you built the pyramids with pure intelligence and nothing else?

Oh so God was good for a while but now we have outgrown Him! Even through you will admit God helped us via our imagination, your so personally against him you want to be judge, jury, and executioner of God.

An egomaniac, and out for vengeance upon the Lord. What did He do to you? Come on spill the beans! Your hurt, its plainly obvious, because of God, but you have not said why?

[Eternal Enigma]

First, you must understand what this thread is all about... the break down analysis of creation and evolution. Within that you can insert alternative things that also could have been... For example; my use of the possibility of early man mistaking aliens for God. I just threw that out there as an idea because we don't know where the concept of God came from. My thought is that something spectacular happened to these early humans to make them come up with the concept of a God or of many gods.

Coming in here saying; "No no no no you're wrong!" That's not you giving me the information from your mind explaining how you believe it works.

You can also ask questions about the things that make no sense to you about one or both of these theories... No one is doing that.

The information is supposed to come from your own mind... not what someone on Wikipedia says. Those people aren't you and only you can provide your view.

I'm not looking for you to come here and post links to someone else's theory... I want YOUR view.


Questions we should be asking each other or actually how this thread should be going:

1. What created the first atom and how did it form as if from no where?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



2. The first atom is what eventually became the universe. In the Big Bang theory this atom expanded due to a sudden explosion... what made it destabilize and explode?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



3. How did the extreme heat generated by that explosion cause one singular element to turn into many? (Sounds sort of like the replication process of a virus)

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



4. If humans were once primates and every other type of humanoid went extinct because the newer version took its habitat then why do we still have primates?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



5. We have fossil evidence of other types of humanoids, but none of them show the transition between having a tail and being tailess... why?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



6. If the Giraffe is the result of evolution... why aren't there any in between fossils of what these creatures came from?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



7. Birds of many species can mate with one another so wouldn't it make sense if two birds of a separate species mated they would create a new type of bird?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



8. Humans have bred dogs through selective breeding and we've created new types of dogs... is this evolution?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



9. Why would a God suddenly and for no reason create a universe?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



10. Everything exists within something else... what is the universe inside of?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



11. Could the existence of black holes and worm holes be evidence that the universe is the only place that can exist within itself by means beyond our comprehension?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



12. Science is unable to explain what ghosts are... I've personally seen actual object manipulation... something being picked up by nothing... what did I see?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



13. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth 65 million years ago; how does this fit into our creation?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



14. Why aren't there other types of humanoids?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



15. Why are we the only thing on the planet that has evolved as as rapidly as we have even though we're one of the youngest species here?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



16. How come modern primates aren't any more intelligent than they were millions of years ago? Shouldn't they have evolved too?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



17. If evolution is forever then what will we eventually turn into?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



18. Are the aliens us in time machines? Evolution? Advanced humans of the past returning to Earth?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



19. What are modern primates the result of?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



20. In the theory of evolution primates themselves would have had an ancestor... I'd like to know this since science answers everything... what were they?

(this is where everyone discusses the possibilities of what could have been since we don't know)



See how interesting this subject COULD be if people would let it.... Open YOUR mind...



Notice how I did not say anything about religion in those questions. That's because... guess what? I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about creation and evolution... how... it... works. I'm not trying to convert anyone to some other type of belief system or anything like that. This isn't made for an argument to ensue either.

Without getting some crayons out I don't know of any other way to simplify what I'm talking about.

So for those of you coming in here telling me "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" no you're wrong because I just had to tell you how you're supposed to interact in this thread. All you have to do is read what I said and you would understand that I would like to start a discussion of how these theories work by breaking them down. Creation and Evolution - Deconstruction Analysis.

What has happened here is one or two people have misunderstood what this is about and have privately messaged other people telling them to come here to disagree. Coming here and posting a response disagreeing before you've even read anything reflects poorly on you.

Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that the most intelligent people I've ever known are unable to understand what this thread is about.

If you didn't read this then you're the one who will continue to look like an idiot by having a conversation that isn't being had. This thread is going to show up in Google search results and to outsiders some of you aren't looking too good.

[tm20]

just watch some youtube videos of richard dawkins and michio kaku, they will answer ALL yor questions :nalol: (michio kaku is nicer, he isn't hostile towards religion)

found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0&feature=related

*i'll just summarise it like this....MICHIO KAKU=GOD :rotfl:

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Revel in our own glory.


oh boy....and all of mankind was united in celebration as we gave birth to a.i....and spawned an entire race of machines. uh oh:cool:


30721

[Aihwa]

Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that the most intelligent people I've ever known are unable to understand what this thread is about.

If you didn't read this then you're the one who will continue to look like an idiot by having a conversation that isn't being had. This thread is going to show up in Google search results and to outsiders some of you aren't looking too good.


This thread is about you attempting to gain legitimacy for your views by convincing people to consider/contrast them as equals with a rational viewpoint. Its a sad attempt to rationalize fiction, and anybody locating this thread (assuming they aren't part of the anti-intellectualism cult sweeping America) will see it for what it is.

[Eternal Enigma]

just watch some youtube videos of richard dawkins and michio kaku, they will answer ALL yor questions (michio kaku is nicer, he isn't hostile towards religion)

found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0&feature=related

*i'll just summarise it like this....MICHIO KAKU=GOD

I'm not really looking for answers to my questions because we don't have the answers, but we could have a very interesting conversation about what could be.

Dr. Michio Kaku... now THAT'S someone you could have an interesting conversation with. Thank you for open minded people!

Science is one of my favorite subjects and it's something I really get into, but I'm still able to look at alternative views or theories and take them into consideration as well, which to me is a huge asset especially when living in a world where not everyone believes the same things. I like listening to Dr. Michio Kaku's views and various points from other theories because he is able to be objectionable when talking about creation and evolution among many other things. He doesn't really ever bring up religion that much, which is something I like because religion doesn't explain anything. Religion is just something we created trying to interpret what God wants us to do. With religion you get into things like "eating fish is sinful and you shouldn't do it," which is crazy and has nothing to do with how the universe came to be or how we got here.

I like it better when he has his own show so he can explain a theory without it being so segmented or broken up by an interviewer. I really like people who are able to think of the "what could be" and come up with theories of their own without allowing their personal beliefs get in the way. He always comes up with some type of great alternative theory to everything. I'll bet he would be a blast to talk to and throw ideas around with. People like that are so awesome.

Thanks for posting that!

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

the anti-intellectualism cult sweeping America

....wut?!:disgust:

30769

[Replica]

This thread is about you attempting to gain legitimacy for your views by convincing people to consider/contrast them as equals with a rational viewpoint. Its a sad attempt to rationalize fiction, and anybody locating this thread (assuming they aren't part of the anti-intellectualism cult sweeping America) will see it for what it is.

Do you have any friends at all? Like honestly, do you know anyone that can sit in same room as you for more than 2 minutes without wanting to punch you in the face?

[tm20]

probably didn't have to say it like that but i'll be honest, i lol'd :rotfl:

[Replica]

Probably but then again, he's not the only one around here who can be blunt and straight to the point.

[Kiyom]

The big bang theory (yes it is a theory) doesn't say that there was one single atom at the beginning. It says that, a long time ago, our universe was denser and warmer than it is now. There was never any explosion in this theory. In fact the term "big bang" was at first derogatory to mock this theory. But this name have stuck accross time anyway. The universe, instead of exploding, expanded becoming thus less warm and dense. This expansion allowed noticeably the creation of matter (at first, all was energy, but energy which converted into mass).

This theory doesn't describe what was before the big bang (does that even make sense? Was there something before? Did time start at the big bang?), because there can't be found any traces of that. I think it is useless to say that such a thing is impossible, it's just that it implies quantities of energy and concepts which are completely out of reach of the human mind. We live in a stabilized world where energy exchanges are relatively easily quantifiable, where time seems to flow continuously. Back then, the concept of time itself was probably very different. We don't even really know what time is.

This theory has flaws, of course, but it is at least based on observation, like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. The idea of a God (whoever it is) creating the world is just a concept invented by people (just like the big bang) who had absolutely no idea of their origins and tried to justify an existence empty of sense (I precise it is my point of view). But just like we don't know what was before the big bang, we don't know what created God. So the problem is the same.

Scientists have discovered many laws governing our universe and have made many observations and experimentations. We have to admit they are right (or at least are very near the reality) because without these laws, we wouldn't have things like antibiotics, planes or computers.

The evolution theory allows to explain the physical and biological (DNA) similarities between species and gives a sense to the fossiles discovered in the ground. This theory, even if it has also flaws, is based on concrete observations and considers the spontaneous DNA mutations which have been proved.

In this theory, every living organisms (animals or plants) have a common ancestor, because we all share the same base cell structure. What was it? We don't know. How it was created? We don't know. Just like the big bang! But is it really important? Does mankind need to know absolutely everything?

Something we have to understand is that each living thing is as evolved as the others. Humans and apes and sharks and roses are all evolved organisms, because we all live at the same time. And dinausors are less evolved than us because they have been extinct before us. But just because we say that animals aren't intelligent (who are we to say that? How can we know? Does anyone ever enter an animal mind anyway?) doesn't mean they're not evolved.

It's right that we don't know the common ancestor of human and apes, nor do we really know why this ancestor has evolved into two branches. It's just the way evolution is, affected by the pressure of environment and the natural selection. We can't really know what humans will become in the future because we don't know the pressures the environment will put on us. It is the beauty of this theory, the unpredictability and constant changes. This changes matches perfectly with the changes the universe has undergone. It matches with the chaos which seems to reign at an atomic level.

The fossiles shows that there were other species of humans, but all of them are now extinct. The reasons may be multiple. Maybe climatic changes, maybe diseases, maybe otherwise. Maybe the human lineage is a dead-end, since we're the only representatives left (which is not impossible seeing the far-too-fast progression of human population).

I personnally believe in the scientific theories because they tried to explain things rationnally. I have personnally never met any god, nor seeing anything surnatural or metaphysic, and science seems to me the only way to understand these kinds of things. I'm not superstitious, nor do I believe in magic. I believe in what I can see and can touch. If such things like ghosts may be seen, then not by me; and I can't understand, I can't see past my own perception.

I think that creation myths are rather beautiful stories, though. "At first there was the chaos, and god created and organized the world." The Greek mythology with its numerous gods, the christian myth that the world was creating in 7 days, or even the Tolkien mythology of the creation of Arda are all very interesting from a literary or storytelling point of view, but in my opinion, don't describe something realistic, because such gods seem to overpower everything, capable of creating and destroying at will, without consideration of physic laws.

Of course, maybe these gods created the physic laws and are not subject to them, but it just seems weird in my mind.

The christian creation was written more than 2000 years ago. At this time, mankind hadn't the knowledge that we have now and relied on other things than technical sciences. I don't denigrate them, nor I denigrate the Bible or other religious texts, but in my opinion, such books are kind of outdated code of laws. Some things in them are still valid, there are interesting concepts and ideas, but some other things are completely obsolete. And I think the creation myth is one of them.

It's the problem of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And I'm afraid this question is beyond the comprehension of any human mind. We're such tiny things compared to the entire universe composed of billions of galaxies. How could something so ridiculous as a human could discover the greatest mysteries of what is?

I don't think science will be one day able to explain the origin of the origin. As Spinoza said, "And thus they will pursue you from cause to cause until you are glad to take refuge in the will of God, that is, the asylum of ignorance." I agree with this. And if I had to describe what God is, I'd say that it is everything we don't understand.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

hmmm....:p

30788

[Scott]

From the neck up that is one ugly dinosaur.

I still say you can have faith and science in your life without one trying to gobble up the other. I know faith is harder to come by these days because everyone is wondering why they keep taking shots right on their chins. You get hit, knocked down, back up and dusted off only to be hit again. At least with science it feels more impersonal, it lets people walk on their own two feet instead of path dictated to them by another. I believe that if this philosophy gets you through the day without taking a baseball bat to someone's head then it is alright. I don't need you to believe in God, I just need you to believe that hurting each other and killing each other is wrong. I need you to believe that you are more than just an animal.

[Kiyom]

We don't need God to know what's wrong from what's right. It's true that this idea of wrong and right has been largely broadcasted by religions. But even if I don't believe in any God, I'm glad of this heritage. Like I said, I see religious texts as old code of laws, and I agree with a lots of things and disagree with others.

But I'm not more than an animal, I am an animal. Why do mankind want absolutely differentiate from animals? Is it shameful to be one? Are we so proud and selfish that we think we're higher than them? I don't think so.

As I said, we're as evolved as any other living animals. What have we that other animals have not? Our mechanism of breathing, eating, defecating or mating is completely similar to most of mammals. Our blood uses hemoglobine to transport oxygen just like most animals. We use DNA to code our genetic information as almost every living organisms.

We're thus completely similar on a biological point of view. So what's the difference? What we call 'consciousness'? What is it anyway? How can we know we're the only species to have one? There's absolutely no experiments proving that animals haven't consciousness. They are other species and have thus other considerations and probably other views of the world surrounding them. We probably haven't the same consciousness, but I find it hard to believe animals are just very advanced biological machines.

If human are the only species to have consciousness then it raises another question. When in our evolution has it appeared? This problem seems so odd that I prefer considering ourselves like animals.

[Scott]

In nature the rule is only the strong survive. For humanity, survival is not enough. We yearn for more than just getting enough food to fill our bellies. We can never be simple animals, only act like ones because we share the animal instinct for survival-some of us more than others.

I love animals. I am always very friendly to animals because that is my nature. A nature that runs contrary to survival of the fittest in every sense of the phrase. I am not an animal! I am a human being! The being is what sets us apart, it makes us greater than the sum of our whole.

[Kiyom]

From a human point of view, I have to agree with this: we (as a modern technological society) are very different from animals. But what do animals think of us? Maybe they think we are primitive animals and that they are better. Maybe some of their activities we see as bestial and primitive are highly developped in their opinions. We can't know because we're not in their heads. Maybe animals have more than the instinct of survival, or maybe we have only that and try to convince ourselves that we're more.

Once again, as we don't even know what consciousness is, it is hard to say if humans and/or other animals have one... Consciousness is something that neither science nor religion can define and quantify so everything related to it is hypothesis.

But I want to take only one example: the ants. At first view, these tiny insects seem completely ridiculous and useless. And taken alone, they are. But together, they have created a society at least as complex as ours. They have developped very strong social bonds and each ant has a specify task which is essential for the survival of the colony.

Some ants have developped greenflies breeding while others cultivate mushrooms just like we do. They have a very developped 'language' with sounds, specific displacements and tactile exchanges. Because of morphology, our language is speech but there are other languages. They construct buildings just like we do. There are more in their society than just survival instinct.

Of course a lonely ant is completely lost and so pretty stupid. But as a whole, the ants are capable of intelligence and great organization. After all, they are capable of walking in straight line without having a high point of view of their environment.

Today, ants are believed to be the most populated species on Earth with about 10 million of billion individuals. They are present on each continent except Antarctica.

I won't develop anymore on animal consciousness because it's a little off topic... but nonetheless a very interesting subject.

[Aihwa]

Do you have any friends at all? Like honestly, do you know anyone that can sit in same room as you for more than 2 minutes without wanting to punch you in the face?

My friends don't hold with being "nice" to destructive views any more than I do. Would you "respect" a racist? NO! Why would I respect anti-intellectualism?

[Scott]

I've said this before, if animals knew how hard it was to be human they would take pity on us.

Ants are a beautiful example of how ingenious life can be. They build beautiful things but I don't think they know what beauty is. An ant is an ant, living in the moment, and only wanting what it is to be an ant and nothing more.

[HufweMakto]

I just find creationism as a fail overall. "Intelligent Design" is just another title for what is already been deemed unfounded, illogical and just stupid. Yes, evolution is real, go down to your local natural history museum, like what I did as a kid, looking up at dinosaur skeletons and seeing the ancient tools of early hominids (homo habilis, the Handy Man).

[tm20]

I've said this before, if animals knew how hard it was to be human they would take pity on us.

Ants are a beautiful example of how ingenious life can be. They build beautiful things but I don't think they know what beauty is. An ant is an ant, living in the moment, and only wanting what it is to be an ant and nothing more.

it's actually not hard being a human, it's just that we advanced our society to the point where we made it hard for ourselves.

[Palulukan_Taronyu]

I've said this before, if animals knew how hard it was to be human they would take pity on us.

lol.....Sorry Scott but are you being serious here?

We have it so so so so so so much easier then animals.

I am not trying to be rude Scott. I just think it is funny that someone would think that compared to animals a human existence is so much harder then that of a animal and that we would deserve pity from them?

Maybe you are not trying to say "harder". But what you are saying is that humans have struggles and go through hard time as well. Though not as hard of struggles compared to animals, and if animals knew that we did have some of these struggles that we would deserve some pity? Is that what your trying to say?

Again, Don't take this as a rude or angry comment.....

[Scott]

Animals know nothing of consequences, how one action can generate a domino effect that could lead to misery and death, even war. How can an animal understand the pain of guilt before it(the source of the guilt) has happened? Even the most primitive human hunters knew this pain before every hunt, the consequence of failure was the painfully empty stomachs of crying children. What can be harder in life than worrying about something that may or may not strike at your children. An animal can only react, we can imagine.

Palulukan, in no way do I take offense to your stance. And in no way do I mean that animals don't suffer. I'm just saying animals don't suffer from just thinking about something that may or may not happen. They don't, because I don't think they think about the future like we do. That's our blessing and curse.

[Eternal Enigma]

We have it so so so so so so much easier then animals.

It depends on how one defines "easier." For some people technology makes life easier (and it does), but for me just being able to exist without the interference that we create for ourselves would make things easier by making life simple again. Just imagine living in a world where you don't have someone breathing down your neck to get some paper work done. In the theory of evolution none of this has any meaning anyways so why make things so complicated? We can advance ourselves without over complicating everything. For example; if you have a dog or a cat think of what you expect from them. They're animals and like us they need food, water, and shelter just the same and with those basic elements they can thrive. The difference is that we've worked to complicate our world by coming up with new requirements. Then we have requirements for requirements for requirements. If you do not meet these requirements in modern society you're considered a failure where as in the natural world you would just be living your life. This complex world has even changed our view of how we SHOULD live life.

For example; I am 27 and I do not have a drivers license. I've chosen not to drive. The reasons behind that are personal and some have to do with medical issues that lead me to believe I wouldn't be able to maintain control of a motor vehicle, but just because of the fact that I don't have a piece of plastic that says I can operate a piece of metal on rubber people automatically assume that because I don't drive that I'm somehow irresponsible. They're looking at it and trying to make things more complex than it needs to be. I'm JUST living my life. If you have a medical condition that could cause you to lose control of your vehicle and kill people you've got to live with the choice you made to operate that vehicle. I would much rather make what I believe is the responsible decision not to drive. Once you run into that van filled with children and you kill them you've got to live with that. We've made it too complicated. Instead of the world seeing me as a man who has made the responsible decision this is viewed as an irresponsible decision and is even considered childish. So society would try to force me to drive even though the medical science suggests it's not such a good idea; in my case.

My own family has poor views of me because I don't go out and party or do drugs and I do not have photos of me and hundreds of people I don't know posted on my Facebook page. In their mind going out and involving yourself in this lifestyle IS living to them THAT'S what this is all about and if you aren't doing that then you aren't living. I have my hobbies I have my job and I have things that I like to do that are fun to me and make me happy, but my family does not view my life as being A LIFE. They've actually tried to say in a demeaning way that they just think it's sad that I don't have a life. When the electricity goes out I take that opportunity to sit in nature and use my mind think and create. I come up with complex concepts and theories. I have my own thoughts that belong to me and no one else. When the electricity goes out for them because their life has been made so complicated and requires these things to work they have nothing because their life stops and they're unable to think for themselves and to me that's sad. Then when you ask them about the photos on their Facebook page... "where was this" or "who is that" they're unable to tell you. They'll say; "I don't remember I had too much to drink." That's a life? I can recall nearly every event in my life so from that my life can have meaning because I can remember moments and have emotions attached to them. From an evolutionary standpoint I feel as though I'm more advanced than my family members even though I work to live a more simplistic life. It shows because I'm not aging like my family and friends are. I've been able to make time stand still for me and by continuing this steady pace I plan to live to be the oldest living human in the world. I plan to do that by removing myself from the unnecessary complexities that we've created. Humans are the only thing on this planet that experience this because we're the only thing on this planet that is actively creating an increasingly complex world for ourselves.

I understand how we've got it easier, but I also see how we're making life increasingly difficult. I'm not saying you're right or wrong I'm just adding to what has been said.


In other words this is just a long winded way of saying the exact same thing that tm20 said. lol


it's actually not hard being a human, it's just that we advanced our society to the point where we made it hard for ourselves.

[Palulukan_Taronyu]

Animals know nothing of consequences, how one action can generate a domino effect that could lead to misery and death, even war. How can an animal understand the pain of guilt before it(the source of the guilt) has happened? Even the most primitive human hunters knew this pain before every hunt, the consequence of failure was the painfully empty stomachs of crying children. What can be harder in life than worrying about something that may or may not strike at your children. An animal can only react, we can imagine.

Palulukan, in no way do I take offense to your stance. And in no way do I mean that animals don't suffer. I'm just saying animals don't suffer from just thinking about something that may or may not happen. They don't, because I don't think they think about the future like we do. That's our blessing and curse.

Actually Animals do know consequences. A animal makes a mistake that leads to a injury it will never make that mistake again. Animals can predict an outcome and that has been proven. I know animals are smarter then we give them credit for and I do believe there are animals that do "imagine".

[The Silver Stag]

We cannot know anything about what animals (I dislike seperating humans and 'animals' but will do so in this thread for the sake of clarity) think or feel because we are not them, I feel that to claim otherwise is to be a misguided humans who thinks he can calculate or understand everything. You can test a beast and obeserve what it does but even with it's behaviour you can never be certain what was going through it's head or emotions.

On the main topic, science seems to be it's own religion these days, with their view of the world being the only right one. New scientists are brought up being taught 'this is the way things are in the world' and the christians, muslims, hindus etc are all taught from the point of view of their religion aswell. People might say that science is the study of what God created, and maybe it is and if more people could accept that point of view then perhaps there's a chance science and religion could meet in the middle and exist alongside each other. In short, let scientists believe what they 'prove' and let the religious folk believe whatever they have faith in.

[Scott]

Then explain to me Palu, why a herd of whale will outpace mothers and their calves time and time again usually to the demise of some of the calves to killer whale? These are the most intelligent creatures on the face of the planet, they should know how important their offspring is and that a herd can protect their young where a lone mother cannot.

I watched one of these killer whale attacks, the whole process took six hours. It was hard to swallow, because my heart went out to that mother and calf, yet I could not place blame upon the killer whales either. I know from the very bottom of my heart that the whale mother loved and did everything she could to protect her child. You cannot explain to me why the herd leaves these mothers and infants to the mercy of fate, when we all know any good human father would never, ever do this!!!

If the largest and most intelligent animal on planet earth cannot put 2 and 2 together then how are you suppose to convince me they can imagine consequences?

[Palulukan_Taronyu]

Then explain to me Palu, why a herd of whale will outpace mothers and their calves time and time again usually to the demise of some of the calves to killer whale? These are the most intelligent creatures on the face of the planet, they should know how important their offspring is and that a herd can protect their young where a lone mother cannot.

I watched one of these killer whale attacks, the whole process took six hours. It was hard to swallow, because my heart went out to that mother and calf, yet I could not place blame upon the killer whales either. I know from the very bottom of my heart that the whale mother loved and did everything she could to protect her child. You cannot explain to me why the herd leaves these mothers and infants to the mercy of fate, when we all know any good human father would never, ever do this!!!

If the largest and most intelligent animal on planet earth cannot put 2 and 2 together then how are you suppose to convince me they can imagine consequences?

Orca's are very intelligent animals probably up their with primates. Typically a mother and her calf will be by themselves anyways. This is because the calf can only go so fast. This is precisely why Orca's will take the opportunity to attack a whale and her calf. Despite what you think Trying to defend a calf against animals that are 25-30ft long and weighing in at 3-4 tonnes and work in groups isn't easy. The truth is it is a almost hopeless battle for the mom and calf. The fact is that they must try to avoid such encounters in the first place.

The problem with the heard theory is this. A group of predators attack in a ocean you have six ways of attack. You can be attacked 360 degrees. On land you can only attacked front back and along the sides this makes it easier for animals to forum defensive circles to protect their calves. However not all animals are able to defend themselves against predators and a defensive circle would be pointless. The loss of young is a common occurrence for animals. This brings up a point about animals having it harder then people.

