Evolution or God????. . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonStarer420

I'll use Mount Ararat and assume 5200m.
This means that during the flood (according to the bible) about 6.3x10^17 m^3 of exess water was on the surface of the Earth. Assuming sea level was the same before and after. This is about 1.8 times the volume of the Atlantic ocean or approx. 2/5 of the current volume of water on the surface of the Earth.

So either the flood wasn't of the madnitude the bible claims or the sea level before the flood was much much lower.

I did this using the volume for a sphere, the radius of the Earth, the radius plus the height of Mt. Ararat and that website for the volume of water in the oceans.

---

No law of nature is broken if you really look at the account in genesis for the way the world was origionally (genesis implies the world had a different atmosphere....."the waters were divided and the gap was called sky"...water ON the earth as well as water ABOVE it) as it would have a different climate, and not to mention different plant life pre-flood. Therefore it's feesable (if you're willing to give it a try) to assume that because there was a canopy of water above the earth at this time, and that "floodgates of the deep were opened" (water coming up from the ground-we still don't really know what's down there) that it would ammount to enough water to drown the whole earth. Not to mention the Ice Age dudes! It's accounted for if you believe in the genesis flood as well! I'm saying a lot of science goes into creationism. It's less developed and newer than evolutionism, but the SAME facts and the SAME evidence is used to argue both cases...now it can't be a matter of science, but rather a matter of science in the hands of PEOPLE.

Therefore to prove, using science, that the bible is wrong is impossible, because you can prove, using science, that the bible is right as well. Now the question is an entirely new one grounded in what you're prepared to accept as true, outside of what "fits" YOUR lifestyle. It's a question of philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danish Hashhead

god.... GOD??? Who the hell cares?!!!

Seriously, you all need to stop contemplating things like these, you will never be wiser from it.

Anyway it really doesn't matter if there is a god, lets just hope, that if he does exsist, that none of the religions, are right about him, cuz then we're all screwed.

---

Are you ever greatful for what you have in your life? Do you thank yourself for everything that you love?

I'm not debating the existence of God, just expressing myself in a more mature manner.

THONGY -
i was not thankful to see the pictures of you in your chonies with you nut sack twisted up in a knot...

but my sister was....
love

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garden Knowm

THONGY -
i was not thankful to see the pictures of you in your chonies with you nut sack twisted up in a knot...

but my sister was....
love

---

Sister??? Did you say "your sister"?

Cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars

It's funny but there is also countless evidence FOR creation. The idea of creation however would require the teaching of religion. It's because, for some reason, religion isn't allowed to be taught to the public in our multi-culteral continent.

There have also been countless changes to the theory of evolution. New evidence is always changing old ideas, whereas creationism has remained intellectually defendable and unchanged (that is creationism according to the bible)

www.answersingenesis.org has a LOT of creationism information

---

Yes, but you see that website contains what can be described as 'unmitigated bollocks', non of it having been proven or to have any evidence to support, other than that completely fabricated by those of the great oxymoron, Christian Scientists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars

...assume...canopy of water above the earth at this time, and that "floodgates of the deep were opened" (water coming up from the ground-we still don't really know what's down there) that it would ammount to enough water to drown the whole earth.

---

When you assume your only allowed to make an Hypothisis. If you find evidence for these underground chambers, then I'd be more willing to accept theses ideas. If a lot of this water was in the atmosphere then Earth would have defenatly been a much much hotter place, for H20 is a Greenhouse gas and would absorb aserious amount of the Energy from the Sun. I guess I feel that many of the explanations (not only for this flood but for many other ideas from Creationists) lack qualitative models. All the places on the Web I've found give poor (and twisted for physics and Astronomy) answers. Not To mention I cant find a single puplished scintific paper anywhere. I mean where did all this water go? Back into the ground? It would have needed to be under pressure (or needed some other potential energy) in order to work against gravity to reach the surface. Then where would it have gone? back under water? Polar icecaps? There still seems to be many questions to be answered in order for this idea to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars

as creationists are the only one's who believe it and therefore are the only one's who bother researching about it

---

I doupt this, many cultures from around the world (muiltiple sources) have incorperated a flood story into their cultures. So I don't deny it has happened but I seriously doupt it has happened to the magnitude of what you speak.