Humans will also do the same thing. Humans will try for self preservation to defend themselves. Obviously their are exceptions where family members and other people will help in defending someone. We see this in nature as well. If a lion should escape from a zoo and start killing people it would be everyone for themselves. Obviously you would have family help each other same with the mother whale defending her calf. Dad does not travel with the pod. Dad is off making more babies. Us humans do not have to do such a thing because of the medical facilities we have and the fact that we do not have to worry about predation. In the wild animals know that offspring will die due to predation and therefore males often breed with more then one female ensuring at least one infant survives to adult hood.

To make a long story short. Not all whale species are social. This is true for most large species of whale including the Mink and Grey whales that Orca's commonly prey upon. If such whales do travel in groups they are nothing more then just that just groups of the same species. There are no family. Only the female is left in charge to defend her calf. The male has to make sure that he breed with other females so that he can ensure that one of his offspring survives. After mating the male leaves he has no more responsibilities. Now nature does find solutions for this. A. A female is larger then the male to better protect offspring. B. The Male will help rear and protect his offspring ensuring a higher survival rate.

I can't convince you that they can "Imagine" I believe they can and that's it. It is a hard thing to prove scientifically that animals can Imagine.....

[Carborundum]

@Eternal Enigma:
Your approach to the Creation-Evolution controversy is very diplomatic, and you seem to be a genuinely nice person. However, when you say things such as this:

Don't bring religion into this because that's something else completely... there are too many religions to contend with. This is just about creation and evolution... Yes, with creation I am mentioning God because that's part of the creation theory.
You display a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. Please, let me try to explain it to you.

First and foremost, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Any statement involving a "God" is inherently unfalsifiable, because no matter how hard we look, there is always a possibility that God exists just beyond what we can currently understand or perceive. Conversely, a statement such as "man evolved from apes" is falsifiable; contradicting data could potentially exist.

Equally important, a scientific theory must make predictions about reality. For example, evolution (The Theory of,) has been used to successfully predict how E. Coli changes and adapts over multiple generations in an acidic environment (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/). Intelligent design (or creation, or whatever you want to call it) makes no useful predictions about reality, and so fails both criteria to be considered a scientific theory.

[Scott]

My apologies Palulukan, I've been in a lot of pain and under a mountain of stress these last few days. I did not mean to fire shots across your bow. The more I look at my other posts the more confused I am. I just wanted someone to talk to. Yes, animals can imagine. What I was trying to explain I guess has no name, it's an X factor. And maybe I am giving animals too much credit when I say they would pity us, maybe I am just a hopeless romantic type that imbues things with bigger hearts and souls than what everyone else sees. I know it's hard as **** to be me. I know how hard everyone else has it too. When it hurts, it hurts. Human or otherwise.

[Palulukan_Taronyu]

My apologies Palulukan, I've been in a lot of pain and under a mountain of stress these last few days. I did not mean to fire shots across your bow. The more I look at my other posts the more confused I am. I just wanted someone to talk to. Yes, animals can imagine. What I was trying to explain I guess has no name, it's an X factor. And maybe I am giving animals too much credit when I say they would pity us, maybe I am just a hopeless romantic type that imbues things with bigger hearts and souls than what everyone else sees. I know it's hard as **** to be me. I know how hard everyone else has it too. When it hurts, it hurts. Human or otherwise.

Hey no problem. I hope you start feeling better.

It was a good conversation and I enjoyed it.

[Cyraph]

I must say that although I'm a rare time visitor to this site at best I'm somewhat disappointed that this topic would even come up in this day and age of information but it's hardly surprising that those most against evolution also know the least about it. So many things I read here made me cringe at the ignorance of the poster and since I'm far too busy to explain or argue against every single point like I have in the past on other forums... well that's why I'm not going to waste my time. I refer to and give it up to AronRa of Youtube, who did a fantastic and rather unbiased multi-part series on the subject. Enjoy.

1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "To accept evolution requires rejection of God"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Excerpt: "Regardless which religion they claim, creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence. These people rely instead on blind faith in the assumed authority of their favored fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally poofed out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else –despite all indications to the contrary."

2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "The scriptures are the Word of God"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religion’s gods, an uber-galactic super-genius, and the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that."

3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Absolute Truth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "In reality, there is no such thing as “absolute truth”. Everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree. Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We don’t know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we don’t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Honest men admit this. Anyone claiming to know the absolute truth is not being honest, especially not when they claim to know anything about things which can only be believed on faith."

4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Belief = Knowledge"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Truth is more than just facts. It implies something that is completely true, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So every word of it better be accurate, or it isn’t truth at all; and depending on the topic, such a concept is likely beyond human comprehension anyway. Truth may be pursued but never possessed. That’s why we should trust those who seek the truth and doubt those who claim to have it! A fact is a unit of information that is verifiable true beyond dispute, and obviously beliefs based on the conflicting faiths of different religions cannot qualify as that. Belief may be either rational, or assumed on faith but in either case, it doesn’t matter how convinced you are; belief does not equal knowledge. The difference is that knowledge can always be tested for accuracy where mere beliefs often can not be. No matter how positively you think you know it, if you can’t show it, then you don’t know it, and you shouldn’t say that you do."

5th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is a religion"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Faith is often a belief in things which are impossible according to everything we know about anything at all. The belief is sacred, meaning that it is never to be questioned or critically examined, but must be believed no matter what. Skeptical inquiry is strictly forbidden, and apologetics exists only to obligately rationalize away any criticisms so that they may be dismissed without consideration. In other words, faith assumes its own conclusions, believes impossible things without reason, and defends those beliefs against all reason to the contrary. So it can’t help but be wrong to some degree to start with, and any errors will never even be acknowledged, much less sought out or corrected. So that situation can never improve. However wrong it already is is however wrong it will forever be. So faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything, but it’s a great way to stay wrong forever and never admit it –even to yourself. Science is completely opposite in every respect. Rather than any need-to-believe, science is driven by a desire to understand."

6th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution must explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Their problem is that evolution, -like every other field of science- challenges the accuracy and authority of the storybooks which creationists equate to God. Consequently, they tend to reject science almost entirely, and will often take all the sciences they perceive as threatening, and lump them all together under one heading, which they then refer to as “evolution-ism”. It’s an attempt to minimize the sheer volume of sciences allied against them. This is also part of their intentionally-erected illusion of equality; a false dichotomy that if their legendary folklore isn’t the absolute authority -being both literally and completely true, then God couldn’t create or even exist any other way."

7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is random."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Natural selection even mimics the experiments of human designers when new technologies emerge. For example, when men first achieved powered flight, there were myriad marvelously imaginative contraptions all at once collectively trying to set the standard for what airplanes should be. Eventually, they followed a more standardized pattern as many of the fancier designs were discontinued and more functional tried-and-true contrivances remained. Significant improvements occasionally appear, but there are no more wildly diverse variants like the pioneer planes built when aviation was new and less understood."

8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “new”. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away. But as to whether “information” has been added as opposed to lost, we can’t really tell because creationists won’t tell us what they think “information” is or how to measure it. They’ll readily state (as if it had somehow been confirmed) that it takes more "information" to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, but if you ask 'em how much more, they’ll shut right up. And if you demand to see the data that justifies how they could even make that claim in the first place, they’ll to change the subject."

9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been found."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "When something dies, it is usually disassembled, digested, and decomposed. Only rarely is anything ever fossilized, and even fewer things are very well-preserved. Because the conditions required for that process are so particular, the fossil record can only represent a tiny fraction of everything that has ever lived. Darwin provided many environmental dynamics explaining why no single quarry could ever provide a continuous record of biological events, and why it would be impossible to find all the fossilized ancestors of every lineage. But despite this, he predicted that future generations, -having the benefit of better understanding- would discover a substantial number of fossil species which he called “intermediate” or “transitional” between what we see alive today and their taxonomic ancestors at successive levels in paleontological history. There are three different types of transitional forms and we have ample examples of each. But creationists still insist that we’ve never found a single one, because what they usually ask us to present are impossible parodies which evolution would neither produce nor permit."

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "The Tree of Life is nowhere implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of biology."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "One notable subset of Eukarya is Opisthokonta, who's gammete cells have a single posterior flagellum. One subset of this this group is Metazoa, also known as Kingdom, Animalia- multicellular opisthokonts which must ingest other organisms in some sort of digestive tract in order to survive. The biological definition, and in fact even the common dictionary defintions describe humans as belonging to the animal kingdom. Creationists howl at that idea that they should be animals, but if you have any knowledge at all of what an animal even is, then you know that you are one! This isn’t a matter of opinion either; It is a fact, and we can prove it!"

11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Macro-evolution has never been observed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Creationists argue that evolution can only occur within “definite limits”, and then only to subtle variance within their “kind”. They say new diversity is limited to rare and unviable hybrids between those “kinds”, and they usually say that the emergence of new species is impossible. In the evolutionary perspective, any single ancestral species can diverge into two or more daughter species, each becoming so distinct that eventually either of the new species would be unable to interbreed with the ancestral and/or sister species anymore. But by ignoring fossil forms, the creationist’s perspective has that completely backwards, insisting instead on an illusory sequence of separately conjured “kinds” which (like “information”) must remain forever undefined, and they imagine that evolutionary diversity can only occur by mixing these “kinds” in hybridization. This is another reason they reject transitional fossils, and instead demand some blend only between current “kinds”. Their perspective has no depth."

12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Creation Science"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Science is a search for truth –whatever the truth may turn out to be, even if it’s evidently not what we wanted to believe it was. In science, it doesn’t matter what you believe; all that matters is why you believe it. This is why real science disallows faith, promising instead to remain objective, to follow wherever the evidence leads, and either correct or reject any and all errors along the way even if it challenges whatever we think we know now. But creationist organizations post written declarations of their unwavering obligation to uphold and defend their preconceived notions, declaring in advance their refusal to ever to let their minds be changed by any amount of evidence that is ever revealed. Anti-science evangelists display their statement of faith proudly on their own forums, as if admitting to a closed and dishonest mind wasn’t something to ashamed of or beg forgiveness for."

13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is a fraud!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "The scientific process of peer-review seeks out and exposes fraud by design. But antievolutionist arguments are withheld from peer-review because they are driven entirely by frauds including misstatements, out-of-context quote-mining, and contrived or distorted falsehoods, and terms erroneously redefined into instigative reactionary nonsense unintelligible as anything other than propaganda. In short, if creationists knew how to expose a fraud, they wouldn’t be creationists anymore."

Continued in next post

[Cyraph]

14th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Part 1 and 2: "Creation is evident"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk&amp;feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XHbRGiQccM&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "Vague criticisms against science still wouldn’t count as evidence for creationism even if those arguments weren’t all completely wrong. Even if there was evidence of gods, it might not be their god. Even if it was, that wouldn’t be evidence of creation either, because that still wouldn’t dismiss any of the evidence for evolution and against mythology; nor could it change the fact that humans are still apes. Creation relies on a false dichotomy –rejecting all other options and insisting that there can only be two alternatives; So they can imagine that criticizing the one will vindicate the other by default... If there’s no evidence for a particular notion, then there’s no reason to believe it either. It may as well have been imagined out of nothing because it has no basis in fact. We can only proclaim a positive belief if we have sufficient evidence to support only that, and no evidence at all against it. Even then we can only accept it tentatively. Because, if future evidence ever confirms that we were wrong all along, then we’ll be forced to change our minds accordingly even if we didn’t want to.

Defense of faith doesn’t work that way. It relies instead on apologetics; the branch of theology concerned with the manditory promotion and reinforcement of faith in a particular religious doctrine, and the obligate defense of that belief by systematically rationalizing or denying any or all arguments that may ever be laid against it. Lemmie explain how it works it’s really quite easy: “Goddidit” explains everything by explaining nothing. Since magic is exempt from all rules of nature or logic, they think that means that anything that seems impossible somehow proves them right. Conversely, anything and everything that might imply otherwise can be immediately dismissed as a knee-jerk reaction with the phrase, “that doesn’t prove anything”. Virtually all anti-science apologetics are composed of variants of these two thoughtless comments, in addition to the usual propaganda of inflammatory emotional pleas, tall tales, petty bigotry, incredulity, and appeals to authority."

15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Part 1 and 2: "Evolution has never been proved, it's just a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0&amp;feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc&amp;feature=related
Excerpt: "You don’t have to prove something before it can be disproved. Nor should we both prove and disprove the same thing. Science doesn’t permit anything to be proven positively. Instead, every hypothesis must be potentially falsifiable in order to count as science. That means there has to be a way to identify errors, to find out what’s wrong with it –and fix it... A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion... Intelligent Design isn’t a theory at all; it’s a scam, a scheme conceived solely to undermine legitimate science. It doesn’t even count as an hypothesis, because it isn’t based on evidence, offers no mechanism, and isn’t falsifiable either. It is backed by nothing and produces nothing because it is nothing but untestable conjecture. None of it has been shown to be right and lots of it have been proven wrong. So it’s useless in any field, because only accurate information can have practical application."

"But we can prove that evolution exists, and that it works, just like we can prove that gravity works, even though it too is ‘just’ a theory and has never been proved. Atomic theory has never been proven either –not even in Hiroshima. But just as evolution is the foundation of modern biology, modern chemistry is completely dependant on atomic theory. And there are huge holes in that theory! Just look at our classic model of atomic structure; it’s wrong, and we know it’s wrong, but we still teach it in school anyway, because despite their virtual invisibility and being understood only in theory, atoms are still a matter of undeniable fact. So we have to use that in a series of imperfect models because we’re still trying to figure out one that works in all instances."


Falsifying Phylogeny Part 1 and 2 - Extra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I&amp;feature=related
Systematic phylogenetics, -also known as Cladistic taxonomy- is the most profound evidence there is indicating our evolution from common ancestry, but very few people actually understand it.

[_Omaticaya_]

Wow been away a week, and there's been like 45 posts O.O, great and lively thread this is. About this 'list'^Just reading the Bible and being Saved by the Holy spirit is more important for some and gives more material than all the videos on youtube you can find dude... Yall dont get the point... Whatever, I didn't even read all the other posts since page 4 or somin', so I'm just jumping in for a stop and go, maybe it's unnecesaary, whatever, who cares....just repling to this^.... Peace out

[transcend]

darwins evvolution is a sub set of a bigger theory of evolution.. gradual change is not a required law of evolution and evolution will be discovered to result from physical laws.. punctuated equlibrim (fast change) has be demonstrated as well as lamarkina evolution (guided mutations).. what this means is that co-evolution and mutual benifit is the bigger part of evolution over and above survival of the fittest based on random rolls of the dice.. darwins evolution is not entirely wrong.. it is outdated.. my personal conviction is that ''eywa'' explains nature and reality better then darwins evolution or zeus and a magic wand.. there is a third possibility rather then the two offered by society generally.. god is what ''we live move and have our being in''.. not some guy in a rob on a throne directing things.. intelligence is real in the universe but not a tribal god like thor or some sh**.. people need spiritual intelligence as well.. not fundamentalism.. everyone rejects fundamentalism at some point.. it is making god in man's image and it is a form of idolitry if not outright blasphmeny.. established traditional religions make god into a big cop so people serve the king and the pope.. and science is being misguided by the real world RDA which wants to exploit nature.. for example.. linus pauling discovered the DNA molecule but the credit was given to a couple of corporate sell outs named watson and crick.. this happens over and over again in the bio-tech field which survives off of RDA grants usually.. eywa is real and avatar is telling us the truth.. <3

[Cyraph]

Just reading the Bible and being Saved by the Holy spirit is more important for some and gives more material than all the videos on youtube you can find dude...

These aren't just some random spamming of "all" the videos I could find on the subject. They're simply all parts of the same series highlighting some of the common yet dishonest claims creationists make about evolution and the masses' equivalent misunderstanding of BASIC scientific concepts such as "theory." I do agree that it's a personal thing which is why I don't spend as much time as I used to on (other) forums arguing this stuff. It's non-productive and borderline pointless. As for reading the bible and being "saved" by the holy spirit- since you want to take it in THAT direction, the only thing anyone ever needs to be saved from is their own gullibility, and reading the bible itself is one of the main reasons I began doubting it. There's little to no evidence that Jesus ever even existed as described, but I'll give to there being slightly more than for that of Santa Claus. Normally I would refrain to go on any further... BUT I think I'll I will step in, rant briefly here, give my 2 copper and probably disappear for the usual month or so. I totally shouldn't but I just can't help myself... perhaps it's the bad weather that's out right now. If I come off to you as perhaps atheistic, I actually consider myself more of a "fundamentalist" agnostic. I'm simply honest enough to admit that I don't know and am OKAY with the unknown and gaps in our current knowledge, but also willing to point out the ridiculous nonsense people still believe today that's like a stranglehold on human progress. It pains me to say that they rarely have these arguments in China. I want America and the western world to lead the global economy and not be held back by this primitive mind virus.

So where to start my rant? First off, I don't want you or anyone here to take this personal, because it's not. But I do have more than a few things to say on this topic and some of this may be kind of offensive to some, but just try to hear me out. The argument for religious faith would almost be an insult to any average person who didn't grow up with it. So why is it so popular one may ask? Well, because it's easy to explain to children. It's just so much easier- I mean, it takes time and effort to acquire and gain knowledge, but any fool can acquire faith right away and with little effort. I really feel bad for those who've taken a life-long pledge to gullibility- to feel satisfied with not understanding the world- I feel it limits their true potential!

The God of the Bible is such a simple, unpleasant character when you look at it from a story perspective. It's all so obviously man-made it's just embarrassing - you can tell from God's limitations - vengeful, narrow minded, ego-centric, incredibly stupid, he's got our hands all over him. I mean, look at how he handles the first time humans step out of line within the story- the entire world is punished, including future generations! Doesn't that dwell close to perhaps insecurity on God's part? And if he's insecure, he's not perfect. And if he's not perfect, he's not God. So why does he behave like this? (These are all rhetorical questions so don't feel it necessary to respond to any, just something to think on.) Because of the people who created him, who, if they found themselves in the modern world, they would DIE of technophobia!! Yet, we allow them- from their graves, to impose their incredibly narrow and ignorant worldview on everyone today.

Organized religion, both historically and up to today, has "commercialized" Jesus for public consumption. The early church (made possible once Rome made it the official state religion) really capitalized off the supernatural aspects that were added to the story - why? Because they needed Jesus to be a God, so they could use him to generate fear, which is the lowest level humans know how to operate on and so they could claim supernatural authority through him. I mean, as just a man, Jesus was almost useless to them - all he could offer were words of compassion and wisdom, and what earthly good would they be lol? Anyway the real challenge they were faced with was how the hell were they going to equate the calm dialogue of Jesus with the horrible monster in the old testament of vengeance and death. This was definitely going to take some high-end, specialist work, but they did eventually figure it out in the 4th century with the Trinity- three gods in one- the classic Christian con. This three card trick is designed to confuse, not enlighten, and follows the basic rules of religion - the thing you believe should be impossible, and any explanation should be impossible to understand as well. We could argue all day (and uh, I have before, and it's pointless) about whether or not Jesus existed or whether he was divine or not, but the history behind and concept of the trinity is beyond dispute- it's a matter of historical fact that this is a pure invention of Christian clergy.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson

I think Jesus could of been a regular guy, perhaps with a true, selfless godly personality, a rare kind of person. But almost all the other aspects about him- from the virgin birth, being the son of God, or resurrection, these are all typical of the kind of symbolic stories of the day that the masses craved and have never had any credible evidence to back such claims up. The story at it's core is so basic and so similar to other savior deities of the time period dating back to even before the Egyptians that in no way is it new or original. And as for God himself, I don't believe anyone's watching over us, but I'm not against the possibility of an intelligent designer behind the universe or life itself, and you could say that although the process and specific "path" that evolution followed to bring us here appears random, it was really controlled. But if you look at the history of life (This is also something your average Christian knows NOTHING about. It's one thing to know how evolution works on populations and species in general, but if you don't know the history of life- it's turns, hardships, failures, successes, it's even harder to grasp, deep time), and say that God guided this, it would make him seem not only incompetent, but just plain wasteful. But, giving it a chance, what could be out there, outside the universe? Who knows. Will we ever discover the meaning of life? Maybe, but so far, nobody has, which would explain all the expert opinions through religion on the subject.

I'm against religion and nonsense beliefs like it because I'm for freedom. The only difference between religion and a communist society- something all conservatives are against and so am I, is that yes, communism is typically thought of as the atheist society, and usually publicly demolishes religion, but here's the kick, REPLACES it with another one, where you worship their leader or dictator instead. In North Korea, they worship the leader who's been dead for like 20 years, several times a day. They even believe that he can, wait for it- HEAR their thoughts, and they can be punished for them after death. They believe he's divine and will guide the nation to prosperity. Saudi Arabia is the opposite coming from the right- truly conservative- a theocracy, yet almost exactly the same when it comes to how much freedom the individual has. The mind is chained to either the state or God and both suck! I almost find that the option of hell itself (which isn't real either) is the lesser of both evils, because the opposite is submission. Real death. Death of the spirit and soul, it's what religion feeds on the most.

I've broken this post up into 2 parts, next is continued.

[Cyraph]

continued,

Think about it. In many times throughout our history, EVERYTHING we didn't know was explained by God or the supernatural in general. It's not hard to imagine what it may have been like for the people who came long before us, say- 60,000 years ago for example. They believed that the sun and moon was our mother and father. A long, well-lived life was 26 or so years at the max. You died of your teeth or very large carnivorous cats or other predators that we don't have any more. Since most animals are pattern seeking creatures, to us with our heightened consciousness (a different topic that is- the emergence of our consciousness)- everything we saw was a sign from beyond. When a loved one died, we could still hear and imagined them speak in our minds. That's why people still believe in spirits and ghosts today. A flash of lighting and crack of thunder meant that the creator was angry. When the earth shook or floods came- the spirits were irritated, and we begged them to forgive us. When the volcano erupted, we appeased it with sacrifices and offerings. When we suffered from sickness and disease, we called it a curse for our sins, not knowing the "truth" that it was merely the boring reality of bacteria preying on our bodies. Everything was strange then- mysterious, but wonderful and terrifying all the same. Unknown. Yet we still, somehow believed that we were at the center - that there was something important about our existence.

This kind of primitive thinking is no different than when people say that, for example, a tornado is because of sin. Or when the governor of Texas and others actually prayed for rain. That's just not the way the world or reality is. So where does this kind of thinking come from? You know. It began when we saw our world through the new eyes of science, reason and knowledge. The moon was instead a place that we would eventually visit, the sun was simply one star, among hundreds of billions of stars, among billions of galaxies. Natural disasters became measurable and often predictable. Our crude illustrations eventually gave way to amazing and incredible expressions of image and verse that ignited the human imagination. Mankind is only just beginning to grow beyond the early fears of it's infancy, to refuse to be satisfied with unanswered questions, and most importantly- to acknowledge and accept a universe much greater than the superstitions of our ancestors could ever allow.

But back to the Bible. Well, when you think of it, it isn't even compelling storytelling. The Bible has conflict yeah- which is great for dramatic writing, but the main character (God) has no compelling crucible, or a reason to remain in conflict. Since God created everything, any conflict that goes against him, wouldn't that be ultimately traced back to him? With omniscience, shouldn't he be able to see everything in advance? And even more importantly, with omnipotence, he should have no issues solving problems. Also, God has no worthy antagonist or opponent to make the story truly interesting. And besides, since God is omnipotent, how could there be a contest between him and Satan to begin with? And think of the violent imagery in the book of Revelations, is that really necessary? I mean, couldn't God just blink and everything would be gone or start anew? The drama just feels forced. Back to Satan, shouldn't the antagonist in a good story have a point of view that's understandable in some way instead of having no depth at all? Satan is not even a coherent character, and in the New Testament is simply evil without explanation- a totally one dimensional villain. And what about how these characters solve problems, such as the Noah's flood story. God says that he regrets making people because they turned out to be so wicked, is this not questionable? I know that supposedly God gave us free will, but isn't his regret an example of him failing to consult his omniscience? Come on- shouldn't he have seen this coming? Why then, in the story did he send a flood instead of just restarting in the blink of an eye, especially when humans well... turned out to be pretty much just as wicked as before, right?