I mean were still talking only about biological evolution. It's only a part of the total evolution of our Universe. What about Hubbles constaint? The abundances of metals and Hydroden and the Big Bang? Fusion and nuclear synthesis inside of the Sun and their use to determine the age of globular clusters? The existance of Dark matter and Dark energy?
Evolution (of both the cosmos and biology) are very strongly supported by quantitative and obsrevational evidence. Not becuase Scientists want it that way but becuase the evidence points to it. Creationism will never be a solid theory because it depends on "God" who is not directly observable.

btw: " the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago" Did yours happen 5999 years ago? Or did it happen during the 6 days? I don't know too much about the Bible.

Water can be lifted into the atmosphere and burnt up by the sun, it doesn't have to hide in a corner. Augh! My hands are greasy, I just ate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy LOVElife,

I voted for God being the Creator,of course. :thumbsup:

There's been found to be some degree of fakery involved with scientists attempting to support the Darwin model--even outright fakery,why would scientists have to resort to fakery to support Darwin ?

I don't see how anyone who tokes marijuana and understands just how complex a plant it is,can believe that Nature evolved a plant that can do so much good for so many folks with different problems and needs. Why would Nature even evolve such a plant ?

I believe that God created marijuana for us to use as medicine,and that He created hemp for food,fuel,fiber and medicine too,hemp also has the ability to clean-up the enviroment,as well..why would Nature evolve such a plant ?

When I sit in my living-room and see the way that a single doobie,can help an epilectic feller,my gal with her pain and depression and me,with my bad back and arthritis,all at the same time and each of us with our different problems..it strikes me -- that only God could create such a wonderful plant,capable of helping each person with their diverse problems and ailments..how is it--that so many of y'all..don't feel that ? What have y'all done to yer souls ? Where's yer spirituality ? How can one be only half of what one is ?

Have a good one ....

---

BTTT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flavour

All you have to do is look at the poll results so far EVOLUTION BY A MILE :) . Look around you it is so obvious 2006 and years of brainwashing and you guys still aint met the guy . You would think he'd make an appearence just to shut us non-believers up would'nt ya ? Do The Evolution Baby !!!!!

---

Like a poll on this board would convert a real christian. He will be back..alot of you on here have all the right words right now..hope you make your peace with God before he does decide to "come back".

^^^^ 2006 years (apparently, I mean what proof is there) and counting! Nothing so far......man, I'm off to enjoy life before I'm worm food - and nothing else!

the better poll would have been

Darwinian Evolution

or

Intelligent Design

^^ No, as ID is fundamentally flawed as a theory (who designed the designer?) where as there mounting evidence for evolution, and Darwinian theory

It's just that current evidence points to an intelligent designer due to irreducible complexity. Which is that all of of a system had to be there at the same time or else it wouldn't work, not that it evlolved part by part.

I'd question how the Bombadeer Bettle evolved as it mixes two chemicals in perfect ammounts with a delayed firing mechnism. If anyone of those parts are missing you have a dead beatle and dead beatles can't reproduce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faultydesign

It's just that current evidence points to an intelligent designer due to irreducible complexity. Which is that all of of a system had to be there at the same time or else it wouldn't work, not that it evlolved part by part.

I'd question how the Bombadeer Bettle evolved as it mixes two chemicals in perfect ammounts with a delayed firing mechnism. If anyone of those parts are missing you have a dead beatle and dead beatles can't reproduce.

---

I'd ask you to point me to the bit of extensive reseach (or current evidence)that 'points to an intelligent designer' however I think you will struggle, other than looking at non-scientific studies in this area. If there was an intelligent designer, who designed the designer? How can you have a body that designs everything...without itself having not been first designed? Paradox! Dont work dude!

And if its systems theory (lets take the works of Bertalffeny) then you are incorrect about need all parts in the first place. Consider entropy etc. Again, its a flawed arguement, however if its a key tenet to your faith that helps you sleep at night, then you go ahead believing in it.

I'd question you to give me concrete evidence that evolution is true.

Oh I wont, and I cant, but I can point you to several works (start with oxford.ac.uk) that would indicate an overwhelming case for evolution being correct, and works in nearly all scientific fields that would corroborate it.