And in the New Testament when Jesus comes along, the credibility of God's character gets even more silly. I mean, this is the part where he puts on a helpless act and allow infinitely weaker humans to torture him on the cross. I mean, imagine if a film came out with a super hero who decided at one point to NOT use his super powers - the story would need a great reason for this or would completely fail, right? Now I know I know, the reason for Jesus' suffering was that if we accept him as our savior, then his punishment serves as like a stand-in for our sins. Through Jesus, God will forgive us. Okay, that story could contain genuine, real drama... if both parties were two separate people. Instead, they're technically the same entities... right? Imagine a disobedient child playing in the street, and a car is about to run him over, but then the parent throws herself in front of the vehicle to save the child. In the Jesus story, the driver of the car and the parent are the same person. God is the one aiming to punish us disobedient children, yet is also the same person who throws himself in front of the car to save us. Wouldn't it be much more simple for God to simply stop the car if he wanted to save us? This storyline makes the sacrifice seem completely unnecessary, self-imposed, and comes off more as masochistic melodrama than real drama. Even so, all these possible "problems" with the stories in the Bible seem to... utterly disappear when read from a secular perspective, because we're freed from having to interpret every single story through a lens of where God is supposed to have infinite knowledge and power. It's somewhat ironic because when we read it from the religious perspective, it can sometimes seem absurd, but from the secular perspective, the Bible is just a collection of writings from different authors who had different ideas about the supernatural. In this way we can easily find not only powerful elements of literature in within the Bible, but also it's failings whenever they may occur. No need to respond to any of this- just something for you to think about I guess.

A lot of people quote the Bible, both believers and non-believers, and when something isn't what the other wants to year- they usually say you're taking things out of context. I've heard Christians say for some quotes, that the WHOLE Bible must be accounted for a verse to be fully understood properly, but when you take a nice quote from Jesus, somehow that's not out of context. It's not only picking and choosing, it's picking and choosing when to decide that one line is enough. I just don't think people can be dumb enough to simply not understand what's written before their face. To me it means what it says and often, there's little to no interpretation that's actually needed. To accept, literally that Jesus resurrected from the grave and ascended into heaven for all eyes to see, yet "disagree" that God didn't create the world in 6 days but maybe millions of years comes off as strange, unnecessary and non-intuitive to me.

Where to end. I just think that religion and belief in God is more negative than positive. It's fear based. And if it makes people who believe just "feel" good well that's not a good enough answer to me. I mean, people "feel" good smoking cigarettes and crack-cocaine and that doesn't make it right. Ultimately it's no good for you. Faith fails every test, prayer is useless and does not work. This is why there's NO faith healers in hospitals. (Don't even get me started about how that religion and belief in God basically helps us deal with the fact that we WILL die one day and cease to exist forever.) And if they really believed, then why do Christians mourn the dead? They should be ecstatic! They'd call you up and be like... "did you hear the good news? My baby just died! See, God chose him!" I mean, the level of error, is SO bad on the religious perspective... that I think the most amazing thing to me is that how these people can be so consistently and proven to be wrong about almost everything- 99% of the time, for such a long time, and still declare their beliefs as the absolute truth. The whole thing is ridiculous. We're all better than this. People need to open their eyes and see the world and our place in it the way it is, not our imagined self-importance.

[_Omaticaya_]

Hey Cyraph :) well first of all, I really appreciated your incredibly long and good posts. As you say, and as we all know really I think there are some topics that just can't find some common points, or however you wanna call them, thats right its ok, its normal... that said, I agree, you have your experience and your ideas, but in my opinion some of the things you mentioned, (honestly there would be too many things to reply but I cant be bothered to write them all lol) mainly about what you said about freedom, and how God seems 'silly' in the Bible. Ok, so here i am just a random dude, no scientist, just talking from My own experience. About 'freedom', well, I guess that's Very relative? When an atheist or whatever, talks about freedom, what exactly do you mean? I hope it's not always about sex, and generally wrong attitudes because if that's it, then it would be kind of fuked up, if isn't, then how exactly does being a christian not make you free? You can be free if you decide to follow a better path. A christian is still a sinner,we all are, but the difference is he/she tries to be 'better', not to boast, but to humbly recognize we need some guidance so we dont act like animals prey of lust and sin, that is not freedom. You believe to try and feel better with yourself, and 'earn' your place in heaven, altough, we don't earn anything, because what Christ gave on the cross, Life, is simply, GRACE, meaning we owe Him our life. I know that for an atheis or any non believer all these words are funny, which annoyes me, but what can i do? I guess it's so funny for some reason to talk about God? Is it cool to think that each one of us is they're own god then? Ok, next rant, about God seeming 'silly' to a reader of the Bible. I think that most relate 'silly' to what they think of 'impossible'. Now, what I hate, is when people write a huge theory about something to try and lure you in an idea (not talking about you in this case), and if you give an apparently simple and brief reply, it seems inferior, and less important, well, whatever someone may think, call me ignorant, not so well read as all the 'evolutionists' apparently, which are so Superior to an 'average christian', its funny how this is repeated so much, wtf is up with that? ANyway on point, I'll try an answer you from down here, if you think God is silly and it's all bull****, maybe its because it all seems simply impossible right? Well, have you ever though, that that MIGHT BE, because we are humans, and He is God? Who said, that we would be able to understand the meaning of 'Almighty'? Is something silly because you can't do it? So, I don't believe in the fact a human can run 100 metres in 9.55 seconds, Usain Bolt does it, he's unreal? stupid example, but it sounds like it. Point is,who said we're supposed to know everything? If God is superior, we can't think of some things He did, or said,as possible, from OUR perspective. It doesn't mean it's not necessarily true though, In my opinion. That's the end of my rant... hurray, Peace, I hope my post is not to crap for all the Elite evolutionist scientists here, I hope I don't get an F.

[tm20]

i was thinking about this creation VS evolution topic and i realized that christians have no problem with science except for the field of evolution (probably some physics as well), but then alot probably don't realize that they've already accepted evolution as a part of their life. when you go to the doctor to get your vaccine, you're most likely taking a different vaccine from the previous year because the virus has evolved and has become immune to the previous year's vaccine. it's a small thing but it's still evolution, just something to think about...

[HufweMakto]

It doesn't mean it's not necessarily true though, In my opinion. That's the end of my rant... hurray, Peace, I hope my post is not to crap for all the Elite evolutionist scientists here, I hope I don't get an F.

I take offense that you think that I'm an elitist for my stance on Evolution, Omaticaya, when Creationism is plainly the most inocrrect, illogical excue for a "theory" as theories go. Heck, I can't believe I have to do this, but I have to put my two cents into this:

The irony of my position is that I did go to a religion affliated college after high school, although it is and still is a liberal arts college, and liberal at heart (as I am) desprite the region's political climate. If that makes me elitist, then I'm pretty shocked, for most of my life, my family did not have cable until I was in my teens or a computer, up until I had to get one for college. I may have my attitude, but other than that, I feel it's my right to have my opinions heard as well.

To continue, my stance is that not taking in consideration something that has evidence, that has been proven, that has proof, but taking something that is not proven or has any grounds in fact or logic, and that has a bunch of stuff that you don't neccesarily follow and take it as truth. It confounds me to no end. This is why I find disturbing about people who consider themselves Creationists and then shove their ideas down the throats of others as the so-called "ultimate truth". If you sincerily take the Bible as granted, then you should realize you should stop eatting pork and shellfish, stop wearing cordoroy and never work on Sundays because that's in the Bible too (as is the whole "cast the first stone" stuff, which many, many people apparently never learn about; that's why I dispise when people call others "haterz" and "fails" because it only underlies a complete misunderstanding of the whole application of "love your neighbors" and that kind of stuff).

To put things fair, I do not consider myself an athiest, though the attitudes of a lot of people on this thread is slowly drawing me close to that.

In the end, here's a video that kinda makes my point clear on the issue of "creationism" vs Evolution:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eILMXhHNWbI&feature=related

If you don't like it, fine. It's alright, but I wish those people won't start tossing stones in my directions because I happen to have an opinion on these things. Heck, I live in the US, freedom of speech.

[Scott]

I don't want to see bad blood become of this. I like you guys too much and I appreciate this family we have here. This place IS a family, a family where even our differences and flaws(I'm very flawed)are accepted because we also share a bond that unites us.

There is room enough in this galaxy for all manners of life to live together in harmony and friendship.

[Archaeovenator]

I am not an animal! I am a human being! The being is what sets us apart, it makes us greater than the sum of our whole.


Let's look at the facts, even Wikipedia will be good for this one:

A heterotroph (heteros = "another", "different" and trophe = "nutrition") is an organism that cannot fix carbon and uses organic carbon for growth. This contrasts with autotrophs, such as plants and algae, which can use energy from sunlight (photoautotrophs) or inorganic compounds (lithoautotrophs) to produce organic compounds such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins from inorganic carbon dioxide. These reduced carbon compounds can be used as an energy source by the autotroph and provide the energy in food consumed by heterotrophs. More than 95% of all organisms are heterotrophic.


Now from the University of California Museum of Paleontology online exhibits, this is part of the description of what an animal is:

One feature common to all animals is their ecological role as consumers, that is, they cannot manufacture their own food, and so must eat other organisms, or from other organisms, to obtain nourishment. There are three basic categories of consumers:

predator - A predator devours other organisms, or parts of other organisms. This includes both carnivores such as wolves, which eat other animals, and herbivores such as cows, which eat plants.

parasite - A parasite lives on or within another organism (the host), and obtains nourishment from the host without killing or swallowing it. These organisms range from ticks to tapeworms, and may be relatively harmless or may cause disease.

detrivore - Detrivores feed on dead organisms, or on organic nutients in the soil or water. These organisms are vital to the food web because they recycle nutrients which would otherwise become unavailable. Earthworms and vultures are both examples of detrivores.


Now let's look at a very generalized definition of what an animal is, again, from Wikipedia:

Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and mostly multicellular, which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic, generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals.


From Google, "define:animal"

Animal: A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.


From yourdictionary.com:

An animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia, and is typically characterized by a multicellular body, specialized sense organs, voluntary movement, responses to factors in the environment and the ability to acquire and digest food. (noun) A horse, lion and human are each an example of an animal.



Humans are animals (metazoans) and vertebrates in the same way that lizards are sauropsids and birds are archosaurs. Where do any of these basic definitions say animals are "this and that", with the exception of humans? Some secondary definitions of the term "animal" describe animals as "any such living thing other than a human being", which is an understandable statement of separation between us and them (though inaccurate since bacteria aren't animals, nor are plants, along with plenty of other taxonomic groupings), but scientifically speaking, humans are animals, this has definitely been known for hundreds of years. This fact doesn't degrade humans, only reminds us that we are tied to the rest of life on earth. Just because we have unique characteristics doesn't make us fundamentally different on the cellular and anatomical level.

Anyone is freely able to deny reality and persist in deluding themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that humans are animals, and as a fact, it persists whether you want to believe it or not. The lesson from this post is to urge others to do extremely basic internet searches before posting something obviously false in a public discussion place, because personal beliefs and opinions aren't important when debating matters of fact.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

There is room enough in this galaxy for all manners of life to live together in harmony and friendship.


30919 :)











* you ever tried to get trekkies and star wars nuts to see eye to eye,lol *

[Aihwa]

i was thinking about this creation VS evolution topic and i realized that christians have no problem with science except for the field of evolution (probably some physics as well), but then alot probably don't realize that they've already accepted evolution as a part of their life. when you go to the doctor to get your vaccine, you're most likely taking a different vaccine from the previous year because the virus has evolved and has become immune to the previous year's vaccine. it's a small thing but it's still evolution, just something to think about...

The bible claims that the earth is around 6000 years old, flat, orbited by the sun, and has massive floodgates in the sky.

[HufweMakto]

I don't want to see bad blood become of this. I like you guys too much and I appreciate this family we have here. This place IS a family, a family where even our differences and flaws(I'm very flawed)are accepted because we also share a bond that unites us.

There is room enough in this galaxy for all manners of life to live together in harmony and friendship.

I agree. Name calling and all of that stuff is something I rather not get into.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

is it just me or is it a bit warm in here?! let me run a fan for a bit...:)


30920


just a little humor on this contraversial material,lol

30921 30922

[Scott]

Out of the blue some guy I don't recognize, with a brand new account, focuses a huge laser squarely on me.

Hi Archaeovenator, nice to meet you too!

I know you did a lot of work getting your point across about us being animals, and your right, we are animals. However, I was just quoting a line from one of my favorite movies, the Elephant Man, staring John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins. And I think John Merrick was right too.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i am gonna quote a certain hunchback:)..." I AM NOT AN AN-I-M-A-LLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


30926

[tm20]

The bible claims that the earth is around 6000 years old, flat, orbited by the sun, and has massive floodgates in the sky.

right, i forgot geography and astronomy as well :P

[_Omaticaya_]

I take offense that you think that I'm an elitist for my stance on Evolution, Omaticaya, when Creationism is plainly the most inocrrect, illogical excue for a "theory" as theories go. Heck, I can't believe I have to do this, but I have to put my two cents into this:

Oh my gosh, you take offense? What the fuk is wrong, why does every post of mine seem personal, afer all the crap ive been trough on this forum, now I even fuking try hard not say anything too Real, or be 'politically correct', saying nothing at all that some of you so 'easily offended' people might take as 'offense', and start whining at how ridiculous I am. Well just hear this, i'll put one cent in,until all of you keep acting like that, hiding in your society scared of talking and saying what you REALLY think, always posting a damn youtube video to explain it. Fuk this sh1t i just wrote my opinion, and you take it as an offense? and two words lettter you reply and say 'creationism is incorrect and illogical' what should i do, call the cops and cry? No because it's easier for a christian to be arrested just for believing in God today,nowadays anyway. I don't honestly give a crap if it offends you, because it wasn't my intention to. Freedom of speech? ok, i must have missed the part you didn't have it? Why add unnecessary stuff? and to finish, the fact I call some an elite, is simply because that's what they present themselves as, making fun of creationism and christians and quoting they're little science textbooks...

[Eternal Enigma]

Let me see if I can explain this another way because with any other topic the conversation would be going completely different.

If this thread was called: Combustion engines and electric motors - deconstruction analysis...

People would be doing a break down deconstruction of how those two types of engines work.

In this thread as it is the purpose is to invoke thought by discussing how these theories work. We can also provide our own theories in the areas that make no sense.



For example:

In the "Big Bang" theory there was no space, no time, no nothing... then suddenly from absolutely no where BOOM!

In the creation theory the exact same thing could have happened. So neither of these theories make any sense because you would suddenly have something from nothing.

Get it?

That's where the people here throw out ideas of how they think it happened. Ideas you guys come up with on your own. I don't care how religious groups or scientists think it happened I want to know your ideas. I want to see your own theories. Is it just that difficult to come up with something yourself?



We are 11 pages deep 103 replies and 58 likes later and none of you understand what this thread is even about.

This is not an argument over what theory is correct or how uneducated anyone is this is a deconstruction analysis of these two theories.

Without getting some crayons out I can't simplify it any better than that.

[Carborundum]

Let me see if I can explain this another way because with any other topic the conversation would be going completely different.

If this thread was called: Combustion engines and electric motors - deconstruction analysis...

People would be doing a break down deconstruction of how those two types of engines work.

In this thread as it is the purpose is to invoke thought by discussing how these theories work. We can also provide our own theories in the areas that make no sense.



For example:

In the "Big Bang" theory there was no space, no time, no nothing... then suddenly from absolutely no where BOOM!

In the creation theory the exact same thing could have happened. So neither of these theories make any sense because you would suddenly have something from nothing.

Get it?

That's where the people here throw out ideas of how they think it happened. Ideas you guys come up with on your own. I don't care how religious groups or scientists think it happened I want to know your ideas. I want to see your own theories. Is it just that difficult to come up with something yourself?



We are 11 pages deep 103 replies and 58 likes later and none of you understand what this thread is even about.

This is not an argument over what theory is correct or how uneducated anyone is this is a deconstruction analysis of these two theories.

Without getting some crayons out I can't simplify it any better than that.

Did you miss the post where I explained why creationism does not meet the criteria to qualify as a theory?

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

why is this thread such a constant 'i'm right,you're wrong!' merry-go-round?! can't we just pick apart the two ideas like Enigma intended? :/

30982

[Carborundum]

why is this thread such a constant 'i'm right,you're wrong!' merry-go-round?! can't we just pick apart the two ideas like Enigma intended? :/

Because the premise of the thread - that evolution and creationism are both valid theories - is incorrect. If the thread had been about the merits and flaws of combustion engines and electric motors, a proper discussion could be had; both are useful technologies, but suited for different applications.

Evolution and creationism on the other hand cannot be discussed in such a manner, because one is science and the other religion. A more apt analogy would be 'Combustion engines and Hummingbird Sundance generators (http://kingdomgrant.org/woj/flashVideoHi.htm) - deconstruction analysis', since that's also comparing real science to a scam targeted specifically at christians.

(Seriously, watch the video. It's hilarious.)

[Eternal Enigma]

It's interesting that even though Santa Claus isn't real people have still gone over the numbers to see how long it would take one man and eight flying reindeer to deliver presents all over the world. The reason they do that isn't to prove or disprove anything. They do that because it's fun!

What if it was real... how would it work?

snopes.com: The Physics of Santa and His Reindeer (http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/physics.asp)

Science of Santa: How Santa Delivers All His Presents in One Night (http://www.newswise.com/articles/science-of-santa-how-santa-delivers-all-his-presents-in-one-night)

That's the purpose of this thread with this topic.

You believe I'm pitting them head to head... as in trying to prove that one is correct and the other is incorrect. That's why everyone has been arguing with each other.

Some even believe I'm only trying to promote religion when in reality I have not made any direct reference to any religion.

I originally created this thread to get some extremists out of the society thread. I said; "I don't believe in evolution" in an example I posted in that thread and the arguing began. So I created this thread as "Creation VS Evolution" to get them out of the society thread. My original intent was to create this thread and abandon it. Then I noticed Scott attempting to have a real conversation in here and that's when I decided to take this thread in a completely different direction... 7 days ago.

The name, location, and meaning of this thread changed...

Since then my posts have been of me trying to explain the new purpose of this thread while extremists continue to come in here arguing that religion proves nothing even after I have agreed with them. I've even tried to explain that religion has nothing to do with this topic.

Instead of Creation VS Evolution, which is basically a pointless argument this is now creation and evolution - deconstruction (to take apart) analysis (analyze = to examine).

I'm trying to show that neither of them make any sense regardless of what you believe. Both of them sound like complete bullsh!t.

This is my attempt at finding some type of way to level this topic out so that for the first time in history intellectual minds can talk about it without arguing.

Possibly to come up with something that no one has ever thought of before. (Maybe even something scientist have never thought of).

Obviously humanity has some more evolving to do. :|

[Carborundum]

I'm trying to show that neither of them make any sense regardless of what you believe. Both of them sound like complete bullsh!t.

Be that as it may, only one of them actually is bullsh!t.

[Eternal Enigma]

Be that as it may, only one of them actually is bullsh!t.

The idea of a universe coming from no where all by itself is just as unlikely as a universe coming from no where being created by a God.

They both sound crazy.

[_Omaticaya_]

QUOTE'Be that as it may, only one of them actually is bullsh!t.'QUOTE < WoW wtf... Well then I guess if this is the case, I'm uncapable of writing here in the 'correct' way... Apparently I don't have enough science books in my record, since it looks like it's all about how much you read and not what you experience anymore... Peace out

[Carborundum]

The idea of a universe coming from no where all by itself is just as unlikely as a universe coming from no where being created by a God.

They both sound crazy.

And neither has anything to do with evolution.

[HufweMakto]

The idea of a universe coming from no where all by itself is just as unlikely as a universe coming from no where being created by a God.

They both sound crazy.

WHAT?!? Now you're just taking about the Big Bang Theory which has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

And if anyone feeling so confounded and upset because I know evolution to be a sound science, and that creationism isn't deserving of the title of "theory" then please, don't feel the need to scream and bicker about it. We all have opinions and this thread has evolved (or devolved I should say) into a discussion about the origins of the universe, of which, evolution has nothing to do with! In fact, why even called it a "creationism vs evolution" thread when you're at it, why not call it "how did the universe begin".

Don't act so defensive if you're going to just call people names and say they've never experienced anything in their life because they happen to like science more than religion is frankly just... eh I'm not even going in there. You don't know that I like seeing the green trees and trying to figure out the birds in my area. You don't know I can identify a woodpeaker from a goldfinch (both of which I have seen in live outdoors, thank you very much). Not all of us can prance around in the fields, not all of us can afford a trip to the Amazon. What we learn, whether it is from books or from experience or both, will eventually help you understand the world around you. Lording experience over booksmarts does not make you surperior towards other people, neither is the opposite. Perhaps learning a little from each other, and what you have at your hands and in your mind will help you.

[Eternal Enigma]

And neither has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists refer to the changes we see in the universe as the evolution of the universe being that it has evolved over time from the beginning - and that's where I start from. They apply this same basis to the evolution of life. The universe is still a universe, but when translating this to life on Earth the theory of evolution allows one animal to turn into a completely different animal.

That's why I inserted selective breeding as an alternative... we have bred dogs through selective breeding to create new types of dogs, but that's not evolution.

Even at that the natural occurrence of breeding animals of two different types (within the same species) can answer the question of how one type of animal has turned into another type in a similar category. Birds of two separate species can mate, which would create a completely new type of bird over time. That's different from what evolution suggests, which is that one bird can turn into a new type bird over time all by itself.

I'm able to come to many conclusions by adding or eliminating possibilities. I can remove God from the equation and the theory of evolution can still be wrong.

That's the purpose of this thread... to take these aspects apart and throw ideas out there for how it could have happened. Of course, I like to start with the beginning and according to the "Big Bang" theory in the beginning there was absolutely nothing.

So the first question would be how did something come from nothing?

See no one knows and scientists themselves aren't trying to answer that question, but the idea of this thread is for everyone to try to answer that questions for fun because there is no answer. Then we move on to the next question.

See you guys are operating under the assumption that scientists are 100% correct and there's absolutely no way they could possibly be wrong.

I'm operating under the assumption that humanity knows less than we think we do and much of what we think we know is based on guess work, which can be based on the misinterpretations of actual findings. You can have evidence of something, but the meaning of that evidence could be interpreted incorrectly.

[Carborundum]

Scientists refer to the changes we see in the universe as the evolution of the universe being that it has evolved over time from the beginning

Citation needed. I have never seen this usage of the term in any scientific publication.

'Evolution' refers very specifically to the phenomenon where organisms adapt over generations to changing environments, through the process known as 'natural selection' (AKA 'survival of the fittest'). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life, or the origin of the universe.

If you mean something else when you say evolution, it's really not surprising when we end up having a different discussion than what you intended.

[Eternal Enigma]

Don't act so defensive if you're going to just call people names and say they've never experienced anything in their life because they happen to like science more than religion is frankly just... eh I'm not even going in there.

I'm calm and relaxed... I haven't called anyone a name... and science is one of my favorite subjects. I actually like science more than religion.

I honestly know more about evolution than anything related to religion... I've never been to church so I haven't been taught religious nonsense. That's why I'm able to view creation and religion as being two separate things. In church they teach it as being the same thing, but that's where I believe they're wrong.

I dislike talking to most religious people because they misinterpret the Bible so their belief system is not compatible with mine. See they've listened to what a preacher thinks a specific passage means instead of reading it themselves and coming to their own conclusion. I'm a big promoter of thinking for yourself.

I've read the Bible and I see it as more of a... guidebook above all else.

The subject of evolution is very interesting to me... anytime any new information is available I seek it out. Every educational show ever made about evolution I try to watch if it's available for me to see. This is a subject I've been looking at my entire life so I have an excellent understanding of it and how scientists say it works.

I don't watch normal television I only watch educational programing. I didn't really watch cartoons when I was a child either... mostly it was nature/NOVA shows.

[Scott]

I want to believe there is more to life than random chance. I want to believe love is more than a chemical reaction. Creationism allows me to find other people who feel the way I do. I don't care about the truthfulness of the bible stories, I care about the truth of the Word that bring people together, in love. Religious books like the bible might have a lot of its facts wrong, but if all your looking for is the facts then I say your looking in the wrong place. If your looking for ways to understand what it means to be a part of something bigger than anything you can imagine, and you want to feel united in love with your fellow man you have to take a leap of faith.

Science may one day explain everything, but if there is nothing after death, who cares...why bother.