As a scientist, I welcome you to prove me wrong - as thats what science is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faultydesign

I'd question you to give me concrete evidence that evolution is true.

---

even if we can't find even a small piece to prove evolution, that doens't mean squat towards proving creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garden Knowm

Believing in god is like beliveing anything.. it is just a belief...
beliefs are fleeting thoughts in fleeting lives..

this does not mean there is not a god... it just means that if you believe in god.. it is nothing else other than a belief... no more powerful, no more helpful, than believeing in Santa Claus, or Gravity or the bible.

Is there a way to KNOW something?

if you are feeling immediate answers pop up to these questions,
or rebutals to others POSTS and statements..
if you are being "reactionary" then this is a clear sign that you are "in your head" or in belief mode... this is the constant state of 99% of the planet...
most people are so "reactionary" that they don't even know it..
The thought in their heads come one right after another .. with no GAP no SPACE..
They are UNCONCIOUS... if you point this out to them, they will wake up for 1 second.. and then quickly go back unconcious and become reactionary.. defending their false IDENTITY...based on their beliefs...

is there any other state...
YES
you can choose to evolve.. choose to be with "god"... you can choose to "BE"...
you can choose to take your awareness out of the mind and BE..

Your eternal self is AWARENESS... humans have pointed their awareness at their mind for so long that they have become confused and think that they are their mind.

It would be as if you were in front of your computer so much that you forgot you were a human.... it is that insane...

If you wish to see or experience a glimpse of what you really are... you will most likely have to sit in a non reactionary state. Stilness...SITTING ...

your mind will never allow you to have this glimpse of BEINIG of GOD..
no amount of praying, or going to church, or doing LSD or smoking weed... NO AmOUNT will allow you to get a glimpse.

You will have to conciously choose to evolve... You will conciously have to choose to evolve and become one with "GOD"... to beome I...

I AM..

Many people have experiences that put them
in a state of BEING...
A state of I AM..
A state of LOVE..
A state of STILL MIND...
A state in which ones awareness is not held captive by the mind.
When this expeience of I AM...LOVE.. FREEDOM... BEING... GOD... (what ever you want to call it) is over... when one once again becomes captive of the mind...

The mind will make up an explanation.. a belief... it often comes in the form of religion and people turn to god and this leads them back to their mind... away from just being.. they go back to beliefs.... belief that preserve their false IDENTITY
I AM JO BLOW, STONER, CHRITIAN, FOOTBALL PLAYER, BLAH bLAH bALJAJKHAKJHz

LOL - look at all the posts above this one.. reactions of the mind... defending a POSITION or attacking anothers position in order to solidify the ones own IDENTITY... andthe foundation of the minds identity is BELIEFS... NO BELIEF is TRUTH... belief are only relative truths....

the truth is... I AM...

LOVE
the opposite of BIRTH is DEATH
LIFE IS TIMELESS
YOU ARE LIFE
LOVE

---

Ya dont have get all techinal about it m8

My personal opinion is the darwinian theory but this isnt 100% proven and never will be (like everything else in this world, nothing is 100% proven because every person has their own perspective and will percieve differently to the next person). This is the same with religion, it's unproven. Each person interprets things in their own way (whether it be with religion or anything else). This is because of their own life experiences which has lead them to belive what they believe now so whos to say either theory is more correct than the other.

Of course we have our own opinion and it's based off things we believe (our self evidence which allows us to believe either of the theories) but to force your opinions on another is unfair because you don't know whether you would've done the same thing having been in their life.

When you assume your only allowed to make an Hypothisis. If you find evidence for these underground chambers, then I'd be more willing to accept theses ideas.

It seems more than reasonable to provide hard evidence for such a claim. This isn't something that is feesable for either side (the evolutionairy, or creationist) of the argument as no one from that time is alive today. Therefore we must also maintain this mindset when looking at both sides. (where is this "missing link" btw? The man-ape) The bible makes some sort of claim to be insight from God, and in this insight it talks about a global-flood. In describing this event, it backs this claim up with as much scientificly rational illustration as to give an accord for its own questions. Asking "where did the water come from", or "where did the water go" are questions more or less already answered elsewhere in the bible (specifically genesis). You say that I would require evidence such as underground chambers, when in reality we all know there is water under the earth; enough to provide wells, rivers, systems, circuits, and bodies. We even now do not have first hand knowlege of what is inside our earth, save what we've found in exploration of minerals.


If a lot of this water was in the atmosphere then Earth would have defenatly been a much much hotter place, for H20 is a Greenhouse gas and would absorb aserious amount of the Energy from the Sun.

You're absolutely right. I would even go further and say that our atmosphere WAS water. This could potentially explain why life was different in Noah's time (living 900+ years, etc) as things such as the sun's radiation, environmental stability, and ecosystem would be closer to that which was God-intended for mankind.

I guess I feel that many of the explanations (not only for this flood but for many other ideas from Creationists) lack qualitative models.

And evolutionists don't? The idea of evolution stems off of some form of scientific truth, we'll say, an absolute scientific truth, and therefore is feesable and (in a sense) accurate as well. Theories such as adaption, even to the point of sub-dividing a species, are probable and even provable. The conflict comes when mankind's "scientific truth" conflicts with what scientific truth I have with God (in my bible), backing it up with a series of arguments that all stem from one small untruth. Evolution's account for man's existence is therefore, to me, unbelievable in both my heart and my mind. That one small point that they missed was not a scientific point at all, but rather a spiritual one. Our carnal nature has turned us away from God, and the light, therefore we must change anything we see that would indicate that light was there.
I liken it to telling some one a story, and at some point during the beginning you leave out a small detail that you don't want that person to know. You continue to tell your story, but since you left that one detail out, you now have to leave out all the aftermath that stemmed from that one detail. Before you know it, you've had to change your story all together to account for leaving this detail out.


All the places on the Web I've found give poor (and twisted for physics and Astronomy) answers. Not To mention I cant find a single puplished scintific paper anywhere.

Yeah, all the "atheist" web pages I looked at tend to attack creationists themselves, more than their work.

I mean where did all this water go? Back into the ground? It would have needed to be under pressure (or needed some other potential energy) in order to work against gravity to reach the surface. Then where would it have gone? back under water? Polar icecaps? There still seems to be many questions to be answered in order for this idea to be taken seriously

I've responded with that exact statement (the last one in your paragraph) to many of those that support the religion of evolution. I would have to say that we do not, in our current state, know all the laws of nature (including physics), therefore we can not say what it would take to move water up or down or whatnot. The iceage is something biblically implied as aftermath of the flood. That would also change the date or our Ice Age from 10,000 years to something more along the lines of 4500BC. (How long have humans been keeping record anyway?)


I doupt this, many cultures from around the world (muiltiple sources) have incorperated a flood story into their cultures. So I don't deny it has happened but I seriously doupt it has happened to the magnitude of what you speak.

You've made it obvious that you have a mind, and i'm glad to see that :). The flood IS a legend around the world (along with dragons I might add ;))

Evolution (of both the cosmos and biology) are very strongly supported by quantitative and obsrevational evidence. Not becuase Scientists want it that way but becuase the evidence points to it. Creationism will never be a solid theory because it depends on "God" who is not directly observable.

The god in a lot of peoples heads is one of a complete human nature. We cannot invent anything without putting a little bit of ourselves into it. The God of the bible claims to be the creator of everything. That is everything. The god in our heads is one that is completely subjective. Everyone's would be a little different if that were the case. If God is an all together real thing, than obviously there is a little bit of him in ourselves. God claims to be the perfect good, and therefore by observation we can see God when we see the good that exists in every person. Likewise we see a carnal nature; one that is sinful, and at a distance from God. This is where we observe the bent-goodness we know as "bad". My claim is that God is the most observed thing, something we are constantly striving for (whether we know it as "God" or simply the "things that please us" is due to our relationship with true goodness, or our bent-goodness due to sin-something that we indulge in but is entirely un-good) Everyone has caught themselves lying to themselves at one point, almost as if one part of them were trying to shut out the other. There is obviously some natural form of schizophrenia inside all of us, a moral truth, and a carnal nature battling it out in that which we know has human morality. This is the closest we get to observing the little piece of God that we have in us as individuals.