[_Omaticaya_]

Yeah, i'm jumping in again, just want to tell yall, you should have some more respect for Eternal Enigma, remember first of all, it's his thread. 2nd: he knows what this is about. 3rd: In my opinion he knows more than everyone here, and he can put it however he wants it, so I wouldn't use that tone with him. 4th, I know you can handle this a million times better than I ever could Eternal, and you already have :nwink: But I just wanted to say this... I see you tsmukan
Now to Scott... Mate, what you just wrote is simply Fantastic. <3 That's right, Love, it's the only thing you'll ever really need, and that keeps this world going... And can give you happiness, it's killing me now, but it'd be a million times worse if there hadn't been a Love to suffer for in the first place...When you realize looking for the answers of who knows what, will be e never ending quest, you'll understand the materialism and the rationalism wont get you so far, but when you discover the real joy of love, faith in something, 'Seeing' some people, then comes some hope and some light... I see you Scott <3 :nwink:

[Aihwa]

it's his thread. 2nd: he knows what this is about. 3rd: In my opinion he knows more than everyone here, and he can put it however he wants it,


1. Making a thread doesn't make whatever you post truth. That's called Fox News logic.

2. No, he's flailing around trying his best to find ANYTHING he can grab onto to build an appreciable argument. So far, nothing.

3. He denies scientific fact. You deny scientific fact. And not just a few simple facts... Decades of knowledge, thousands of minds, the brightest of our generation. You call their discoveries pseudo-science, because a BOOK, a ****ing book, tells you to. This is why people get angry at religion, this, exact, reason.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

lol:) egads,this place is a zoo! * chuckles derisively *


31000

[Scott]

We should do a thread called "Where dose Ja'k get all these w0nderful toys!"

[Aihwa]

We should do a thread called "Where dose Ja'k get all these w0nderful toys!"

tumblr, who got them from reddit 2 years ago, who got them from 4chan 4 years ago.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ i can always count on you to dump acid rain on my entertaining parade.:upset:

[Aihwa]

That's how the internet works. 4chan creates content, reddit reposts sorts content months later, the rest of the internet laughs at it several years down the line.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ ugh. you must be a real barrel of laughs. :/

31024

[_Omaticaya_]

^LMAO J'ak :nsmile: by the way, aiwha, you said a 'fu**ing book'? Well, I could say the same for your 'holy' books... Plus the Holy Bible is 66 books matey

[Replica]

If I had my way right now, i'd put a bullet through this thread and just end this madness. None of you can even agree to disagree. It's gone from an interesting POV idea to a s*** fight. While i'm at it, i'd put a bullet through every single religion on the planet too.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

If I had my way right now, i'd put a bullet through this thread and just end this madness. None of you can even agree to disagree.


how 'bout a bunch of bullets?! lol

31051

[Scott]

If I had my way right now, i'd put a bullet through this thread and just end this madness. None of you can even agree to disagree. It's gone from an interesting POV idea to a s*** fight. While i'm at it, i'd put a bullet through every single religion on the planet too.

Would you put a bullet into the head of Jesus? Religion is people, not places and things. You can shoot up every church and burn every bible and not dent the love people have for God one little bit.

I'm sorry to be so harsh with you, but wanting to use bullets to solve problems is exactly the reason why you need to listen to Jesus and learn from him.

[_Omaticaya_]

If I had my way right now, i'd put a bullet through this thread and just end this madness. None of you can even agree to disagree.

LMAO, WiN Mate :) I can't deny my faith, so I wouldn't shoot my religion ^_^ But apart from that, I totally agree with you. Only thing is, I think like you, but I never manage to stay out of it ahah Sometimes I wonder why I bother writing things, because it's as you say, no one will ever agree here anyway, and in the end, it's totally normal :) I appreciate posts like the ones you just posted though ahah, I love it when people just go straight to the point :nwink:

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i'd put a bullet through this thread and just end this madness. :victory:

31052

[_Omaticaya_]

:victory:

31052 LMAO this should do the trick :nwink:

Nota di reindirizzamento (http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/sniper/sn67/ai-as50-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn67-e.htm&h=271&w=504&sz=20&tbnid=TxcYF_T-QJPibM:&tbnh=66&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Das50%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=as50&docid=GKm18E2-UgOz5M&hl=it&sa=X&ei=fxF2TtXQI5CZhQeKssDTDA&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAg&dur=343)

[Lon]

Any interesting read. I've been altered to this thread and then asked myself; is this thread detrimental to the forum? At this point the answer is no. It's hard to explain eloquently any part of evolution without religion or other elements wading into the mix. The context or design of the forum itself doesn't allow for healthy debate, which in part, is why most forums avoid religion and politics like the plague.

Topics like religion and politics are like a kettle of water, simmering, perhaps boiling, and eventually spill out into other threads. This often happens when people continually attempt to correct the thread starter, or remind someone of what a bad choice they may have made. People will typically defend their choices to the gates of Asgard before they'll admit any error in their reasoning. Others will pour in nonsense items, off the cuff remarks, images, and more, just to further dilute the thread.

If this thread can stay on track for another few days I'll leave it open. If not, then I'll close it, and we have too agree that we're unable to support this kind of discussion.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

most forums avoid religion and politics like the plague.


^ this!

31055

[Aihwa]

^LMAO J'ak :nsmile: by the way, aiwha, you said a 'fu**ing book'? Well, I could say the same for your 'holy' books... Plus the Holy Bible is 66 books matey

What holy books? A tech manual? You're comparing reference books to a genre of books that's spawned more violence and hatred than any other work in history?

[Eternal Enigma]

I have the ability to run multiple scenarios at once in my mind and some contradict others, which is why some of what I say makes no sense to some of you.

What most people do is they take scientific findings and use them as absolute fact. What I do is I take multiple scientific findings and put them together and when you begin to do that you'll find that some of them contradict one and answer another. Sometimes scientific findings are so contradictory of other findings that it ends up causing none of it to make any sense. Let me show you an example of how I'm able to take multiple scientific findings and put them together in order to break them down and make better sense of other scientific findings. Some findings that are being taught as facts are flawed.

Simple demonstration:

Scientific fact #1. The Moon is moving away from Earth approximately 2" per year and has been doing so for billions of years.

Scientific fact #2. The Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth is slowing Earth's rotation down.


Analysis - If the Moon is moving away from Earth then the Moon's gravitational pull on Earth would reduce over time, but scientific findings contradict that logic. The Moon would also be farther away. If you take the Moon and place its starting position face to face with Earth surface to surface 2" of movement per year x 5 billion years places the Moon twice as far as it is now. From Earth the Moon would look like a really big star unless viewed through a telescope. So reality does not reflect what the scientific findings suggest.

I can erase that from my mind and go another route all together...

Scientific fact #3. Global warming... due to humans and the use of our combustion engines over the past few hundred years we're causing Earth to take on a greenhouse effect, which is slowly increasing the temperatures by trapping heat.

Now let's take that and add another scientific fact to it to make better sense of it...

Global warming = the Earth is becoming warmer + the moon slowing the Earth down.

If you're roasting a hotdog over a fire and you turn that hotdog fast it'll cook evenly, but if you slow that hot dog down the surface temperature rises.

So if the Moon is slowing Earth down then global warming makes perfect sense, but scientists are unable to come to this conclusion.

That's why I do not use scientific findings as absolute fact.





I would be willing to bet some of you guys haven't thought of anything I just mentioned above. You get to see it from a different point of view.

That's the point of this thread. By sharing your view perhaps we can make each other think of something we never would have thought of on our own.

This is supposed to be a learning experience. If you do not believe that a God created the universe then be a productive human being and post your views on how a universe could have formed from nothing without a God. It's very simple actually. You can even explain the evolution of life on Earth. Just explain it in your own words how it works.

Everything I post is information that comes straight from my brain. I do not have multiple tabs opened looking all of this stuff up. This is all me.

This is supposed to be a thread where you share ideas and some of you seem to believe this thread is some sort of battle ground. Some of you know if you continue to cause problems this thread will be removed. I believe that's the only reason some of you are even posting in this thread to cause an argument and have it removed just because you don't believe what's being said. That's really sad if you think about it.

I wonder how life would be today if people tried to stop the Wright brothers from coming up with ideas. People called them crazy, but they let them do their thing. I wonder how our lives would be if all of the great minds were snuffed out. I can tell you this much... we wouldn't be sitting here talking on computers.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ aw sh@t! *rolls eyes at this thread*

31061

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

* whoops *

i made my oh sh@t comment before yours,Enigma. sorry.:)

[_Omaticaya_]

What holy books? A tech manual? You're comparing reference books to a genre of books that's spawned more violence and hatred than any other work in history?

By 'holy books', i meant your science books, which you all take as the ONLY truth... Anyway, have you ever wondered what the hatred and violence, was, is and always will be about? It's easy to just throw words around like that. It was mostly always because society, two thousand years ago, and still today, tried to deny the people's will to believe in what they want, in this case, God, persecutions we're against the 'good people' mate, ever thought of that? Infact, all the hatred you talk about, God suffered it all in the end, the only Innocent One, was crucified for a bunch of sinners. But why do I keep talking about this when faith is all a Sci-fi story to you... I don't even know myself I admit. But I know, that it's not right in my opinion to blame all the problems in the world to religion and the Holy Bible. People should examine theirselves and what they do, before blaming it on other things, and I mean EVERYONE, me and you included... Yet this never happens, it's all caos.

[Eternal Enigma]

You guys... please stop arguing.

Take it to a private message.

Please don't perpetuate the argument by adding to it.

Just see some of these posts for what they are. Some of what has been said has only been said to start an argument.

Those who want an argument are trying to start one because they know if it gets bad enough this thread will be closed and that's what they want.

Those who want this thread closed don't even know what it's about.

Under normal circumstances without instigators is there an argument to be had here? No, but there is a huge opportunity to create a learning experience.

This is a place to bounce ideas around.

You guys have got to gain some sort of control over your emotions.

See the argument has taken away from the true meaning of the thread to the point that even Lon thinks this is about religion when this is just a deconstruction of how something works.

This is just like if you take an engine apart and explain how each part works.

Just because you use gasoline in your engine it doesn't mean we should start talking about oil companies.

Just because God is part of the theory, belief, idea, or fantasy of creation that doesn't mean we should start talking about religion.

Oil companies have nothing to do with how engines work.

Religion has nothing to do with how the universe was created.

[akgeff]

You guys are using mutualy exclusive explanations for the same phenomena.

[Replica]

Would you put a bullet into the head of Jesus? Religion is people, not places and things. You can shoot up every church and burn every bible and not dent the love people have for God one little bit. Really? So all the churches and cathedrals that have been built and people gather at, it's just some clever marketing thing is it?


I'm sorry to be so harsh with you, but wanting to use bullets to solve problems is exactly the reason why you need to listen to Jesus and learn from him. Oh please I wouldn't actually solve any problem like that. I'm not that horrible or insensitive. Thing is though that I was brought up as a catholic and i've learned enough from him thank you very much. I'm not here to tell people what they should believe in and what is right and what is wrong. Aihwa seems to be covering that field just fine but I decided a long time ago that the world would be a better place without religion.

[Aihwa]

By 'holy books', i meant your science books, which you all take as the ONLY truth... Anyway, have you ever wondered what the hatred and violence, was, is and always will be about? It's easy to just throw words around like that. It was mostly always because society, two thousand years ago, and still today, tried to deny the people's will to believe in what they want, in this case, God, persecutions we're against the 'good people' mate, ever thought of that? Infact, all the hatred you talk about, God suffered it all in the end, the only Innocent One, was crucified for a bunch of sinners. But why do I keep talking about this when faith is all a Sci-fi story to you... I don't even know myself I admit. But I know, that it's not right in my opinion to blame all the problems in the world to religion and the Holy Bible. People should examine theirselves and what they do, before blaming it on other things, and I mean EVERYONE, me and you included... Yet this never happens, it's all caos.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

[tm20]

Would you put a bullet into the head of Jesus? Religion is people, not places and things. You can shoot up every church and burn every bible and not dent the love people have for God one little bit.

I'm sorry to be so harsh with you, but wanting to use bullets to solve problems is exactly the reason why you need to listen to Jesus and learn from him.

1. i think he was just trying to get across his point which is this thread is pointless (i agree, it's like 2 people headbutting each other to see who gives up first. although it hurts, the thought of stopping doesn't come to mind ._.)
2. enforcing your beliefs doesn't help either :nsad:
3. when people say "Jesus died for your sins" that's actually bs because we weren't alive back then, so how did he die for sins we didn't commit yet?

ok i'll leave now :D

[Aihwa]

1. i think he was just trying to get across his point which is this thread is pointless (i agree, it's like 2 people headbutting each other to see who gives up first. although it hurts, the thought of stopping doesn't come to mind ._.)
2. enforcing your beliefs doesn't help either :nsad:
3. when people say "Jesus died for your sins" that's actually bs because we weren't alive back then, so how did he die for sins we didn't commit yet?

ok i'll leave now :D

Better question, if he died for your sins, how can we commit sins?

[tm20]

because not all of us are jews?

*while we're here discussing this let me ask you christians (i'm just curious) would you be more offended by someohe who:
-says god isn't real OR
-worships satan

[Scott]

You don't have to believe in Jesus as your savior to learn something from him. His lesson is very simple, love each other. The way I see it, as simple as this message is, it obviously is very difficult to master considering the sad and violent state of our world.

[HufweMakto]

The reason why I see this thread as pointless is mainly because it deals with trying to make something that doesn't have a valid context and make it seem on the level as a theory which has a solid context supplimented by evidence, and actual processes. Of course, I'm talking about people trying to make the claim that creationism should be taken as literal as evolution which is almost like saying that people who claim the lunar landings were a hoax should be given equal standings with people who were there (like Buzz Aldrin). But of course, if those people who believe in creationism also lay claim to the Apollo Hoax as a valid and true statement along with that whole "Loose Change" crap, then I find myself not taking any of you seriously at all.


And to add to this, I would not say that religion is at fault for the state of our world, nor is government or law or any other ill we seem to blame things on. I would blame it on the utter mindset we place ourselves into. Technology may brings us close with text messaging and video conference, but we are still more prone to relying on that. In one Star Trek Generations episode, Troi tells a time traveling Mark Twain that technology made everyone equal and peaceful in the future, that there is no more slavery and war or need; however, I find that kind of mindset of "technology saves the day" to be more problematic as even today, we are far more technologically advanced than a mere 20 odd years ago, but we're still facing the same problems as do nowadays as a society that long ago. Technology did not stop bullying, it just jumped it to a mode where it can be anomynous and faceless but still psychologically painful to those who face it. It didn't stop the fact that people will still steal or take or lie. It still doesn't stop the fact that you will still loose your wallet or your life. But I do not blame technology for this. The fact is, we're still human. Human behavior and our society overall can shape and make us. Just because giving Colombus a rocketship doesn't mean he'll be "nice" and not enslave the inhabitants of other planets. It's a major flaw that higher technology makes us better and more advanced; likewise in most or any alien invasion movie, this is not the same for the aliens who come in huge intergalaxtic space-faring ships that blow up cities and take over the earth. They're technologically advanced, but it does not make one "nicer". I would also point out a quote from Michio Kaku on the parable of the human and the ant hill, but I feel this is another conversation altogether different.
I apologize if this has gotten off-topic.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

You guys... please stop arguing.

Take it to a private message.

Please don't perpetuate the argument by adding to it.

Just see some of these posts for what they are. Some of what has been said has only been said to start an argument.

Those who want an argument are trying to start one because they know if it gets bad enough this thread will be closed and that's what they want.

Those who want this thread closed don't even know what it's about.

Under normal circumstances without instigators is there an argument to be had here? No, but there is a huge opportunity to create a learning experience.

This is a place to bounce ideas around.

You guys have got to gain some sort of control over your emotions.

See the argument has taken away from the true meaning of the thread to the point that even Lon thinks this is about religion when this is just a deconstruction of how something works.

This is just like if you take an engine apart and explain how each part works.

Just because you use gasoline in your engine it doesn't mean we should start talking about oil companies.

Just because God is part of the theory, belief, idea, or fantasy of creation that doesn't mean we should start talking about religion.

Oil companies have nothing to do with how engines work.

Religion has nothing to do with how the universe was created.


^ that! :)

31067

[Aihwa]

Sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions. The mantra of religion.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ oh boy,here we go again. *gets another redbull*

31068

[Eternal Enigma]

I have no idea what you people are even talking about. I'm calling for people to be banned. This is absolute bullsh!t.


Sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions. The mantra of religion.

What the **** does this have to do with how the universe was created or how we got here? What... is wrong with you?

This is thread hijacking. You guys have inserted a completely new controversial subject in this thread in an attempt to get this thread removed. If this was any other thread you guys would have been banned seven days ago. I'm calling for the instigators to be banned. Lon if they don't believe in this stuff they do not have to come in here. It's just that simple. If they don't understand what this thread is about then they shouldn't post in this thread. They aren't reading the posts and they aren't interested in reading the posts. They're coming in here trying to make this sound like some blown up "religious argument" when in fact it is not and has nothing to do with anything they're saying.

Lon do you believe these people try to rise up to have churches in their cities/towns/neighborhoods torn down? No... Do they suddenly walk into a church just to tell those in attendance they're all wrong or that they're unintelligent? No... So why are they in here with off topic anti-religious crap? In my opinion: to disrupt your forum. That's what they do to have fun.

Religion has nothing to do with this thread. For the past seven days I've been trying to evade conflict with a couple of these people by trying to post things related to this thread in on top of their thread hijacking posts. The sad thing is I haven't even posted my two part deconstruction analysis because I've been too busy trying to explain to these idiots what this thread is and what it is not about. I've even given examples of questions they should be asking to try to kick start an interesting conversation. No one could respond to it because the thread was hijacked again.

I'm very patient when it comes to this sort of thing, but those who disagree with whatever you think this thread is you need to stop.


If this thread can stay on track for another few days I'll leave it open. If not, then I'll close it, and we have too agree that we're unable to support this kind of discussion.

Yes, that's what Lon said, but that doesn't give all of you extremists the right to come in here to disrupt this thread over the next 48 hours just to get it removed because you're bored. I know you think this is funny, but I'm calling for you to be banned because if you'll do it in this thread then you'll do it again in another so you shouldn't be here.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

What... is wrong with you?. ...zing!!!


lol...that's what we've been asking for a while now.:)

31090

[Carborundum]

Enigma, the mistake I made - and I think most of the scientifically minded people here made the same mistake - was to think you wanted to discuss these topics from a scientific point of view, in order to arrive at some conclusion.

Now I see you just want it to be a place where anyone can post their personal thoughts and feelings about how the world came to be. Which is cute, but not terribly useful.

So I'll be leaving now, and I urge others who actually know what they're talking about to do the same. Let the anti-intellectuals have this thread as their 'safe-space'. If they don't want to understand, there is nothing we can to about it.

[Eternal Enigma]

Carborundum let's say in the next five minutes the police bust down your door, violently throw you to the ground, and place you under arrest for a crime you did not commit. It happens every day all over the world.

Let's say they have ten years worth of evidence stacked up that "proves" you committed a horrible crime. Now let's also say that you have no proof to the contrary. Even though you have no idea what they're talking about and you really are innocent you're still looking at some hard time.

You're telling me you would have the jury just blindly agree with what the evidence suggests because the evidence suggests you did it. Wouldn't you want those 12 jurors to look at the evidence and pick it apart to make better sense of it? According to you they should just immediately come back with a guilty verdict, which would ruin your life because you're innocent.

If you were an innocent person in that situation you would want an "anti-intellectual" like me on your side because instead of just playing follow the leader I have thoughts and ideas of my own. While all the other jurors are saying; "this person is obviously guilty just look at all the evidence" I would be pleading with them to go over the story and let's talk about the evidence in detail. In fact, I would go over everything until I couldn't prove you didn't do it. Many minds are better than one so what I would do is use them to bounce ideas off of. That's how I figure out complex problems I bounce ideas off of other people until they randomly say something that leads me to the answer.

There's a television character named Dr. Gregory House, which is based off of a doctor at my local hospital; who uses this same technique in his diagnostics of patients. Even in the medical field a patient can be presenting with symptoms (evidence) of one thing when they're suffering from something else completely. Science isn't absolute there are flaws and human beings make mistakes.

In the subject of how the universe came from nothing and where we came from I'm sorry, but there is no answer. I believe it would still be fun to see what people can come up with, but just like the scientists it would be pure guess work.

You don't see this as anything useful? Getting people to think for themselves and come up with new ideas is why we have the modern age of science and technology. I see an opportunity for people to get creative. You'd really have to think to come up with anything that would try to answer how our universe came from nothing.

Wait, so talking about this isn't useful? Why because you don't believe the alternative to the scientific answer could be real?

Then to you this entire forum is useless because most of the conversations here are about something that isn't real. (Avatar/Neytiri) So why are you even here?

[Kiyom]

About the origin of our universe, "the first atom, the first energy, the beginning of time", if we listen to the creationism, it was all created by God. All right then, who created God? Since in fact, the origin of the universe would be the creation of God who created everything else. For those who say that God is, and thus doesn't need to be created, we can answer with as much argument that the universe is, without need of any god. But neither of this proposition seems satisfactory, in my opinion. But after all, maybe one of them is true, or maybe it's something completely different, out of reach of poor human imagination...

The Big Bang theory (which doesn't describe an explosion but the transition from a very dense and warm universe to a less dense and cooler universe) is for now what explained the best the observations we realized. It doesn't mean that it happened. What we see through the telescopes is so different from the day-to-day world that it is very possible that we misinterpret it. But at least, it is conform with the idea of evolution, of something not frozen in time.

One of my problem with creationism is justly the immobility that it implies. The world was created 6000 years ago and won't change or at least nothing else will be created. That means that it leads only towards destruction and annihilation. It is sad to think that extinct species like dodos are dead and won't never be replaced. With the current rythm of extinction of species, Earth will be completely empty of life far before the scientific point of its non-livability (due to gradual warming of the Sun). Unless of course God decides to recreate life... which is a poor solution, because it means that the world he created is not self-sufficient.

This hypothesis is really unpleasant to me because it seems that, although God gave us free-will, we don't really have a choice on our destiny... Any mistake makes us closer of the end.

On the contrary, evolution suggests a constant move. Some species die while others are born. Nothing is frozen. That's the princip of life itself. A cycle of creation and destruction: spermatozoon and ovum, egg, fetus, baby, child, adult then death. "All energy is only borrowed, and one day you have to give it back."

The evolution theory is based on observations which, I think, are much more reliable than the ones we make on the universe, because it applies to a subject more related to us. It is something we can more easily interpret because we are in contact with it all the time, and in fact we are ourselves modeled by it.

I have no difficulty to admit that the Big Bang theory may be wrong (although I really don't believe in a god-created universe as you can have guessed), but, by its proximity to us, I think the evolution theory is, in great parts, true.

Being appreciative of our world and the life surrounding us is:
- in creationism, being appreciative of God's imagination (he really have lots, I must give him credits for that), because he's the source of everything after all;
- in evolution, being appreciative of the beauty of life itself, which has succeeded to form such wonderful and surprising things all by itself, needing only itself, and thus having real and true freedom.

I personally prefer the second.

Cordially to everyone (whatever the opinion),

Kiyom

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Carborundum let's say in the next five minutes the police bust down your door, violently throw you to the ground, and place you under arrest for a crime you did not commit. It happens every day all over the world.

Let's say they have ten years worth of evidence stacked up that "proves" you committed a horrible crime. Now let's also say that you have no proof to the contrary. Even though you have no idea what they're talking about and you really are innocent you're still looking at some hard time.

You're telling me you would have the jury just blindly agree with what the evidence suggests because the evidence suggests you did it. Wouldn't you want those 12 jurors to look at the evidence and pick it apart to make better sense of it? According to you they should just immediately come back with a guilty verdict, which would ruin your life because you're innocent.

If you were an innocent person in that situation you would want an "anti-intellectual" like me on your side because instead of just playing follow the leader I have thoughts and ideas of my own. While all the other jurors are saying; "this person is obviously guilty just look at all the evidence" I would be pleading with them to go over the story and let's talk about the evidence in detail. In fact, I would go over everything until I couldn't prove you didn't do it. Many minds are better than one so what I would do is use them to bounce ideas off of. That's how I figure out complex problems I bounce ideas off of other people until they randomly say something that leads me to the answer.

There's a television character named Dr. Gregory House, which is based off of a doctor at my local hospital; who uses this same technique in his diagnostics of patients. Even in the medical field a patient can be presenting with symptoms (evidence) of one thing when they're suffering from something else completely. Science isn't absolute,there are flaws,and human beings make mistakes.

In the subject of how the universe came from nothing and where we came from I'm sorry, but there is no answer. I believe it would still be fun to see what people can come up with, but just like the scientists it would be pure guess work.

You don't see this as anything useful? Getting people to think for themselves and come up with new ideas is why we have the modern age of science and technology. I see an opportunity for people to get creative. You'd really have to think to come up with anything that would try to answer how our universe came from nothing.

Wait, so talking about this isn't useful? Why because you don't believe the alternative to the scientific answer could be real?

Then to you this entire forum is useless because most of the conversations here are about something that isn't real. (Avatar/Neytiri) So why are you even here?



love this whole comment,but especially the words in blue. well said. bravo :)


31152 31153

[Carborundum]

This is against my better judgement, but...


Carborundum let's say in the next five minutes the police bust down your door, violently throw you to the ground, and place you under arrest for a crime you did not commit. It happens every day all over the world.

Let's say they have ten years worth of evidence stacked up that "proves" you committed a horrible crime. Now let's also say that you have no proof to the contrary. Even though you have no idea what they're talking about and you really are innocent you're still looking at some hard time.

You're telling me you would have the jury just blindly agree with what the evidence suggests because the evidence suggests you did it. Wouldn't you want those 12 jurors to look at the evidence and pick it apart to make better sense of it? According to you they should just immediately come back with a guilty verdict, which would ruin your life because you're innocent.

If you were an innocent person in that situation you would want an "anti-intellectual" like me on your side because instead of just playing follow the leader I have thoughts and ideas of my own. While all the other jurors are saying; "this person is obviously guilty just look at all the evidence" I would be pleading with them to go over the story and let's talk about the evidence in detail. In fact, I would go over everything until I couldn't prove you didn't do it.
I would want the supposed evidence to be checked, re-checked, and then re-checked again. I would want it to be examined from every possible angle, and I would want the conclusions to be continuously questioned and re-evaluated. Fortunately, this is what scientists already do. Every day. All the time. Entirely without your input.

If, in spite of this, the evidence pointed toward me being guilty, I should be convicted of the crime. I would not want to be convicted, but I should be all the same. Because that's how the justice system works. And that's also how science works. Neither is perfect (you'll notice how I have never claimed it to be), but they must do the best with what they have, which sometimes means drawing incorrect conclusions/convicting innocents. As I said, even after I'm convicted, both the evidence and the conviction should continue to be tested and checked for flaws. Which, again, is already happening in science.

Some other points:


That's how I figure out complex problems I bounce ideas off of other people until they randomly say something that leads me to the answer.
Neat, but horribly inefficient. If everyone solved problems in that manner, we would still be living in caves.


...but just like the scientists it would be pure guess work.
Scientists do not deal in guesswork. Ever. This just serves to further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.


Then to you this entire forum is useless because most of the conversations here are about something that isn't real. (Avatar/Neytiri) So why are you even here?
Now you're being daft on purpose. I'm here because I love Avatar. Entertainment is not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun.

Some refutations of some other stuff you've said:


Simple demonstration:

Scientific fact #1. The Moon is moving away from Earth approximately 2" per year and has been doing so for billions of years.

Scientific fact #2. The Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth is slowing Earth's rotation down.


Analysis - If the Moon is moving away from Earth then the Moon's gravitational pull on Earth would reduce over time, but scientific findings contradict that logic. The Moon would also be farther away. If you take the Moon and place its starting position face to face with Earth surface to surface 2" of movement per year x 5 billion years places the Moon twice as far as it is now. From Earth the Moon would look like a really big star unless viewed through a telescope. So reality does not reflect what the scientific findings suggest.
Incorrect. The moon is currently moving away from the Earth at a rate of 38 mm/y (~1.5"/y), but historically the rate has been much lower. The average rate is 21.7 mm/y (~0.85"/y), which obviously invalidates your conclusion. Nice try though.

If you're roasting a hotdog over a fire and you turn that hotdog fast it'll cook evenly, but if you slow that hot dog down the surface temperature rises. So if the Moon is slowing Earth down then global warming makes perfect sense, but scientists are unable to come to this conclusion.
Incorrect. If you turn the hotdog more slowly, the surface temperature of the side facing the fire increases. The overall temperature would actually decrease somewhat, because the lesser temperature gradient between the hotdog and the fire would increase the resistance to heat transfer, which would in turn decrease the amount of heat absorbed by the hotdog, which in turn would lower its temperature. Again, your conclusion is incorrect.


That's why I do not use scientific findings as absolute fact.
And nor should you. But you're not doing it for the wrong reasons.

Enigma, you do not understand science. You do not understand what science is. You do not understand what science does. You do not understand how science works.
There is nothing wrong with this. Everyone are ignorant until they make an effort to learn something. If you want to learn about science, I suggest you start by reading about the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), and then check out what falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence), theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) and hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) means.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

for all your belief and faith in the 'absolutes' of science,Carb,there is still no definitive proof that science has the answers to our origin(s) or even a cure for the common cold.

[Carborundum]

for all your belief and faith in the 'absolutes' of science,Carb,
You know what you should try? Reading:

And that's also how science works. Neither is perfect (you'll notice how I have never claimed it to be)


there is still no definitive proof that science has the answers to our origin(s)
Nor will there ever be. Science does not deal in 'definite proof', it only determines what the most likely scenario is.


or even a cure for the common cold.
What? Never heard of anti-biotics?

[Scott]

I'm no scientist(and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night)but I thought the common cold was a Virus and antibiotics were used for fighting bacteria infections?

[Carborundum]

I'm no scientist(and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night)but I thought the common cold was a Virus and antibiotics were used for fighting bacteria infections?

You (and Ja'k Dawsiin) are correct. Anti-biotics have no effect on the common cold, and there is currently no approved anti-viral drug to treat it.

I was mistaken.

[Wanderlust]

Science never claimed to be absolute. Like Carborundum said we deduce the most likely scenario from observed phenomenon.

btw, ive been avoiding this thread

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/38.gif

[Carborundum]

btw, ive been avoiding this thread
You, sir or madam, are a wiser person than I am.

[akgeff]

I came to the conclusion many years ago that the primary diffrence between humans and every other living thing on planet earth is that humans are the only "species" that will kill you based on what you think or believe. Hmm must be some sort of divine message in that...

[Lon]

I admit I've been skimming through this thread, passing over the long winded posts, frankly tired of it all. Anything longer than say 100 words is too long for me, most of the time. I also find myself clicking "Like" on the same posts that Jak' clicks on. Seriously I don't see where this thread is going anymore. It's like trying to argue with your x via text messaging.

[Scott]

Lon is correct. It's really too bad because I want to understand. When Avatar became a mega-hit some religious institutions were very strongly opposed to the pagan nature theme; and conversely some people were angry that science took a back seat to Eywa.

I knew when I was watching Avatar for the first time I was formulating my own opinion of Eywa. Millions of people saw Avatar and some had opinions while others had none, and those that did branched of in many different directions. In a way, Avatar was like a group of people seeing an eclipse for the first time; after the show people began discussing what they saw, what they felt. Our nature is so complex that the very things I saw in Avatar that made me formulate opinions, well some of those things only I witnessed! We all see things with different vision. I want to understand how other people see.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I'm here because I love Avatar. Entertainment is not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun.


i like the first statement,and agree wholeheartedly. but i have quite an issue with the second statement,as i find entertainment to be very useful,as well as fun and enjoyable. entertainment in its various forms can be very useful in meeting like-minded people,relaxing after a stressful day,using your gray matter to see messages and intent within the entertainment venue,beit a film or a website,or a means to an end in temporarily escaping this tortured reality for a quite different and beautiful place like Pandora. i'll be somewhere around,finding uses for my entertainment preferences,lol. good day.

31178

[transcend]

http://youtu.be/NDuSuvTzwiw

http://youtu.be/0mchJw5Dz7g

http://youtu.be/8YKAalZAqO4

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I knew when I was watching Avatar for the first time I was formulating my own opinion of Eywa. We all see things with different vision. I want to understand how other people see.


if there is an almighty deity,Eywa is what i would want that deity to be like,regardless of any method in which that deity chose to bring us about,as in evolution,creation,or another way.:)

[Scott]

But Ja'k, how is Eywa any different from human versions of God? I even have to add that Eywa was created by a human. But back to my original point, Eywa cares just like our creators care. In Avatar we have proof, like the Atokirina saving Jake...that was a miracle by any human standard.

The only difference that sets Eywa apart from our Gods is the people who worship them. Unfortunately our people do terrible things to each other, often in the name of Gods. But I have learned to not blame God for the madness of men. Imagine if there were a clan of Na'vi that liked to hunt down, kill and eat worshipers of Eywa. They look and sound no different than any other Na'vi(such as the Omiticaya)but something made them bitter and spiteful of Eywa. Should we judge Eywa unfavorably because of this?

[Aihwa]

for all your belief and faith in the 'absolutes' of science,Carb,there is still no definitive proof that science has the answers to our origin(s) or even a cure for the common cold.

Science can't cure the cold, but it can tell you why that's true.


The virus that causes the common cold evolves too quickly for an effective vaccine to be created. The Flu by contrast, is much slower in its evolutionary spasms, a vaccine is developed and deployed yearly. We could easily vaccinate against a cold, but the vaccine would be useless within weeks.


"Godunnit" is not an answer, it's an excuse to not think.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

But Ja'k, how is Eywa any different from human versions of God?


oh please,there is a huge difference between Eywa and the deity humans call 'god'. the Na'vi have proof of Eywa through Mo'at and their physical connection to the Tree of Souls and their world Pandora,while we humans have no proof but blind faith and told by self-serving religions that we must believe the words of a ancient book translated hundreds,maybe thousands,of times by fallible men who may or may not have reworded or changed said translations to suit their own ends or biases. oh geez,here we go again with the religious crap...my bad,lol,and my last comment in this thread on religion. sorry for the digression,Enigma.


back to the subject of this thread,i am somewhere stuck in the limbo between creation and evolution...i neither believe nor disbelieve creation or evolution because both are unprovable.

[_Omaticaya_]

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

You know what you could do with your intellectual quotes mate? I'll let your 'knowledge' figure that out. Why don't you answer my so sh1tty ignorant post from your holy knowledge instead of quoting matey? You think just because you quote somin' you're 'covering' your offense, calling me an ignorant? Dude S.T.F.U., you're nobody to call me or anyone names, and I never do, so I won't get it from you either. Plus, at least I don't judge a person by the pieces of paper they have, but by what they are. People like you think a person with a degree is better than everyone else and anyone that speaks from his simple life experience is not worthy of your time... Simply disgust me. And I am bloody happy with my current 'intellectual' level or that bullsh1t you we're going on about.

[Aihwa]

my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!


Derp.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Derp.

31349




I don't judge a person by the pieces of paper they have, but by what they are.


winning!:)

31351

[Pristerognathus]

I'll answer some general misconceptions about the theory of evolution I've seen here. Before doing so, let me state that I am not a scientist nor do I have any credentials to be one. I am just someone who has an interest in science and technology.

To say "evolution is JUST a theory" appears to convey a misunderstanding of what the term "theory" means in science. In common everyday usage, theory generally means "a hunch or guess", but in science, a theory is "a potentially-falsifiable explanation of a set of related facts for a given phenomenon." In science, a theory is the highest level an explanation can attain, there is no "proof" level in science. Science deals mostly with facts, laws, and theories. Here's an example: An apple falling to the earth, that demonstrates the fact of gravity, the name we give to this force. Matter attracts matter, or every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) of the distance between them; that's the law of gravity (specifically Newton's law of universal gravitation). The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works (for example, Einstein's general relativity), and it can't be proven, only improved or discarded for a new, better theory.

The theory of evolution can't be proven, like all other scientific theories: only supported with evidence (facts and observations), OR the theory itself improved with new understanding, OR the theory discarded and replaced with a better one that is able to explain everything evolution does and at least a little more. Also, the new theory, just like evolution, must have predictive power (more on that later). You can't just attack evolution and think creationism (the other supposed theory, which doesn't qualify as a scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)) triumphs by default; you actually have to show how creationism is a better explanation of the facts than evolution is. Evolution explains thousands of observations, but I'll just list a few here, such as the ridiculous path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve). Understand the basics of tetrapod evolution (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/tetrapods.htm) to see why this is not an intelligent design by any standard.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/335.jpg

See for yourself the extreme detour it takes in the giraffe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2bkZfHw4

Evolutionary theory also explains the path of the vas deferens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Route_of_the_vas_defere ns) (study the evolution of mammals (http://www.mnh.si.edu/mammals/pages/how/index.htm) to understand why this is), why human embryos have pharyngeal pouches (http://www.bionalogy.com/pharynx.htm) (explore the history of life (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php), and you'll know why we have what become gill slits in fish). Evolution also explains why we have vestigial organs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_organ) (check out the 5 things humans don't need anymore (like wisdom teeth) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html?full=true), which are baggage from our evolutionary past, exactly why birds are not just descended from maniraptorian theropod dinosaurs, but actually are dinosaurs (http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/webquest/content/dinobirds.shtml), and the occurrence of atavisms (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/atavism.htm). How would a creationism theory explain atavisms? The evolutionary framework explains these and many other facts without any problems, under maximum parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). Take a look at how multiple, independent sets of biological markers are used to retrace ancestry back through time, to show the relatedness of all life on earth, such as through endogenous retrovirus (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) insertions in genes. It wouldn't take much to disprove the theory of evolution; a fossilized squamate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamate) in the Ediacaran period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran) would shake the biology world to its core, the discoverers would get a lot of media attention and would probably even earn a Nobel Prize.

A possible cladogram for bird evolution:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/336.jpg

Before I go further, let's get the definitions correct. Search "Evolution 101" and you'll find the University of California's Museum of Paleontology exhibit on evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) Evolution simply means "change over time", but in biology, evolution means this:

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

From the UCMP website again, here's the scope of the theory of evolution:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

This isn't a bird, it was a 4-winged feathered dinosaur, Microraptor (http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030123/full/news030120-7.html). Don't confuse with "Archaeoraptor" (http://www.nature.com/news/2002/021121/full/news021118-6.html)!
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/43.gif

Evolutionary biology is a vast subject, I'm not here to spit out all the evidence for evolution, it is up to the interested observer to investigate the evidence themselves, but let me point out a few pages among tens of thousands of pieces of evidence to look at:

Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063)
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)
Insertion of Telomeric Repeats at Intrachromosomal Break Sites During Primate Evolution (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1704.full)

Check out a list of just some observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

There are hundreds of books on its various subjects, even on specifics people might think science knows nothing about, like the evolution of the insects (detailed in a 772 page book) (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5708701/?site_locale=en_GB). No one is forgetting the plants, check out just this one page on the subject of plant evolution (http://mansfield.osu.edu/%7Esabedon/biol3060.htm). Anyone keeping an eye on science news will know that it was none other than the predictive power of evolution (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html) which aided Neil Shubin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbvKMz2oDQ) and team to discover Tiktaalik roseae (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html) in 2004; the scientists knew exactly what they were looking for before it was even discovered, in rocks 375 million years old (the time of the fish to tetrapod transition). Check out Wikipedia's list of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils) to see plenty more, but before you criticize evolution, you really need to know what evolution is (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and what transitional features are, I recommend the UMCP Berkeley Evolution 101 website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) for the basics.

See how the incus and the malleus (bones in mammalian ears) transitioned from the quadrate and articular bones in reptiles through evolution:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/337.jpg

A lot of people are unaware of just how many "transitional forms" have been uncovered in the recent decades of almost all major vertebrate transformations. Check out the fossils that qualify as important to understanding the sarcopterygian (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html) "fish to tetrapod" (http://darwiniana.org/tetrapods.htm) transition. These genera are not listed in their chronological order; for a glimpse of that, check out this illustration (http://beta.revealedsingularity.net/content/articles/tetrapod_evo/images/digits.png). As fins were adapted for land-dwelling, early tetrapods like Acanthostega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega) (which had lungs and gills) had several more digits than 5.

(Listed from dinosaurs.about.com (http://dinosaurs.about.com/), don't mistake any of them for dinosaurs because they're not even Avemetatarsalians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemetatarsalian)!)
Acanthostega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/acanthostega.htm) One of the most famous early tetrapods.
Casineria (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/casineria.htm) Among the first of the five-toed tetrapods.
Crassigyrinus (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/crassigyrinus.htm) This tetrapod looked like a giant tadpole.
Diadectes (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/diadectes.htm) This tetrapod was the biggest land animal of its time.
Elginerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/Elginerpeton.htm) This ancient tetrapod was discovered in Scotland.
Eucritta (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/eucritta.htm) Better known as the "Creature from the Black Lagoon."
Eusthenopeteron (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/eusthenopteron.htm) This lobe-finned fish was ancestral to the first tetrapods.
Gogonasus (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/gogonasus.htm) Yet another early fish with tetrapod-like characteristics.
Greererpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/greererpeton.htm) This early tetrapod looked like an eel.
Hynerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/hynerpeton.htm) The only tetrapod to be dug up in Pennsylvania.
Ichthyostega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/ichthyostega.htm) One of the first tetrapods ever to be identified.
Osteolepis (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/osteolepis.htm) This ancient fish had some latent tetrapod characteristics.
Panderichthys (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/panderichthys.htm) Another Devonian fish with tetrapod leanings.
Pederpes (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/pederpes.htm) This creature fills an important gap in tetrapod evolution.
Tiktaalik (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/tiktaalik.htm) This "fishapod" was halfway between a fish and a tetrapod.
Tulerpeton (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/tulerpeton.htm) One of the first "true" tetrapods.
Ventastega (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/ventastega.htm) An alligator-like tetrapod of the late Devonian.
Whatcheeria (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/tetrapodsandamphibians/p/whatcheeria.htm) Along with Pederpes, an important missing link in tetrapod evolution.

Evolution doesn't state that a species will change into a fundamentally different kind of anything (like dogs giving birth to cats, those sorts of things would actually be evidence against evolution by common descent; another example of evidence which would disprove the theory), the definition of evolution is above for reference. As paleontology is a historical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology), there's no way we can prove that, for example, the transitional form Eomaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eomaia) is the ancestor to all later Eutherian mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria), but that's not what the definition of a transitional form (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml) is, and the only way we could know for certain would be to go in a time machine and witness the history of life ourselves, which is every paleontologist's dream I would think. This probably will never happen, and restricting evolution in such a way would be similar to having a court case in which the jury is convinced from all the evidence and then the defense lawyer is saying as his final argument "well none of you were there right?! You can't know for sure!". If several transitional forms aren't good enough evidence for you, how about several hundred, listed here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)!

From synapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid) evolved the mammals:
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/341.jpg

Someone who doesn't understand taxonomy nor evolution will probably say that a Pterosaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur) is a Dinosaur, which is false. Check out the definition of the Dinosauria on UCMPs website (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html), they aren't just "any ol' giant reptile that lived a long time ago", paleontologists have a specific definition of these groups, based on morphology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28biology%29). The fossil record could never be complete nor could ever represent the history of all species that have ever lived on earth, (even Darwin knew this, way back when paleontology was still a very young scientific discipline) but don't let the rarity of fossilization fool you into believing that scientists have "little evidence" of the history of life; science is aware of around 5,000 genera of the diverse Trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobites) alone, and these extinct creatures serve as an index fossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil). Terms like "reptile" shouldn't be used anymore either, since such words are polyphyletic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphyletic). If we modify the definition of reptile to "all diapsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid) are reptiles", then birds would be "reptiles" too, but turtles wouldn't be. If we're to say that "all amniotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote) are reptiles", then by definition, all mammals would be reptiles too. Living sauropsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsid) are represented by the lepidosauria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidosauria), archosauria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur), and anapsida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapsid); this is, generally speaking, the closest meaning of the term "reptile" under modern taxonomy. So these old terms are good for generalizations, but only groupings that are monophyletic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly) are appropriate for taxonomic classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree). If a single bird, mammal, "reptile", or fish cleavage (embryo) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_cleavage) were to be observed with development of the anus after the mouth, evolutionary theory would be in a crisis, because by the evolutionary model, all vertebrates evolved from (and are still) deuterostomes (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/deuterostomia.html). In turn, we're all bilaterally symmetrical (http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459) coelomates (http://www.occc.edu/biologylabs/Documents/Animals/Coelomate_Animals.htm). To see the most incredible evidence of evolution, study some cladistic phylogenetics (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/phylo.html). It'll give you more evidence of evolution than you will ever be able to sift through, and you will be convinced if you are unbiased and objective.

What a person may or may not believe isn't important. What's most important is what is objectively measurable and testable, because only accurate information can have practical application. Most scientists are religious, and the vast majority of scientists (around 95%) accept the theory of evolution. For example, The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert T. Bakker (http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Heresies-Unlocking-Dinosaurs-Extinction/dp/0821756087), a popular book on hypotheses about endothermy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermy) in dinosaurs, whose author is a not only a world-famous paleontologist, but is also a Christian minister, again shows that many evolution supporters are religious too. The creationism movement is highly dishonest in its representation of evolution, and for many examples of that, check out Kevin Padian's slides and expert testimony (http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html) at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District), a case in 2005 which pitted the theory of evolution against intelligent design (ID) creationism, and ID lost.

Here's an example of the creationists misrepresentation of science in their book Of Pandas and People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People):
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/340.jpg

The judge's eloquent decision of the court (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) sums up the issue, summarizing exactly why creationism isn't science: "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

[Aihwa]

31349









Well, when you prove my very point while trying to find some way to discredit me... You're digging your own logical grave here.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Well, when you prove my very point while trying to find some way to discredit me... You're digging your own logical grave here.


lol....there is no logic to your hamster wheel of inane comments from the peanut gallery. *sighs*...nor do you have any point that is logical.

31361

[Scott]

A very educating post, Pristernognathus. As I said before, I don't have a scientific mind. Thankfully I have a deep passion for science fiction that allows me to appreciate the workings of real science while not being able to understand the process of how they figure all this stuff out.

So many different things to see and so many different ways to see them. I look at a rock or a bird or a person and have an intuitive feeling that all this was made by God. I look at the galaxy, the universe with its massive age and complexity, and feel exactly the same-made by God gut reaction. I couldn't stand to live without God, not because of salvation but because God makes everything worth it.

Thank you again for all the work you put into assembling that piece. The Spock in me felt it was 'fascinating'

[Pristerognathus]

Thank you. It took me all night to write and I'm glad at least one person got something out of it.

[_Omaticaya_]

Derp. Oh my goodness... You have officially crossed the line... Dude how are you gonna quote something I didn't say, typing something else I didn't say using my name? Oh my gosh yo wtf is this for real? As Ja'k said, REALLY?... Dude get a life. Getting angry with you is a waste of time. Why don't you go eat a nice big banana dude, you know, you're a monkey after all right?

[Lon]

Careful, don't make me pull this bus over. :moody:

[_Omaticaya_]

Careful, don't make me pull this bus over. :moody: Fine Lon, sorry... I'll drop this anyway before it gets even more stupid. Same. old. crap. every. damn. time.

[prowler]

I think he means everyone omaticaya, not just you... Might aswell close this thread Lon..
I think it have derailed for some time now.. =/

[Scott]

I hate seeing people suffer, feelings getting hurt, over something so much bigger than us all.

[_Omaticaya_]

I think he means everyone omaticaya, not just you... Might aswell close this thread Lon..
I think it have derailed for some time now.. =/

Thanks prowler :) I already knew actually don't worry ^_^ I wasn't refering to Lon ofcourse, I agree with Lon. But usually, it's always because of some such 'ignorant' post of mine that it all begins until then I get blamed for it all, so before it happens,(as it always does) i'll just bugger off so all the monkeys can chat about their bananas a little more without my crappy ignorance bothering their high degree level and science-book related facts and youtube evolution-proof video sharing bullsh!t. Peace out, i'll leave it to the intellectuals now to speak from their throne.

[_Omaticaya_]

*Random* I just happened to see the tags for this thread, HAHAHAHAHAH funny :)

[Eternal Enigma]

In any of my posts I am very specific in how I make my approach if I have a point that I would like to make. When I have something I wish to eventually get to I'll move the conversation towards that with a specific vocabulary or an arrangement that sets the reader up for what I'm eventually going to talk about. What happens quite often is people are quick to jump to conclusions and what I write that is meant to get the reader set up for my point is usually taken out of context or heavily disputed. That's what has happened in this case. See no one here knows where I was going with this because I wasn't given the chance to put it into context. So as it stands all of my posts related to this thread are sitting here wide open and out of context. I take no offense to anyone who believes I'm uneducated or unintelligent because what you've read so far is my initial go at creating what could have potentially been one of the most interesting non-Avatar related threads here and then you see a bunch of thread hijacking with stuff completely unrelated to the subject or where I was eventually going to take this thread.