Aside from that, we're told that it is abundantly clear through our creation; it's perfection (having even perfected death), the complexity behind it, but most importantly the "purpose" behind everything (as if each part of reality were commanded to fullfill it's task) that is a part of it. The law of light and sound, and the way these things can all ammount to something pleasing (music, color, etc) to the individual, or things such as smell, or gravity, or heat all ammount to some use for humanity. A fish might just as well have no light, or gravity, or law of thermodynamics, but it certainly lends itself in humanity's use (even survival).

btw: " the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago" Did yours happen 5999 years ago? Or did it happen during the 6 days? I don't know too much about the Bible

Given that our outlook on life is completely different from the outside worlds, this is simply as endless a debate as the topic at hand. The idea behind christianity is that we accept that the world has chosen to remain blind to the real truth...a betrayal of that truth, so it is in the christian's hands to find God's truth.

Hi, I'm high.

Concrete evidence of evolution is between your fingers and toes, and in the corner of your eyes.

Where do you think the "webs" we used for swimming, and the "second-eyelid" to keep the water out, went? A little ball in the corner of our eye and disproportionate hands and feet.

Crocodilians, along with birds, are the only survivors of the once-prevalent Archosauria. During the Mesozoic (245-65 million years ago) this group, including dinosaurs and other reptiles, dominated life on all continents and in the oceans. Most or all of crocodilians' adaptations had already evolved by the late Triassic (about 200 million years ago). Crocodilians are the most advanced surviving reptiles; many of their features are more similar to mammals or birds than to other reptiles.

Crocodilians' eyes are immobile spheres covered by three eyelids: the third eyelid, the nictitating membrane, is transparent, but protects the eye from water.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed...rocodilia.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

Hi, I'm high.

Concrete evidence of evolution is between your fingers and toes, and in the corner of your eyes.

Where do you think the "webs" we used for swimming, and the "second-eyelid" to keep the water out, went? A little ball in the corner of our eye and disproportionate hands and feet.

---

Hey dude, I'm high too (hense my 2 page essay on whatever I was talking about above...sorry if I tend to ramble :P)

On one side of the argument, you could look at the "webs" (to be honest, it takes a lot of imagination to see them as such) and the second eyelid as an argument for evolution. We obviously needed to develope these things if we were to survive in water.
On the other side of you have an argument in favor of an intellegent designer. We ARE able to survive almost anywhere on our planet, and it seems that this second eyelid (something I have only thought of when you mentioned it) and the webbing between our fingers and toes makes us properly suited for water. Why should we believe that these things needed to evolve in order to exist? Why wouldn't we just happen to be creatures (the only creatures) that can comfortably adjust between land (any) and water. Even a frog must stay where its moist.

The question isn't in the evidence, because somewhere in that evidence is a true answer, and a false answer, and obviously people are in disagreement between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

Crocodilians, along with birds, are the only survivors of the once-prevalent Archosauria. During the Mesozoic (245-65 million years ago) this group, including dinosaurs and other reptiles, dominated life on all continents and in the oceans. Most or all of crocodilians' adaptations had already evolved by the late Triassic (about 200 million years ago). Crocodilians are the most advanced surviving reptiles; many of their features are more similar to mammals or birds than to other reptiles.

Crocodilians' eyes are immobile spheres covered by three eyelids: the third eyelid, the nictitating membrane, is transparent, but protects the eye from water.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed...rocodilia.html

---

See, I think there is a lot more to learn from animals that have actually been around that long. My only quarrel with this information (other than the time lines that they propose) is that if most crocodilians had already evolved by the late Triassic period (200 million years ago) than an overwhelming amount of change should have occured since that time, wouldn't you think? Realistically humans evolved over something like 60 million years (according) into what we now are and this crocodile seems to be content with it's current state.

Yes, a lot have changed. Into Humans!!! A lot haven't been fortunate enough to make genetic mistakes.

Which really gets me thinking? Maybe Crocs are God?

Currently, the function of the appendix, if any, remains controversial in the field of human physiology.