Part of the reason why science has been discredited for me is because of some of my personal experiences that go well beyond the current knowledge of science. What some people are seeing as my being unintelligent is just me withholding my personal explanation that explains my view, which is why posting my deconstruction analysis was so important to put everything into context. It would have explained my beliefs and the experiences that have lead me to the conclusions I've come to. Unfortunately my thread was continuously hijacked so I never had the chance to explain myself. If people wish to believe that I somehow lack the understanding or do not know the definitions of words that's fine. In reality I did not get a chance to explain myself and I'm not going to try. Not within this thread anyways. I would be more than happy to cover any of this on a personal one on one basis, but sadly this very interesting wide ranging subject is not able to be widely discussed on an open platform. In a typed format such as this people can skip parts or just not read what you wrote and respond to your post by guessing what you were talking about. I'm not going to argue with people or have people tell me I'm wrong before they even know what my view is. That's like being on a jury and before court even begins just yelling out "guilty! he's guilty!" before you even know what he's being accused of.

My view is based on first hand experience so if any of you are interested send me a PM.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Dude get a life. Getting angry with you is a waste of time. Why don't you go eat a nice big banana dude, you know, you're a monkey after all right?


31365 lol




Careful, don't make me pull this bus over. :moody:


for some reason,i'm on the floor rolling round,giggling like a silly kid with hiccups and a crate of those snappers you throw at the ground:)

[tm20]

i just realized that this whole thread consists of evolution being deconstructed....while creationism hasn't. anyone want to take upon that task? :D

[Scott]

Well my version of creation is different from the scriptures(and mind you I am ignorant to many of the different scriptures that exist)but the most important part, made by God with a purpose is all that really matters. The reason we can't see God is because He wants us to find Him of our own free will. Without free will we wouldn't be people. We wouldn't be able to love each other or even see each other because all we would see and want to see is Him.

He wants us to love each other, and he knew how hard we were going to have it without Him holding our hand. He knew we were going to be terrible at loving each other. So he gave us His only son and Jesus would be there for us to hold our hand. To guide us to the Father with love and assurance in a cruel and harsh world.

[Aihwa]

i just realized that this whole thread consists of evolution being deconstructed....while creationism hasn't. anyone want to take upon that task? :D


As I said before, "godunnit" is creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever they call it next when science bitch slaps them down again. As you can see, there is nothing to support their hypothesis that an all powerful being gives enough of a damn about a single mudball in a universe of identical mudballs to create an imperfect species. We now have Eternal Enigma hinting at "personal experiences" that disprove a few hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, because his explanation for an event trumps the most brilliant minds in history. True story.

[Eternal Enigma]

i just realized that this whole thread consists of evolution being deconstructed....while creationism hasn't. anyone want to take upon that task? :D

That's why my deconstruction analysis was going to be a two part post... I was going to begin by taking apart creation because it's what I believe in and I see it as only being fair to take apart my own belief first to show good faith that I'm not just one sided as some who have come into this thread are. That's when all hell broke loose and many users converged on this thread to insert a religious argument in an attempt to have this thread removed purely because this thread was going to cover things they don't believe in. See for them they don't believe in it so they don't believe it should be discussed.

Seen on page 2 post #15.


If this thread can remain peaceful I'll post a theory deconstruction analysis of both of these theories. I'm already writing it, but I'm taking my time with it so I can be as fair and balanced as possible. I'm starting with the deconstruction analysis of creation so what I'll be doing is taking creation apart highlighting the many aspects that make absolutely no sense. I'm going to do some other things with it as well, but I'm working to make it sound as scientific as possible so that it doesn't come off preachy. Then I'll also do the same thing with evolution where I'll take it all apart and show you what evolution looks like through my eyes. That way you'll see my take on both of these theories side by side and you'll gain a better understanding of why or how I've come to the conclusions I have.

Neither of these theories make any sense and I'll go ahead and give you a small preview of the concept I'm going with...

God and Creation...

A being existing "somewhere" suddenly decides to create a universe with the future plans of eventually creating life... Why? Who is this being? Where is this being? and if creation is the base formula then who created God? If God exists in a place who created that place? See, in the theory of creation you run into the issue of "What came first; the chicken or the egg?" It's difficult to assume that God is alone and came from no where. At some point spontaneous life has to happen... somehow.


Believe me when I say I'm not closed minded. ^


That post shows the beginning of my introduction to the deconstruction analysis of these two theories, hypothesis, beliefs, or whatever you want to call them.

Aihwa didn't believe my paranormal experiences when I shared them nine or ten months ago so I'm sure Aihwa won't believe it if I tell events from my life again. In fact, if I'm remembering correctly Aihwa's explanation for what I've experienced is simple... "it didn't happen." Of course, in the land of reality these occurrences did take place and are part of my life story. I've experienced things that directly contradict scientific fact and supports the idea of life after death, but I've also experienced other things that directly contradict the existence of a God. I certainly don't have all of the answers, but to me it's still interesting to discuss. Science fails to explain the intelligent object manipulation I've seen right in front of me. I saw fireplace stoking tools (shovel, pick, broom, ect) in a holder slam together, get lifted straight up off of the ground, pause in the air, and get violently thrown across the room. I've experienced things that just cannot be explained away as the wind blowing a tree making it scratch on a window.

There are things in and about our world that we have absolutely zero understanding of. So to say we know it all is completely absurd. It's very small minded of us to believe we've got it all figured out. I cannot just ignore what I've experienced so I include it in the equation and things just fail to add up where science is concerned. No matter how much scientific evidence there may or may not be of something when you experience something you cannot explain that science doesn't even acknowledge you realize there's more pieces to this puzzle. If something you cannot see holds you down in your bed like I've experienced and you feel real weight like a heavy man is on top of you and you see that you're sinking into your bed you can't ignore it. I woke up as something I couldn't see crawled in bed with me. This was during the day when my room was fully illuminated by the sun. That's not something you forget and it was quite a scary experience to have something I couldn't see hold me down.

For some people the idea that something you cannot see could be in the room with your right now is so scary they don't want it to be real.

Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I can assure you that it is real.

Anyone interested in hearing about what I've experienced first hand please feel free to send me a PM and ask questions.

You won't be disappointed if you ask me about it. I have a couple of decades of stories from my life of events that in some cases have many witnesses who did not believe it before they saw it for themselves. I've even had an experience that I can only describe as me seeing a UFO dogfight where seven or eight white/silver flying objects were engaging one flying object. I stood there and watched this go on for five minutes or more. It ended in the one flying object being destroyed and the others flying straight up and disappearing. I'm an airplane enthusiast and I can identify just about everything that flies. What I have seen flying directly above my house is no aircraft I've ever seen and the maneuvering capabilities and speed goes well beyond what any known fighter jet can do.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

so in taking apart the theories of creation and evolution,are we any closer to any solid,concrete 'facts'? see,i have this problem...i will never believe that we evolved over thousands or millions of years,because there are no ways to prove this,and nothing evolving during the short few years we get on this polluted,war-covered,hateful hunk of rock,nor do i believe the preposterous theory that some huge almighty being said 'poof!' and in seven days all these billions of stars,systems,planets,etc,came about,just like that,and of course there is no way to prove this either,as it all happened a long time ago,and there is no evidence of this being on this hellhole of a planet.

you guys that scream the unprovable evolution theory as 'fact' are just as flawed as the creation types who yell about benevolent deities and other such unprovable religious-based creationism,and in the end,we are no closer to anything that is even remotely believable.


so where does all this leave me??? still confoozed as ever,and cursing the lack of redbull after i kick the bucket. lol.


evolution and creation are both complete crap,and that IS a fact.:)


31391

[Scott]

When I was very young, 4 or 5 years old, something terrible happened in the house I lived in with my mother and grandmother. I don't know what it was but I was horrified, a panic so great I can only recall the feeling of kicking and flailing. Well I remember a man, young man in his late teens early twenties, grabbing me and bolting out the house and down the dark suburban street. Now here is the kicker. There was no man.

He wasn't a friend of the family, my mother and grandmother had very few friends and of those they were all females. I can vividly see in my memory the house and the street falling away in view as my head was draped over his shoulder. I draw a blank from there, I can't remember what the man looked like or how I got back home. I am only certain that the memory is real and not a dream.

I don't think the man was a living human being. I don't know what he was, but I do know he was there to rescue me from something that my mind has blocked out, a real bad thing that is just a black void inside my head.

I read about paranormal events all the time. I guess they would be easily dismissed if you hadn't experienced one yourself. I have. As outlandish as your claims sound, Eternal Enigma, I have a feeling your not just making stuff up to try to make new friends.

Thank you.

[Carborundum]

That's why my deconstruction analysis was going to be a two part post... I was going to begin by taking apart creation because it's what I believe in and I see it as only being fair to take apart my own belief first to show good faith that I'm not just one sided as some who have come into this thread are. That's when all hell broke loose and many users converged on this thread to insert a religious argument in an attempt to have this thread removed purely because this thread was going to cover things they don't believe in. See for them they don't believe in it so they don't believe it should be discussed.

Seen on page 2 post #15.



That post shows the beginning of my introduction to the deconstruction analysis of these two theories, hypothesis, beliefs, or whatever you want to call them.

Aihwa didn't believe my paranormal experiences when I shared them nine or ten months ago so I'm sure Aihwa won't believe it if I tell events from my life again. In fact, if I'm remembering correctly Aihwa's explanation for what I've experienced is simple... "it didn't happen." Of course, in the land of reality these occurrences did take place and are part of my life story. I've experienced things that directly contradict scientific fact and supports the idea of life after death, but I've also experienced other things that directly contradict the existence of a God. I certainly don't have all of the answers, but to me it's still interesting to discuss. Science fails to explain the intelligent object manipulation I've seen right in front of me. I saw fireplace stoking tools (shovel, pick, broom, ect) in a holder slam together, get lifted straight up off of the ground, pause in the air, and get violently thrown across the room. I've experienced things that just cannot be explained away as the wind blowing a tree making it scratch on a window.

There are things in and about our world that we have absolutely zero understanding of. So to say we know it all is completely absurd. It's very small minded of us to believe we've got it all figured out. I cannot just ignore what I've experienced so I include it in the equation and things just fail to add up where science is concerned. No matter how much scientific evidence there may or may not be of something when you experience something you cannot explain that science doesn't even acknowledge you realize there's more pieces to this puzzle. If something you cannot see holds you down in your bed like I've experienced and you feel real weight like a heavy man is on top of you and you see that you're sinking into your bed you can't ignore it. I woke up as something I couldn't see crawled in bed with me. This was during the day when my room was fully illuminated by the sun. That's not something you forget and it was quite a scary experience to have something I couldn't see hold me down.

For some people the idea that something you cannot see could be in the room with your right now is so scary they don't want it to be real.

Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I can assure you that it is real.

Anyone interested in hearing about what I've experienced first hand please feel free to send me a PM and ask questions.

You won't be disappointed if you ask me about it. I have a couple of decades of stories from my life of events that in some cases have many witnesses who did not believe it before they saw it for themselves. I've even had an experience that I can only describe as me seeing a UFO dogfight where seven or eight white/silver flying objects were engaging one flying object. I stood there and watched this go on for five minutes or more. It ended in the one flying object being destroyed and the others flying straight up and disappearing. I'm an airplane enthusiast and I can identify just about everything that flies. What I have seen flying directly above my house is no aircraft I've ever seen and the maneuvering capabilities and speed goes well beyond what any known fighter jet can do.

This actually explains a lot.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i think we need a thread for paranormal activity and experiences,because i have several my darn self...not kidding.:/

[Scott]

I'd very much like to hear them, Ja'k

[tm20]

Seen on page 2 post #15.
...........
That post shows the beginning of my introduction to the deconstruction analysis of these two theories, hypothesis, beliefs, or whatever you want to call them.

ok thanks for posting, i was too lazy to go back and look :P

[Aihwa]

so in taking apart the theories of creation and evolution,are we any closer to any solid,concrete 'facts'? see,i have this problem...i will never believe that we evolved over thousands or millions of years,because there are no ways to prove this,


The wall of facts back a page or two would like to disagree. You're trying to take this "you're both retarded" argument, while sometimes this works (see Democrats and Republicans) in this case it is not so.

[Eternal Enigma]

see,i have this problem...i will never believe that we evolved over thousands or millions of years,because there are no ways to prove this,and nothing evolving during the short few years we get on this polluted,war-covered,hateful hunk of rock,nor do i believe the preposterous theory that some huge almighty being said 'poof!' and in seven days all these billions of stars,systems,planets,etc,came about,just like that


That made me bust out laughing because for me that's the same issue I have with creation. It's just as absurd as the idea that the universe suddenly went 'poof' and appeared from nothing for absolutely no reason at all. For the scientifically minded who rely on all of these man made facts it all makes perfect sense. Of course, scientists themselves don't even try to explain how the universe came from nothing not even in the Big Bang theory. They actually start "trillions of milliseconds" (direct quote from scientist) after the Big Bang when the universe was "about the size of a baseball," because explaining how it suddenly came from no where is too difficult to explain.

So they're studying it the wrong way to begin with. They're not studying it from the absolute beginning, which could alter their findings. What they're finding they're putting in science books for the impressionable minds of children to soak up. So things that aren't proven are being taught in schools around the world as absolute 100% cannot be wrong fact. That's just ridiculous to me. Humanity needs to do better than that. That's the "well, this doesn't explain everything, but it's good enough" stand point.

Instead of trying to answer how the universe came from nothing they're working on the idea that the universe is still expanding from the initial explosion (or whatever it was) in order to prove that if it is expanding that at one time it must have been smaller... enter the Big Bang theory. That very well could be, but it still doesn't explain how it happened. They may be right the Big Bang theory could be how it all went down... alright I'll agree with that... now... scientists... explain how it happened. ^_^ (If we're going to teach it in school as fact we should at the very least have the ability to explain it).

Keep in mind we're unable to go anywhere else in space to collect more evidence that we may not have right now and scientists are limited by the confines of their lab. With that said it is impossible to find a definitive answer. We can't go see... we can't go investigate...


you guys that scream the unprovable evolution theory as 'fact' are just as flawed as the creation types who yell about benevolent deities and other such unprovable religious-based creationism,and in the end,we are no closer to anything that is even remotely believable.

Absolutely... see you get it. I love talking to people who don't believe in either of these things because you guys are so open minded and can see that both of them sound like complete bullsh!t and are in need of further investigation. Then there's the notion that humans came from monkeys. I've seen the documentaries and they don't just say "this is what could be" they're teaching it as this is how it is "these are the facts" and then they go over all of the ill-established evidence. I've seen where they have one of those artists who takes a real human/monkey (caveman) skull and they put clay on it to make it look human. That's just the artists interpretation of what they believe it should look like based on the modern anatomy of modern humans. If you take a tiger skull and apply the same techniques to it you can make a tiger skull look like it might have been human millions of years ago too.

People who are so one sided on the issue just cannot see things like that. This applies to people on both sides of the fence. Creationists are guilty of misinterpreting the Bible. I can go on and on about the creationists who have misinterpreted the Bible just as I can go on and on about evolutionists (scientists) misinterpreting what they're finding.

In school that's why science was so fun... you could get messy and make mistakes because nothing was absolute due to the fact that we don't know. That's the great thing about science because you can have fresh minds bring new ideas to the table.

[akgeff]

oh please,there is a huge difference between Eywa and the deity humans call 'god'. the Na'vi have proof of Eywa through Mo'at and their physical connection to the Tree of Souls and their world Pandora,while we humans have no proof but blind faith and told by self-serving religions that we must believe the words of a ancient book translated hundreds,maybe thousands,of times by fallible men who may or may not have reworded or changed said translations to suit their own ends or biases. oh geez,here we go again with the religious crap...my bad,lol,and my last comment in this thread on religion. sorry for the digression,Enigma.


back to the subject of this thread,i am somewhere stuck in the limbo between creation and evolution...i neither believe nor disbelieve creation or evolution because both are unprovable.

Wow you guys have been uber busy on this thread.
I never considered "Eywa" a deity, more of a planet wide intelligent entity but I watched Avatar from a sci/fi perspective not a fantasy one...

[Eternal Enigma]

When I was very young, 4 or 5 years old, something terrible happened in the house I lived in with my mother and grandmother. I don't know what it was but I was horrified, a panic so great I can only recall the feeling of kicking and flailing. Well I remember a man, young man in his late teens early twenties, grabbing me and bolting out the house and down the dark suburban street. Now here is the kicker. There was no man.

He wasn't a friend of the family, my mother and grandmother had very few friends and of those they were all females. I can vividly see in my memory the house and the street falling away in view as my head was draped over his shoulder. I draw a blank from there, I can't remember what the man looked like or how I got back home. I am only certain that the memory is real and not a dream.

I don't think the man was a living human being. I don't know what he was, but I do know he was there to rescue me from something that my mind has blocked out, a real bad thing that is just a black void inside my head.

I read about paranormal events all the time. I guess they would be easily dismissed if you hadn't experienced one yourself. I have. As outlandish as your claims sound, Eternal Enigma, I have a feeling your not just making stuff up to try to make new friends.

Thank you.

You're welcome mate. I'm not quite sure why you're thanking me, but you're welcome. That's a great account of a personal experience and if we have a paranormal thread if you could post about it and try to remember more details that would be great. (I'm not going to open another thread that could become controversial, but someone else that everyone likes could make one).


I read about paranormal events all the time. I guess they would be easily dismissed if you hadn't experienced one yourself. I have. As outlandish as your claims sound, Eternal Enigma, I have a feeling your not just making stuff up to try to make new friends.

I wouldn't just make something up... It would make absolutely no sense to create a thread to take apart creation and evolution with the intent of eventually coming out with a fabricated story about ghosts and UFOs to try to explain why I don't believe we fully understand anything. By telling about my personal experiences I really run the risk of putting myself out there and looking like a lunatic. To those who do not believe in this stuff they no longer believe I'm just uneducated or lack understanding. Now they'll just believe I have psychiatric problems. My personal experiences are the basis for how I've come to the conclusion that I've come to so it must be added in. If anyone wishes to believe I'd just make this stuff up that's fine, but I would gain nothing by doing so.

I don't just believe something I like to investigate it further. I even question my own experiences and try to explain them away. When you see an object being picked up a good ways straight up off the ground and get thrown many feet away from where it was how do you even begin to try to explain it? One explanation is that it was a ghost or whatever it is we call ghosts. If you toss that explanation aside nothing explains it.

I'm not the type of person who hears a noise at night and immediately thinks OMG it's a ghost. I go and look and find out "oh that was just the hot water heater" or "oh it was just the wind blowing a tree making it scratch on the window." Many things can be explained away. A lot of the people who have had "paranormal experiences" really haven't, but they believe they have. Then there are those who just make crap up to discredit those of us who have experienced something real. :\

In my experiences at the house where I witnessed object manipulation for the first time, which was my sister's friend's house is a house that was very active. My sister's friend Kim had three small children (Tony, Courtney, and Eddie) and my sister had my nephew (Shane). The children said they could see these ghosts as in more than one (according to the children there was a man, woman, a little boy, a little girl, and a baby). How that all came about is because the children were getting their asses beat for doing naughty things around the house and then they would get their asses beat again for lying about it and trying to say that it was a ghost. They would not back down from the story that ghosts were doing this. As a matter of fact one of the things they would have their asses beat over is for messing with the fireplace stoking tools and throwing them about.

See I was younger myself and was about 11-12 years old and I had no idea that the adults were using me as a test. They thought that if these other children which were from 3 - 5 could see these ghosts that I possibly could as well if it was real. That's what my mother and I would do every evening after I got home from school is go to Kim's house. For me I thought it was just us visiting my big sister and my nephew. They didn't tell me about anything that was going on and they did that on purpose so if something happened I could just come out with it on my own. My mother knew if I saw something I'd say something.

Before the night where the stoking tools were thrown across the room we had experienced toys working without batteries and the television coming on by itself. They even began to unplug it so it wouldn't do that and it would still come on. One of the more impressive things were these dolls that the children had (action figures) with voice boxes that would work without batteries and say things they were not programmed to say. They wouldn't say the same things twice. Sometimes we could walk out of the room and when you came back in some of the things had been rearranged. Kim was anal about using coasters and if the children used the coasters they could have their drinks in the living room, but if they were caught not using the coasters they would lose that privilege. We could walk out of the room and when you returned all of the drinks would be off the coasters. As a child myself that wasn't anything to me. I never gave it a second thought. I didn't even think "OMG this is a ghost." I could tell that my mother, sister, and Kim were reacting strangely to these occurrences.

Now to the object manipulation, which is the moment that woke me up from just being a child to realizing there's something real there.

It was sometime around Christmas there were decorations and the tree was up. The adults were in the kitchen cooking and gossiping and the children were in between me and the Christmas tree, which was approximately ten feet to the left of the fireplace. The small children were running around doing as small children do and at the exact same time they all looked at the Christmas tree and were going on and on about seeing a little girl in the Christmas tree. The adults came in and they looked at me and asked me if I could see anything. I looked and all I saw was a Christmas tree. The adults went on and the children began to play... with something... it was as if they were including else with them. They were running around playing chase or whatever with the ghost of this little girl and that's when Kim came back in there and told them to stop. The children said; "Well we're just playing with the little girl" that's when Kim told them to "Stop playing with the little girl." She goes back in the kitchen and at this point the children are to my left so that I'm nearly in the living room alone (I could draw a picture of the layout of the house if necessary). The Christmas tree is in front of me... the fireplace is about ten feet to the right and on the left side of the fire place something caught my eye... I looked... I saw the fireplace stoking tools moving... then they suddenly clamped together on their stand... lifted up (stand included) into the air a good two to three feet... and were violently thrown across in front of me in between me and the Christmas tree. It wasn't as if they just fell over they landed nine to ten feet from where they were originally. I was looking right at it when it happened it wasn't as if I caught a glimpse of something out of the corner of my eye. I was looking right at it when it lifted up and was thrown across the room and it is one of the craziest things I have ever seen in person. Of course, it was loud because the tools were metal so it scared everyone except for me because I was more in shock at what I had just seen above all else. The children ran over and the adults came in that's when Kim was about to beat their asses for messing with the fireplace stoking tools again. The children told the adults they didn't do it they saw the little girl do it. The adults didn't believe them so they asked me... and I had to tell them that no I did not see a little girl do it, but none of the children did it... this thing did it by itself. I explained to them what I just explained to you.

So they picked it up and set it back where it goes and told us to stay away from it to see if it would happen again. Me wanting to understand what I saw I was over there trying to figure out how that could have happened by itself. So I was trying to eliminated the possibility of a ghost. This thing was lifted into the air and thrown.

The whole reason my mother took me over there is because she knows I don't lie and that if the children had done something I wouldn't lie for them.

See I have nothing to gain by making up stories and post them online in a thread. I actually have more to loose by doing that because for some it may just discredit me as being either a lying story teller or a lunatic. Of course, the things I speak of did actually happen. One of the interesting things is that my nephew says he doesn't believe in ghosts even though as a child he had many encounters. (He's 21 now)... From a psychological stand point I feel that my nephew does remember the experiences he had with these ghosts, but I believe the reason he says he doesn't believe in ghosts is because it scares him. He's one of those people who doesn't want to believe that while he's sleeping someone or something could be standing at the foot of his bed watching him. That is scary to think of.

If someone wants to make a paranormal thread that would be great. I have quite a few stories of things that happened when my mother and I would go visit my sister. I've also experienced things at the house my mother lives at now and even where I live now. The most impressive were at Kim's house, which is a house that is literally right up the road from where I am now.

Now that I'm an adult and can put some context behind things from when I was younger I believe what I saw was a result of the ghost of the little girl throwing a tantrum because Kim told the children not to play with her. You've seen children get upset and throw their toy down... in retrospect that's what the stoking tools looked like. This is something that happened in my life and I cannot leave it out when pondering the question of creation being real or not. Of course, evolutionists, scientists, and non-believers will not use my experience or anyone else's experience as evidence of anything because they don't believe in it. That's what we've ran into here... any of the evidence that supports the possibility of life after death, which would support the possibility of a God is totally dismissed by people who haven't experienced it for themselves.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

people who believe and push the evolution thing,their cup is full and there is no room for growth,and the people who push creation,their cup is up-side down and they refuse to put anything in it,while those of us who espouse neither creation nor evolution,our cup is about half-full,and needs more input and maybe some 'spring-cleaning' of stuff already in the cup...


:)

[Aihwa]

This is not controversy. This is a joke, denying evolution always has been.

[Eternal Enigma]

This is not controversy. This is a joke, denying evolution always has been.

I believe in evolution it just depends on what version of evolution you go with. I believe that humans "evolved" from being simple cavemen to a more tribal lifestyle and eventually to the modern hell we've managed to create for ourselves today. lol

As for the scientific explanation of evolution (the most popular version) that allows one type of animal (primates) to turn into a completely new type of animal (homo-sapiens) it's just something I can't buy. You cannot show me a monkey skull with clay on it to make it look human like and have me believe that's where we came from. Maybe that's good enough for you, but that's not enough for me. You can do that with any other animal skull... if you try to make it look human you'll end up making it look human.

Male pattern baldness... proof of human evolution? Humans are still losing their hair from when we were monkeys I suppose. Women are now proven to suffer from this. I guess the scientists at Bosley have never had conversations with the scientists who study evolution. In evolution resistance is futile so the guys over at Bosley need to just give up. I wonder what we're going to eventually turn into since evolution is real and all... Oh... I know, we'll do like the dinosaurs and turn into birds. The whole idea of dinosaurs being birds of prey was an interesting addition to the theory of evolution. I still get a good chuckle when I go over that one.

Evolution just like creation has SO MANY alternate versions and not everyone is on the same page.

Do you realize how many separate versions of the Big Bang theory there are? Kiyom said that I was wrong and that the Big Bang theory mentions nothing about an explosion and the universe didn't start out as a prehistoric atom. In every version of the Big Bang theory that I currently know of it starts out as an explosion beyond our comprehension and then goes from there. I've seen in recent documentaries where scientists now say the universe began as an atom so small that today's most advanced scanning electron microscopes would be unable to see it. The scientists said that this "prehistoric atom" (words straight from a scientist's mouth) wasn't like the modern atom it only consisted of just one part. Then suddenly and for no reason at all that atom exploded like a bomb billions and trillions of times more powerful than thousands of nuclear warheads and thus the cycle began. Scientists say that the heat generated from that explosion (where those particles came from no one knows or even tries to explain) and that heat is what broke that single particle of that atom down and turned it into hydrogen and it kept repeating somehow. All of the hydrogen particles that heated up began turning into the other elements over billions of years. That's different from the original Big Bang theory, which still includes the explosion, but it just indicates that it came out of no where. There are other versions that have slight variations in them. I've even heard one where the explosion caused an "expansion of energy" and that there was "so much energy bouncing around in the infant universe" that that energy created the elements.

Of course, now when you search for "The Big Bang theory" you get the television show on CBS. You never find any information about the actual theory unless you type in "The real Big Bang theory."

Yay for education: The Big Bang Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory)

Here's the real one: Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory) (They refer to it as the "primeval atom," which is completely different from the prehistoric atom I saw on a more recent documentary).

In creation there are just as many variants and not everyone knows all of the different versions of these theories. I have studied most of them. Any new information about these theories that come out I'll know about it within a few days of it being published by actual scientists. When nothing new is coming about I'll watch documentaries on television or since I have high speed internet now I've been watching a lot of them on YouTube from NOVAScienceNOW and the Discovery channel and it's many specials over the years to name a couple of sources. Those programs share information and display the evidence scientists have found. I much rather have actual scientists talking about this stuff so I always try to find actual scientists talking about it in interviews and whatnot. That way all of the information I ever obtain comes straight from the horse's mouth. That way if I ever quote it I can't be wrong because scientists are never wrong even though they don't even follow the same theories.

[_Omaticaya_]

I'm wondering, why this is in general AVATAR discussions??? Anyway thanks aiwha for enlightening us again, but it's a joke for you, or maybe, you're a joke for saying that?

[Eternal Enigma]

I'm wondering, why this is in general AVATAR discussions???

I'm note sure...

[Kiyom]

From what I read on the Big Bang (I'm really not an expert in this field), the universe was not a "single atom" in the modern sense of atom (the elementary particle) but a very dense concentration of energy (that was thus very very hot). We can of course consider this energy soup like a "prehistoric or primeval atom", but I think it has nothing to see with the current atoms. As for the "explosion", whatever I read don't mention it but rather an expansion, a dilatation of the primeval energy, which in result created the elementary particles of our universe. It is maybe a battle of terminology, but "explosion" implied rather chemicals or nuclear reaction and doesn't really describe the phenomenon.

I may be wrong of course, because I'm not a specialist and don't quite understand the physics behind all this.

I want to precise that the Big Bang theory is still in research (lots actually). It's normal that some scientists disagree about how things happened. Strictly speaking, no one of them is right, because the theory implies so many different concepts, so many hypothesis that it can't be exactly what happened.

Eternal Enigma, I disagree with what you said about "the scientists should start from the beginning". It's not the way science works. Science is primarily based on current observations. Then these observations are interpreted to discover physics laws or to try to recount the past. With astronomical observations like the cosmic microwave background radiation, they try to go back in time and understand what was before. So little by little, they build a theory, which lead eventually to the Big Bang. But there, the scientists are facing a great obstacle because there is currently no law and no observations which can describe what the universe was at that moment.

Beginning by the beginning is the best way (in my opinion) to have a theory completely unrealistic. And that's what creationism does. It begins with a God that creates everything and that's it...

I don't say that the Big Bang theory is right. There are many flaws in it, many questions are unanswered, and maybe scientists will discover that they have misinterpreted their observations, but it is based on the scientific method, which has allowed humanity to access to great amount of knowledge.

Science is everywhere around us nowadays. Denying only evolution just because we don't like the idea that monkeys are our cousins (we aren't descended from them, although we're primates) seems a little hypocrite in my point of view. Without science we would believe that the Sun is in orbit around the Earth, we wouldn't have cars, we wouldn't have computers, we wouldn't have antibiotics...

Everyone of us on this forum use science all day. By this we acknowledge what the scientists have discovered and engineered: medicine, electronics, thermodynamics and so on... I think scientists have proved over the last hundreds years that they're not saying only nonsenses. So why not believe in evolution which is established with the same method than everything else around us?

Of course it is still uncomplete. Of course there is debate among the scientists. But since the beginning of science there has always been many debates, many controversial subjects. (see debate about atomic or continous structure of the matter for example) But this is how science works, and how our knowledge of our surroundings and our past increases.

So here we are, we have a theory about our past that has followed the same scientific and logical path than all other recognized laws and theories, but some people don't want it. What I wonder is why? (Don't be offended by the next part, these are just questions in my mind)

Afraid to admit that life has no sense in itself (though we can have a goal in life)? Shameful to have monkeys or oaks like cousins (very very far for oaks)? Too pretentious to admit that we've not always been what we are? Afraid of the death? I don't know. The fact is that I think it is hypocrite to say that Descartes, Newton, Maxwell, Gay-Lussac, Volta, Ampère, Gauss, Bernouilli, Boltzmann, Euler, Fraunhofer, Halley, Pasteur, Thompson, Mendeleiev, Bunsen, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Curie, Poincaré, Siemens and many many others are right and say that Darwin and all its (numerous) followers are wrong...

I apologize in advance if some parts of my post are little incisive, it's just the way I feel. I strongly believe in science (it has freed us of centuries of obscurantism) but i also know to take things in consideration and sometimes be cautious with some theories. One more time I don't believe evolution is exactly and completely right, but it seems to me like it's possible, believable and a good explanation of our past.

Thank you for reading!

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

This is not controversy. This is a joke, denying evolution always has been.



you state evolution like it is a proven fact....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!:emptiness:
31435

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

I'm wondering, why this is in general AVATAR discussions??? Anyway thanks aiwha for enlightening us again, but it's a joke for you, or maybe, you're a joke for saying that?


i've been wondering this,myself. it should be in debate,in all honesty. as for aihwa...whatever. *insert smiley for 'talk to the hand' lol*



:)

[HufweMakto]

people who believe and push the evolution thing,their cup is full and there is no room for growth,and the people who push creation,their cup is up-side down and they refuse to put anything in it,while those of us who espouse neither creation nor evolution,our cup is about half-full,and needs more input and maybe some 'spring-cleaning' of stuff already in the cup...


:)

That my dear is a complete lie! I am an advocate of evolution and evolutionary thought. If you accuse me of being shut minded about things, you, my sir, is wrong on every level. I do not want bad blood or conflict here, but likewise as I have always said on this thread, I am just expressing my opinion, my two lone cents if you will. To accuse the scientific community of having a shuttered mind is as just as bad.

My stance:

If you think everyone who knows evolution to be the truth, then consider this: twenty-odd years ago, we were having a controversy about wheather or not birds descended from dinosaurs or if they descended from a crocodilian anscetor. I recently came upon a Nova program as old as I am, which discussed this very subject. There were views from people on either side of the theory, one being a biologist who specializes in birds saying his share of the theory, stating that dinosaurs and birds did not have a lot in common. Flash back to today where we have knowledge of quite a lot of new things, such as feathered dinosaurs like claudipteryx and the real stances of many dinosaurs, such as how bambiraptor held it's arms, which was much like a bird.
Science and evolutionary theory is always open to new ideas, even if they seem to get weirder every day. Likewise, what is not taken as lightly twenty so years ago can be researched upon and eloborated with new evidence and studies. Science and evolution are a constantly changing thing, which should fit. Evolution still happens today (likewise, ravens are known for using tools, which is something most people associate great apes with).

And I'm firmly on this. Denial of everything evidenced, detailed and recorded is the worst yet. And Creationism is a joke, plain and simple and bunk at that too.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

both sides of this debate/argument are totally flawed and absolutely unprovable,end of story...neither is based on actual facts or visible proof to us today. one side tries to fill my head with monkey-people and life-causing celestial fireworks,lol,and the other tries to brainwash me with religious dogma and prevent me from asking the most basic questions,for which they have not one plausible answer or shred of proof.

egads,it's enough to make me scream! *i need a drink*

31452

[HufweMakto]

both sides of this debate/argument are totally flawed and absolutely unprovable,end of story...neither is based on actual facts or visible proof to us today. one side tries to fill my head with monkey-people and life-causing celestial fireworks,lol,and the other tries to brainwash me with religious dogma and prevent me from asking the most basic questions,for which they have not one plausible answer or shred of proof.

egads,it's enough to make me scream! *i need a drink*

31452

Actually there's more evidence for evolution. And it's not a theory, a scientifically proven fact (in the scientific sense). What is a scientific theory is the mechanism behind evolution. When you think about it, pepper moths and hummingbirds and hummingbird moths are following natural selection (or in the case of dosmesticated dogs and cats, traited selected and bred by human activity, again selection).

[tm20]

^yeah there actually is solid evidence for evolution. for evolution on a smaller scale like peppered moths and darwin's finches, peopple have observed them for years and there has been without a doubt, an observable change. evolution is also what causes a new vaccine to be made annually for different viruses. sorry but if you refuse to read up on these things then you're the one who's cup is full :\ but in the end, this is a pointless debate. we've got nowhere in deconstructing evolution and creationism :rotfl:
*and i agree that this should be in the debate section since it seems like that what it's turned back into -_-

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i give up...peacefully. :) you guys have your beliefs,and i choose to believe neither. we agree to disagree. lol. anyway,i have far too much fun here,and quite like you guys too much,to fight or squabble over man-made theories one way or the other,and i am adding this subject to the others like politics and religion. i hope this thread goes into the debate closet sometime,because it really has nothing to do with Avatar. quite frankly,when i am wrapped up in my love and longing for all things Avatar and its universe,which is most of the time lol,i could give a damn about religion,ploitics,and creational/evolutional theory.

31478


have a nice day,or night,you good people of AF:) *no matter what you believe or don't believe*

[_Omaticaya_]

^I see you J'ak :nwink: Have a nice day too :)

[Ibelieve]

Creationism and Evolution do not have to be contradictory. Evolution assumes that the matter, energy and 'life' needed to mould creatures into the best possible fit for the envionment is already present. Creation is exactly that, the first spark, if you will. Two completely different stages. If you firmly believe in evolution and therefore discount a creator - Your argument is invalid. What religion provides to evolution (and creation) is meaning.

[transcend]

there are feilds of study called quantum biology and fields of study that say the earth is alive..gaia is a scientific theory.. is nature alive? yes.. is it part of reality or is it part of an accident? what is the first cause? modern physics also points to a living universe.. so if the scriptures of many religions say that the universe is the word from the source energy and the source energy is alive then the whole thing is alive.. but alive in what sense? and is it controlled by one or many? i refuse to believe in zeus but see much value in christianity.. i also see much value in buddhism and taoism.. they are schools of thought just as developed as science is.. why do we have to split nature and god? the logic of sets can be applied to organic chemisty and information theory can join physics and biology.. the mundane is divine~!

[Aihwa]

If you firmly believe in evolution and therefore discount a creator - Your argument is invalid. What religion provides to evolution (and creation) is meaning.


ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ

[prowler]

ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ
31520

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ nice,Prowler!:) let me add to that thought...

31521

[Eternal Enigma]

I'm a strong believer in teaching things as they really are. Some people may disagree with that, but I believe if you're going to teach something as truth it needs to be the truth. You have to know the truth first in order to teach it.

Let me go over a few things about the Bible that I believe have been misinterpreted to give those of you who believe I'm just a religious nut a better understanding of how I think. One of the big problems with not just reading the Bible yourself and just going to church and having a preacher or a person of God tell you what they think it means since it is all about interpretation there's room for misinterpretation. This one book with the same words has been interpreted in so many different ways and we have had many different religions come about based on the same book. So obviously when people read the Bible they see different things.

I've seen the church stuff on television enough to have an understanding of how church works. People go there and the preacher tells them to look at a specific passage and the preacher reads it and says "now, let's think about what that means" then he tells you what he thinks it means. That's how most people gain their own view of the Bible and God through adopting the preacher's views.

I have never been to church and my parents never taught me about religion or God, but I have read the Bible and there are some things that stand out to me that many believers and church goers seem to misunderstand. I'll display one of those and I'll display others later.

#1. You must go to church... because it says so in the Bible. I've had many religious people tell me "if you don't go to church you'll go to hell."

nag nag nag :\

Oh Really? ^_^

What I have read in the Bible is that praying to and worshiping God should be done in private. It specifically says in the Bible to go into a small room or closet to pray privately.



Matthew 6 (read this carefully I'm copying this straight from my Bible).

1. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4. That thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the hethen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

(and it goes on and on)

Those are supposedly God's words telling us how to worship and how to pray. Unfortunately preachers and other teachers of the word of God do not seem to see that according to these passages what they're doing by preaching in a church actually directly goes against what God instructs us to do.

I don't go to church because it says not to. For those who say "if you don't go to church you're going to go to hell" you really need to take a look at the Bible again and read it yourself. What the preacher is teaching isn't always right.

In the same way I don't just listen to scientists because what they're finding relies on the interpretation of something and what they're finding can also be misinterpreted.

Now did I read the Bible and go "Oh wow, this is 100% proof that God is real." No, I base my belief on my experiences with ghosts as evidence that there's something else out there that we do not yet understand. I know that those of you who are hardcore for science don't believe in ghosts or anything paranormal, but there's no other explanation for what I've seen. Still to this day I try to use science to explain what I saw. I have even thought of the possibility of the Earth's magnetic field being able to sometimes affect some objects or some type of parallel dimensional disturbance, but that doesn't explain why the children said they saw the little girl throw the fireplace stoking tools. I didn't see the little girl, but I did see the stoking tools get thrown across the room. I know children have active imaginations, but what they would talk about goes beyond just a child being creative and imaginative. A child can imagine many things, but when you're sitting there and you see something get lifted up and thrown across the room and the adults are about to beat everyone's asses because it happened that's not just your imagination. After I saw it myself and told the adults that the children did not do it and they aren't lying they never got beat again.

In my opinion church is just another money game. I'll touch on that in another post because preachers say that you're supposed to donate 10% of your annual earnings to your church.... "it says so in the Bible" No it doesn't... I'll talk about that and other things later.

[Ibelieve]

No Christian that I know says "If you don't go to church then you're going to hell', that's stupid - firstly it would scare away people and secondly its not true. Church is good because you are around other Christian people that also read the bible and love Jesus. I'm sorry if this gets personal Enigma, please don't take offence.. buuuuut... if you think your own interpretation is enough, and that you don't need help, then you are mistaken. Its just like any school subject. You can learn out of a textbook, but the teacher (i.e. the preacher) helps you understand. There are SO many things in the bible that I need others to help me out with. I did Extension 2 english so I'm not retarded, I can analyse and understand texts. Things like why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra or chooses some people and not others - predestination is one that we will never understand, so going to church and talking/praying with other people provides some closure. (sometimes)

The passage in Matthew that you refer to does not explicitly say not to go to church, it is about humbling oneself before the Lord. It tells you not to pray in other people so that they see your effort, because that is self-gain. Pray because you need to, and because He is worth talking to, not because you want others to see how 'good' a Christian you are.

It's true, preachers get it wrong. That's why reading the bible for yourself is so important. But do not discount church because of what you see on T.V. - If you have not even experienced the real thing, then find a church, go to it and form your own opinion rather than taking what the media gives you.

The Catholic Church takes a lot of money, yes. But local churches who ask for donations are a great cause, for example my church is funding mission work in third world countries, and must pay the minister for his full time employment, and pay for others to go to bible college so that the church can continue. Tithing is absolutely not neccessary. One of my mates sees his money of better use in other areas, he is ridiculously generous and shouts people everywhere he goes, and gives all glory to his Saviour, if people think 'wow, this guy is just one fire for God!' then he has planted a seed of thought that may or may not grow. I do not know a lot about the Catholic church so I will say nothing about them...

Concerning the numerous facepalm posts: Creation=the start. Evolution=the Process. My idea of creation (Not creationISM) is God made *something* (Big Bang? idk) to start our universe, then by whatever means we were fearfully and wonderfully made. So Creation and Evolution can co-exist.

TO CLARIFY: When I talk about 'Creation' - I do not refer to the spontaneous appearance of humans, only the first cell/explosion of matter or whatever started the universe.

[Aihwa]

Eternal, science can explain it, we cannot. Yet.


However, your experience has no relevance to evolution or the joke that is creationism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


We can't explain why the CERN supercollider just sent particles past the speed of light either. (which means physics as a science has just been killed)

[Eternal Enigma]

No Christian that I know says "If you don't go to church then you're going to hell', that's stupid - firstly it would scare away people and secondly its not true.

Most of the religious people I've ever known no matter what religion they follow they have always told me of the importance of going to church, which is fine and I have no problem with that. When I would give them the indications that I have no intentions of ever going to church they would always become very negative and immediately tell me I've got a "one way ticket to hell." Those that are religious who know me come down on me the hardest. They'll say; "You think not doing drugs and doing the right thing all the time is enough?" They take a very negative tone with me on this and go on to add; "It doesn't matter how good you are if you don't go to church every week you WILL go to hell." I've heard that my entire life.

Back in middle school (in 1995) one of my teachers who is a ministers wife invited me to their church. My parents divorced long ago so my plans revolved around going to my father's house. So I thanked her for the invite and then I said; "I really don't have time to go to church." Her tone changed and she said; "Well, if you don't have time for God then why should he bother with you?" It was so abrupt that I decided to not even mention that I go to my father's house during that time. No one in my family goes to church and none of my school mates did either so it's not like I really had anyone to attend with anyways.

I can't attend my local church because it was taken down so a road can come through. :\ (I didn't think the government could take land away from a church). They're making a two lane road into a four lane highway and the church was right there beside it. The church and all of the homes there were torn down in 2009.

So anyways my experience with most church goers has been more of a negative thing because as soon as they find out I don't go to church the very next thing out of their mouth has something to do with me going to hell nearly every time.

My bus driver was a preacher (unrelated to the teacher) and every Friday when he was letting me off the bus he would say; "You should come to church" or "you need to come to church" or "we sure would like to see you at church." He never said anything negative like... if I don't I'll go to hell.

Those who are negative is also where some of my opinion comes from... I don't want to be an overly judgmental person like that and people I have known who did not attend church and suddenly started attending church eventually began to have that very same negative tone. They even stopped being friends with me because I wouldn't go to church. You're right that's one of the things that has scared me away from it... I don't want to become that.


if you think your own interpretation is enough, and that you don't need help, then you are mistaken. Its just like any school subject. You can learn out of a textbook, but the teacher (i.e. the preacher) helps you understand.

Exactly and just relying on one interpretation of something is heavily flawed. I listen to other peoples interpretations of everything, but a good number of church goers I've had conversations with don't really seem to have their own view of their religion, the Bible, or God. When I ask them their opinion it confuses them and they don't know how to respond when all I'm asking is for them to tell me their personal belief. All they can ever tell me is what they learned in Bible studies or what they were told. You've got to be able to come to your own conclusions. You've also got to be able to look at multiple opinions of something because there are so many opinions and beliefs out there. I'm always opened to other beliefs and ideas, but I am one who takes things apart and if I am able to find flaws that cause a belief or something to fall apart like evolution for example and I can explain it away then I need for it to be explained to me again from another type of view perhaps with more information and if I can take that apart then I need it to be covered again from a different view until we come to a place where someone comes to me with something I'm unable to take apart and then I look at what they've brought me as being more plausible than the other versions.

Also what I do is I take things that people believe to be true and I try to line them up and make them make sense with other beliefs. For example; The Big Bang theory and evolution aren't part of the same theories, but since they're both believed to be true in the end they're part of the same story and I try to line that story up. On the timeline of events if I take all of the most popular theories out there and line them up they don't make sense and they sometimes directly contradict one another. As Judge Judy says; 'If it doesn't make sense then it probably isn't true." (not the best quote, but I like it).

When people teach these theories they teach them or discuss them on an individual basis. You run into trouble when you take these individual theories and put them together like a movie. I'm a big picture type of guy so I don't focus on just evolution or just the Big Bang theory I try to combined them and what you end up with is where I am and I'm looking at a mess of information that does not make sense when it's combined. When you study or look at these theories on an individual basis you can make them work because you can change the variables so that it does work, but they don't try to teach it as one thing because then people would realize it doesn't work when you put all of the popular theories together.

All of the theories out there have alternate theories... for example the extinction of the dinosaurs has many different versions. In school you're taught about all of the possibilities and I've seen documentaries where they have animations of this one dinosaur sneezing then the next dinosaur and so on and what they're suggesting is the dinosaurs could have died out due to disease, which is a possibility. Then there's the theory that an asteroid hit the Earth causing a massive dust cloud that ended up extinguishing life. Then there's the theory that through the process of evolution dinosaurs became smaller and smaller eventually turning into what we see as birds today. There are multiple versions of those versions and there are scientists backing each one of those theories up. There are scientists out there who 100% believe dinosaurs died out due to disease and their work is based on that theory, but their are also scientists out there who 100% believe dinosaurs died out due to an asteroid hitting Earth and those scientists are basing their work on that theory. They can't all be right because some of the theories cancel out others. So... the dinosaurs got a disease and died, then an asteroid hit then they died again, and they turned into birds that time. That's the problem when you try to line all of the believed "facts" up... it just does not work.

That's why I have concluded that we don't know as much as we believe we do. I give due credit to scientist, but even they aren't all on the same page.

So for me science is just a fun subject that has A LOT of very interesting things to talk about.


The passage in Matthew that you refer to does not explicitly say not to go to church

You are correct, but it doesn't say that you have to either and it most certainly doesn't say "if you do not attend church you'll go to hell."

Instead of giving money to a church I'd rather give it directly to those who need it. That's how it would be if I was in a position of earning millions I would spend nearly all of it helping people. I'd find people who needed a new home or if they were driving an undependable car I'd take them to a car dealership and tell them to pick a car and I'll pay for it. The bigger part of my efforts would be geared towards helping children in poverty to have a better life. I'm a hands-on type of guy so just handing money to a church or an organization wouldn't be enough for me. I'd have to see my money making a difference. I would help those in my own country first and by helping them I would try to teach them the value of helping a fellow human being so that hopefully they would do the same thing. Then once the United States is back on it's feet (we're on our knees at the moment, Obama and our wonderful congress has us bent over pretty hard) then we can help others in the world.


Creation=the start. Evolution=the Process. My idea of creation (Not creationISM) is God made *something* (Big Bang? idk) to start our universe, then by whatever means we were fearfully and wonderfully made. So Creation and Evolution can co-exist.

I can fully accept that as a possibility, but at the moment I'm able to explain evolution away. For people who believe evolution to be absolute fact my explanations are pure nonsense, but they don't understand that they need to be able to look at what they believe to be true and take it apart or have the willingness to investigate further. The ability to question yourself is something that a person like Hitler lacked... history might have been different if Hitler stopped and thought... "Wait, am I really doing the right thing here?" You've got to be able to question yourself, what you believe in, and the facts or you could blindly go in the wrong direction and not even realize it.

I was watching something about evolution today and saw a preview of next weeks program where they're going to try to explain where the large verity of dogs we have today all came form. I know where they came from... we had wild dogs originally that became domesticated and through selective breeding and genetic engineering we created all of the breeds we see today. The show that is supposed to come on next week doesn't say that. It's going to try to explain how we got all of these different breeds of dogs through the process of evolution. How these dogs came to be has nothing to do with evolution, but they're going to teach this false information as fact and that's what I have a problem with. In the 30 second preview they showed Chihuahuas and other breeds of dogs evolving from coyotes, wolves, and other wild dogs. That's not what happened. (I'll get the name of the episode and try to find it online to post here).

[Eternal Enigma]

Eternal, science can explain it, we cannot. Yet.

This is the best thing you've said in this thread.



However, your experience has no relevance to evolution or the joke that is creationism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

My experiences are a part of my history and in order to explain to you and everyone else who reads this thread how I have come to the conclusions I've come to I must at least tell you guys about some of what I've experienced.

I'm open to alternatives to ghosts. In my mind if there are ghosts and if there is some sort of life after death then there is a off the wall possibility of a God, which is supportive of creation.

My nephew and I have had this conversation he goes against me on it, but in a different way. He doesn't believe in God and he doesn't believe in evolution, but in recent conversations he did say that there could be a life after death and that our energy could somehow exist outside of our body. Of course, my nephew when he was a child saw that little girl ghost push Eddie out of his bed every night. That was a big deal because Eddie was 3 and he was always falling out of his bed and they actually rigged his bed up so that he absolutely could not just roll out of it, but he was still falling out of it each night. My nephew told his mom that he would watch the little girl climb in bed with Eddie and push him out every night.

I was a child myself during that time... I was 11 (about to be 12)... My thought is... where the **** were the video cameras? Why weren't the adults trying to investigate this stuff? I think they were just too scared that if they caught something on tape it would make it too real. To an extent they were in denial. If I could be me now and go there I'd do some real investigating in that house.

You may have read a lot of bullsh!t online or seen a lot of ghost stories on television programs, but I'm not sh!tting you when I write about what I've seen. All those years of seeing Unsolved Mysteries and ghosts shows and stuff that was just TV, but then I experienced it for myself and abruptly was woken up to the fact that this stuff is real. Now, was what I saw really a ghost throwing those stoking tools across the room or was it some type of fluctuation in the Earth's magnetic field? I don't know and perhaps one day science will be able to answer that. Just like people used to think lightning was a sign that the Gods were angry. Right now there is nothing that can explain what I've seen. Nothing explains an action figure with a voice box being able to work without batteries... saying things on its own while it's on the kitchen island with no one around it. They had a Barney the dinosaur toy that would say all sorts of crap. The one thing I really remember it saying was "I like watching you sleep." It didn't have any batteries in it when it would say these things and sometimes it was Barney's voice, but other times it wasn't. When it started saying really scary stuff Kim threw it away. Stuff that the Barney doll said actually made me not like going there. The things that would go on around the house that were violent such as scratches and things that would draw blood is why my sister and nephew moved out and we all stopped going there. The house is literally right up the road from where I have lived for the past 20 years and I haven't been to that house in forever. (I was 11... I'm 27 now to give you an idea of how long it's been since I was there).

As for the UFOs I saw it only lasted for five minutes or a little longer and the point of my coming out with that experience (I haven't told the story in full, but I can) is because if what I saw isn't some type of experimental aircraft and if it's not us and it is aliens then that directly contradicts the existence of a God or rather it goes against the biblical version of events. Aliens could be an explanation for how early humans came up with the concept of a God. Cavemen weren't sitting around a fire and one of them suddenly looked up at the stars and said; "You know, ladies and gentlemen I believe an all powerful being created everything." Something happened to make people come up with the concept of a God and the only thing I can think of other than an actual God being the reason is aliens. People long ago were creative, but they weren't that creative because the farther back in time you go the simpler the minds of the people get.


We can't explain why the CERN supercollider just sent particles past the speed of light either. (which means physics as a science has just been killed)

My physics class was a joke... The big rub with me in that class was the fact that I don't believe we understand it and people from the past that tried to define all of this stuff had less of an understanding than we currently have... yet we're still basing all of our modern models for how this stuff works on their theories. That's why I believe we need some fresh minds on this.

I want it to be figured out and understood from beginning to end. That may be asking too much, but I expect the best.

[tm20]

yeah the recent findings of neutrinos saying **** YOU to the speed of light just killed physics, u happy creationists? or rather, u mad einstein?

[Replica]

We can't explain why the CERN supercollider just sent particles past the speed of light either. (which means physics as a science has just been killed)

God dunnit.

I just noticed the tags at the bottom of this thread. ROFL!

[_Omaticaya_]

I'm a strong believer in teaching things as they really are. Some people may disagree with that, but I believe if you're going to teach something as truth it needs to be the truth. You have to know the truth first in order to teach it.

Let me go over a few things about the Bible that I believe have been misinterpreted to give those of you who believe I'm just a religious nut a better understanding of how I think. One of the big problems with not just reading the Bible yourself and just going to church and having a preacher or a person of God tell you what they think it means since it is all about interpretation there's room for misinterpretation. This one book with the same words has been interpreted in so many different ways and we have had many different religions come about based on the same book. So obviously when people read the Bible they see different things.

I've seen the church stuff on television enough to have an understanding of how church works. People go there and the preacher tells them to look at a specific passage and the preacher reads it and says "now, let's think about what that means" then he tells you what he thinks it means. That's how most people gain their own view of the Bible and God through adopting the preacher's views.

I have never been to church and my parents never taught me about religion or God, but I have read the Bible and there are some things that stand out to me that many believers and church goers seem to misunderstand. I'll display one of those and I'll display others later.

#1. You must go to church... because it says so in the Bible. I've had many religious people tell me "if you don't go to church you'll go to hell."

nag nag nag :\

Oh Really? ^_^

What I have read in the Bible is that praying to and worshiping God should be done in private. It specifically says in the Bible to go into a small room or closet to pray privately.



Matthew 6 (read this carefully I'm copying this straight from my Bible).

1. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4. That thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the hethen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

(and it goes on and on)

Those are supposedly God's words telling us how to worship and how to pray. Unfortunately preachers and other teachers of the word of God do not seem to see that according to these passages what they're doing by preaching in a church actually directly goes against what God instructs us to do.

I don't go to church because it says not to. For those who say "if you don't go to church you're going to go to hell" you really need to take a look at the Bible again and read it yourself. What the preacher is teaching isn't always right.

In the same way I don't just listen to scientists because what they're finding relies on the interpretation of something and what they're finding can also be misinterpreted.

Now did I read the Bible and go "Oh wow, this is 100% proof that God is real." No, I base my belief on my experiences with ghosts as evidence that there's something else out there that we do not yet understand. I know that those of you who are hardcore for science don't believe in ghosts or anything paranormal, but there's no other explanation for what I've seen. Still to this day I try to use science to explain what I saw. I have even thought of the possibility of the Earth's magnetic field being able to sometimes affect some objects or some type of parallel dimensional disturbance, but that doesn't explain why the children said they saw the little girl throw the fireplace stoking tools. I didn't see the little girl, but I did see the stoking tools get thrown across the room. I know children have active imaginations, but what they would talk about goes beyond just a child being creative and imaginative. A child can imagine many things, but when you're sitting there and you see something get lifted up and thrown across the room and the adults are about to beat everyone's asses because it happened that's not just your imagination. After I saw it myself and told the adults that the children did not do it and they aren't lying they never got beat again.

In my opinion church is just another money game. I'll touch on that in another post because preachers say that you're supposed to donate 10% of your annual earnings to your church.... "it says so in the Bible" No it doesn't... I'll talk about that and other things later.

Superb mate, love your posts so much... :nsmile: Good job quoting the Bible mate, thats an excellent passage about prayer and hipocrites. Anyway, yeah that's crap what they say about going or not going to church and hell, anyone who said that is a complete wanker and hasn't got a clue what believing is or who God is... It's much simpler, you can be a believer and a christian, and if you are, going to church shouldn't be a 'weight', so if you go, you just go, and spend that hour praising God, a few hymns and a sermon, it's the least you can do for God. Many times I don't go to church, because its far away from my home, but when I don't, I can sing some hymns at home too, and read the Bible by myself at home. So what I mean is, if you really have faith and are a christian, it's not about the building or the actions, it's about, You, and God, nothing else, it's a personal relationship, It's up to the person to decide how he wants to live, how about so called 'christians' that show up in church, and the rest of the week are the baddest people... hypocricy is disgusting... So don't worry about what people say, God is the only thing that matters, not other people's opinions and orders.

[HufweMakto]

Eternal, science can explain it, we cannot. Yet.


However, your experience has no relevance to evolution or the joke that is creationism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


We can't explain why the CERN supercollider just sent particles past the speed of light either. (which means physics as a science has just been killed)

It just amazes me what happens sometimes. A long held notion that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (except for various vechicles in science fiction, and I'm not going to bother writing all of those down for simplicities sakes). But then there's huge debate on whether or not there were flaws regarding recording materials and what not, but if this goes on, then wow, it's amazing.

Also, CERN just seems to get interesting a lot more yes? First it was people worried about a black hole/stranglet forming from the launch of LHC and causing THE END OF THE WORLD, and now it's particles going faster than the speed of light...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXzugu39pKM&feature=related

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ that video reminds me of Fatboy Slim videos like Right Here,Right Now and others,lol :)

[Aihwa]

I'm open to alternatives to ghosts. In my mind if there are ghosts and if there is some sort of life after death then there is a off the wall possibility of a God, which is supportive of creation.

You're arguing pirates and hurricanes here (this is an example of poor logic, "Decreasing pirate numbers are inversely related to the number of hurricanes, as pirates decrease, hurricanes increase" The data actually supports this claim, but there is no actually connection between the two). "Because I've witnessed evidence for ghosts, there's evidence of a god", is not a logical statement. There is zero connection between a deity and ghosts. In fact, your holy book claims that souls leave the earth to either go to heaven or hell, therefore, it actually would disprove the existence of a god.







My physics class was a joke... The big rub with me in that class was the fact that I don't believe we understand it and people from the past that tried to define all of this stuff had less of an understanding than we currently have... yet we're still basing all of our modern models for how this stuff works on their theories. That's why I believe we need some fresh minds on this.

I want it to be figured out and understood from beginning to end. That may be asking too much, but I expect the best.


Damn, so everything must be a "joke" to you. Better get off that computer, because we don't understand how it operates 100%, it might be some terminator/transformer hybrid in disguise. I say this because "we don't know for sure". Also, food, can't eat ANY food, because we don't know for sure the long term effects of eating food regularly, it may very well be responsible for peoples deaths when they reach 80-90!

See how retarded that sounded? That's what you're trying to claim. This is why nobody is taking you seriously (except your fellow religious posters).

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

God dunnit.

I just noticed the tags at the bottom of this thread. ROFL!


LOLOLOL :) oh snap!

31554

[Ibelieve]

Superb mate, love your posts so much... :nsmile: Good job quoting the Bible mate, thats an excellent passage about prayer and hipocrites. Anyway, yeah that's crap what they say about going or not going to church and hell, anyone who said that is a complete wanker and hasn't got a clue what believing is or who God is... It's much simpler, you can be a believer and a christian, and if you are, going to church shouldn't be a 'weight', so if you go, you just go, and spend that hour praising God, a few hymns and a sermon, it's the least you can do for God. Many times I don't go to church, because its far away from my home, but when I don't, I can sing some hymns at home too, and read the Bible by myself at home. So what I mean is, if you really have faith and are a christian, it's not about the building or the actions, it's about, You, and God, nothing else, it's a personal relationship, It's up to the person to decide how he wants to live, how about so called 'christians' that show up in church, and the rest of the week are the baddest people... hypocricy is disgusting... So don't worry about what people say, God is the only thing that matters, not other people's opinions and orders.

So much love for this.


In fact, your holy book claims that souls leave the earth to either go to heaven or hell, therefore, it actually would disprove the existence of a god.

"So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." Job 14:12 Theres heaps of verses that say one can not rise from the dead...

"The day of the Lord will come ... in the which the heavens shall pass away."
2 Peter 3:10.

After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." John 11:11

Aihwa:
When someone dies, they fall asleep - there is no time, no consciousness - until the day that Christ returns, and we are awoken. Then we ascend to heaven, and it will be in our minds instant, because in sleep there is no time.
Now I simply do not know about ghosts, but demons and angels - yes. What some people would pass off as possibly being a mental deficiency when they are scared... Demon possession is real. My best mate, see him every weekend - he had an experience with a close family, their daughter would scream and convulse and yell abuse at them for 2 months. He was at their house once and fell to his knees in prayer. The girl hated it! She tried to claw at him and screamed at him... Scary stuff. She is healed now but not the same person. Reading this I sound crazy but that is what happened - see you could pass it off as insanity but it was a 2 month thing and revolved around religious slurs etc.
Check out Ouija Boards on youtube or google it or whatever - or don't, it scared me a fair bit

[Aihwa]

I'm not going to debate the intricacies of your mythology. Every person has a different view of it and the bible contradicts itself pretty regularly. The point is, its silly to attribute natural phenomena to a being of our own creation. "Demonic possession" may "occur" but I can almost guarantee it has nothing to do with a deity of any sort. The fact that you assume it does contradicts the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Everything has an explanation.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

how about so called 'christians' that show up in church, and the rest of the week are the baddest people... hypocricy is disgusting.


^ that.

i was raised in church,and saw a whole lot of this hypocrisy,and the thing that really got me,was that these people didn't even try to hide their indiscretions during the week,and showed up in sunday church as a duty and way of 'atoning' for their actions,lol,only to repeat the cycle all over again,and again...

i have nothing against personal spirituality,beliefs,and relationship with your Deity,but rather,my grief is with these organized and commercialized brand-name religions infested by hypocrites,holier-than-thous,two-faced do-gooders,legalistic and judgemental clergy not to mention the freaks that take life-long celibacy vowels and end up being abusers/molesters. grrrr. man,or woman,was not meant to be banned,lifetime, from having a physical relationship with his or her spouse,mate,what have you. i only go to church with my family members at Thanksgiving and Christmas services,for this reason and others along that line. i prefer to keep my beliefs private,but i agree with your post. very nice.


have a nice day,sir.:)

[Eternal Enigma]

Damn, so everything must be a "joke" to you. Better get off that computer, because we don't understand how it operates 100%, it might be some terminator/transformer hybrid in disguise. I say this because "we don't know for sure". Also, food, can't eat ANY food, because we don't know for sure the long term effects of eating food regularly, it may very well be responsible for peoples deaths when they reach 80-90!

See how retarded that sounded? That's what you're trying to claim. This is why nobody is taking you seriously (except your fellow religious posters).

Actually I made a statement... My physics class was a joke... I didn't go on to say... My physics class was a joke because the football coach was the one teaching it and basically never showed up. As I said; sometimes people jump to conclusions.

[Eternal Enigma]

yeah the recent findings of neutrinos saying **** YOU to the speed of light just killed physics, u happy creationists? or rather, u mad einstein?

It's not that I'm happy that a part of science has been proven wrong... as time goes on more things will be proved wrong... others will be validated... and new discoveries will be made.

With the discoveries of the future we may end up proving everything we currently teach as fact wrong.

As we go along I firmly believe we need to recheck our facts and really make sure what we're teaching our children is the truth. There's nothing wrong with that... in fact, everyone should want that.

The people of the past thought lightning was a sign that the Gods were angry... we laugh at them now... just like the people of the future will laugh at us for the things we have wrong... and they will laugh at us... they'll laugh at us all even more because now it's ALL being documented on the internet.

Time heals all wounds, but it also can disprove things such as evolution, which is something that takes place over time... in a million years or more (assuming humans still exist) we should see over time dramatic changes through the process of evolution. If animals, plants, and us do not show signs of further evolution in the future then it will be proven wrong as well. Humans went from being primates to what we are today in the period of a million years and our evolution will continue... but wait, evolutionists say that once something has fully evolved it stops evolving so humans will not evolve anymore... if something fully evolved stops evolving then why did fully evolved primates turn into humans? If primates evolved and turned into us over time... why are they still here? They turned into us so they shouldn't exist. Early humans that we would call cavemen no longer exist because we are them and because they became us they no longer exist. So it makes no sense why primates would still be here if they evolved and turned into us. Why would the dinosaurs, a very well established species exist as reptiles for over 100 million years... suddenly turn into birds as one evolutionary theory suggests?

I'm not even trying and I can make evolution... not just fall apart, but crumble to dust.

I know someone is going to tell me "you just don't understand what evolution is."


Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

I know of many other ways it's defined through biology and other means, but that's the scientific definition according to all of the dictionaries I looked at. Scientists believe our earliest form was primates. Basically what evolution suggests is that one type of animal can magically turn into a different type of animal over time. If that's so, then the animal that it used to be shouldn't exist once it turns into something else. Humans and primates are the exception to the rule I suppose. Scientists are the ones making this stuff up... it's not my fault that it doesn't make any sense.

One could ask me... "Well, if evolution isn't true then how do you explain the variety of birds we have today?"

My answer: They were each here in early forms and each one developed independently from its own kind... rather than one type of bird evolving and turning into many different types of birds over time as evolution would suggest. If evolution as it's defined was correct we would have only one type of bird... because through evolution that one type of bird would evolve and turn into a new type of bird and because over time they turned into a new type of bird the predecessor would no longer exist... thus one type of bird and no variety through diversification would have ever taken place.

Another way of explaining it: While that one type of bird is turning into a new type of bird (evolving) the original unchanged birds will still mate with the evolving birds because this change takes place over millions of years not instantly. So the offspring over time would have the same gene, which would result in that one type of bird genetically completely turning into a new type of bird and whatever it was before would stop existing because it would have evolved. Just like how cavemen no longer exist because they turned into us.

Care to do a simple evolutionary scientific model? Get a glass of Coke, and slowly pour water into the glass... (evolution... a change over time) after a while your glass will no longer have Coke in it and will be... water only... the Coke no longer exists because through evolution it changed into water. According to evolutionists your Coke should turn into many different types of Coke (diversification through evolution)... Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, Sprite, and they should co-exist at the same time, but in reality it does not... the Coke no longer exists... it turned into water.

Evolution as it is defined would create the opposite of diversity. We would not have many different types of one animal we would only have one type of that one animal. So we would only have one type of bird, one type of reptile, one type of dog, one type of cat and so on and so on. In reality we do have diversity so evolution as the base model could not be true.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ great post,sir. *goes and gets a glass of Coke,adds water*:)


31591

[_Omaticaya_]

^ that.

i was raised in church,and saw a whole lot of this hypocrisy,and the thing that really got me,was that these people didn't even try to hide their indiscretions during the week,and showed up in sunday church as a duty and way of 'atoning' for their actions,lol,only to repeat the cycle all over again,and again...

i have nothing against personal spirituality,beliefs,and relationship with your Deity,but rather,my grief is with these organized and commercialized brand-name religions infested by hypocrites,holier-than-thous,two-faced do-gooders,legalistic and judgemental clergy not to mention the freaks that take life-long celibacy vowels and end up being abusers/molesters. grrrr. man,or woman,was not meant to be banned,lifetime, from having a physical relationship with his or her spouse,mate,what have you. i only go to church with my family members at Thanksgiving and Christmas services,for this reason and others along that line. i prefer to keep my beliefs private,but i agree with your post. very nice.


have a nice day,sir.:)

Irayo brother, @IBelieve too :nwink: Have a nice day too matey J'ak :nhi:, I see you, :nsmile: :nsmile:

[Aihwa]

Time heals all wounds, but it also can disprove things such as evolution, which is something that takes place over time... in a million years or more (assuming humans still exist) we should see over time dramatic changes through the process of evolution. If animals, plants, and us do not show signs of further evolution in the future then it will be proven wrong as well. Humans went from being primates to what we are today in the period of a million years and our evolution will continue... but wait, evolutionists say that once something has fully evolved it stops evolving so humans will not evolve anymore... if something fully evolved stops evolving then why did fully evolved primates turn into humans? If primates evolved and turned into us over time... why are they still here? They turned into us so they shouldn't exist. Early humans that we would call cavemen no longer exist because we are them and because they became us they no longer exist. So it makes no sense why primates would still be here if they evolved and turned into us. Why would the dinosaurs, a very well established species exist as reptiles for over 100 million years... suddenly turn into birds as one evolutionary theory suggests?

I'm not even trying and I can make evolution... not just fall apart, but crumble to dust.



We won't evolve because we have removed ourselves from the system. We're no longer ruled by natural selection. (the weak and the strong both survive to reproduce) A common misconception (so many misconceptions/untruths in creationism...) is that humans evolved from today's primates, open a goddamn anthropology book. Both species evolved from some common ancestors that no longer truly exist as a species. (as when modern primates evolved, they were able to survive the current situation, their ancestors? not so much) Modern primates are more akin to cousins (and any science textbook will make that very clear [unless you're reading some creationist garbage that's trying to "secretly" discredit evolution]) Still related, we're not direct descendants.


Now creatures in the wild still continue to evolve and change, many changes are a direct result of our effect on their environments, nature adapts to them. Someday, change will be so great that new subspecies will emerge, and millions of years in the future, entirely new ones.



The whole "magically changed from one to another" argument is pure bull****. Animals don't "change into" another animal, they become an entirely new animal. New species, never before to have walked the earth. A dog will never become a cat, however a breed of dog may develop cat like attributes over the span of millions of years. (dogs are an excellent example of controlled evolution, we've bred them into thousands of very different breeds, some of which are close to being unable to breed)


Slapping evolution's hand with your face is not making it "crumble".

This thread has now become

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/369.jpg

And I have lost all faith in the US educational system, a Republican retard is going to take the presidency, and then we're "Libertarian" Soviet Russia.

[_Omaticaya_]

[QUOTE=Aihwa;380591]This thread has now become

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/369.jpg
[QUOTE]

Thanks to people like you. Dude you're so out of line, it's got nothing to do with education, you think a creationist is less educated than an evolutionist just because he read a book about monkeys becoming men? Dude that is SO. FUKED. UP. you don't measure education on wether a person believes in something or not. WTF is wrong yo, **** getting cheaper or somin'?

[HufweMakto]

Actually I have to concure that a Creationist isn't just less educated, he/she's just either insane or enjoys ignoring credited evidence in light of their own delusions.

[Aihwa]

Thanks to people like you. Dude you're so out of line, it's got nothing to do with education, you think a creationist is less educated than an evolutionist just because he read a book about monkeys becoming men? Dude that is SO. FUKED. UP. you don't measure education on wether a person believes in something or not. WTF is wrong yo, **** getting cheaper or somin'?

Anti-intellectualism right there. The dark ages are coming again, thanks to people like you.

[Kiyom]

The education cannot be measured by what people believe, but I think that the ability to read is the one of its base: the evolution never claimed that monkeys became men but that monkeys and men share a common ancestor (that we don't really now yet and will maybe never discover, but that's another problem).

[Aihwa]

The education cannot be measured by what people believe, but I think that the ability to read is the one of its base: the evolution never claimed that monkeys became men but that monkeys and men share a common ancestor (that we don't really now yet and will maybe never discover, but that's another problem).

Actually, we have it pretty well mapped out.



http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2011/09/371.jpg



Unless game changing evidence comes into light (creationists, when you have evidence, feel free to present it, no, the bible does not work), this is truth.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

We won't evolve because we have removed ourselves from the system.


lol....how convenient. :moody:

31606

[Aihwa]

lol....how convenient. :moody:




Lets learn about evolution, this is natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth). Natural selection is the tool of evolution, the weak die, and with them, weak traits; Whereas the strong survive, their traits allowing them to thrive, and they pass them on. This is all proven fact, plain and simple. Humans however, are no longer effected by their environment (at least in first world nations) which accounts for our declining physical condition. Now in say... Africa, they're still affected by natural selection, weak children die long before they can reproduce, ensuring that undesirable traits are eliminated from the gene pool.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

Anti-intellectualism right there.


good god,man,you're like a broken record. geez louise. :/

31618