Hypothesized functions for the appendix include lymphatic, exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular. However, most physicians and scientists believe the appendix lacks significant function, and that it exists primarily as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...iform+appendix

why cant both theories be correct, to a point. maybe god created stuff and then evolution started. that makes more sense than lightning striking primordial soup and creation life and it makes more sense than god creating the world in a couple days.

so there, i geuss you all dont have anything to argue about now that i'm right.

My stance is I don't beleave ether, but I do consider most modern religions as baseless, so I said evolution. God can't make you if there is no god....

I believe in Creation but adaptation. God created everything in the beginning then species adapted for survival.

The science shown to support evolution keeps faling. carbon dating has been proven inacurate. There's no transitional fossils to support one species veoled to another.

the Bible holds up under true scientific scrutiny.

Here's link to the 2005 Scientific Breakthrough Of The Year, " Evolution In Action".

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../310/5756/1878

And here's an excerpt:

All in the family
One of the most dramatic results came in September, when an international team published the genome of our closest relative, the chimpanzee. With the human genome already in hand, researchers could begin to line up chimp and human DNA and examine, one by one, the 40 million evolutionary events that separate them from us.

The genome data confirm our close kinship with chimps: We differ by only about 1% in the nucleotide bases that can be aligned between our two species, and the average protein differs by less than two amino acids. But a surprisingly large chunk of noncoding material is either inserted or deleted in the chimp as compared to the human, bringing the total difference in DNA between our two species to about 4%.

Somewhere in this catalog of difference lies the genetic blueprint for the traits that make us human: sparse body hair, upright gait, the big and creative brain. We're a long way from pinpointing the genetic underpinnings of such traits, but researchers are already zeroing in on a few genes that may affect brain and behavior. This year, several groups published evidence that natural selection has recently favored a handful of uniquely human genes expressed in the brain, including those for endorphins and a sialic acid receptor, and genes involved in microcephaly.

The hunt for human genes favored by natural selection will be sped by newly published databases from both private and public teams, which catalog the genetic variability among living people. For example, this year an international team cataloged and arranged more than a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms from four populations into the human haplotype map, or HapMap. These genetic variations are the raw material of evolution and will help reveal recent human evolutionary history.

BELOW:
Chimp champ. Clint, the chimpanzee whose genome sequence researchers published this year (CREDIT: YERKES NATIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

The science shown to support evolution keeps faling. carbon dating has been proven inacurate. There's no transitional fossils to support one species veoled to another. the Bible holds up under true scientific scrutiny.

---

False False False and you've given no example of this last "point."

Where are you getting all your information? The reason why evolution has such strong support from the scientific community is because evidence supports evolution. Carbon dating is very good at determining an age range for "young" (in compairison to the age of the Universe) fossils. And there are some fossils that show simularities in diffrent species of fossils. Check out the fossils of early hominids.

You don't even need to see fossil records for evidence of evolution. If one species is seperated into diffrent groups, so that no genetic material can pass from one group to the other, after time they will differ enough though mutations and variation to form 2 new species. Ex: There are a few new species of Cardinals arising on Hawaii. They were introduced there after the islands were colonized.

[QUOTE=Pyramidsonmars]

Quote:

---

The god in a lot of peoples heads is one of a complete human nature. We cannot invent anything without putting a little bit of ourselves into it. The God of the bible claims to be the creator of everything. That is everything. The god in our heads is one that is completely subjective. Everyone's would be a little different if that were the case. If God is an all together real thing, than obviously there is a little bit of him in ourselves. God claims to be the perfect good, and therefore by observation we can see God when we see the good that exists in every person. Likewise we see a carnal nature; one that is sinful, and at a distance from God. This is where we observe the bent-goodness we know as "bad". My claim is that God is the most observed thing, something we are constantly striving for (whether we know it as "God" or simply the "things that please us" is due to our relationship with true goodness, or our bent-goodness due to sin-something that we indulge in but is entirely un-good) Everyone has caught themselves lying to themselves at one point, almost as if one part of them were trying to shut out the other. There is obviously some natural form of schizophrenia inside all of us, a moral truth, and a carnal nature battling it out in that which we know has human morality. This is the closest we get to observing the little piece of God that we have in us as individuals.

---

That's an imensly flawed argument. This is what's called "begging the question", in which the proposed conclusion is used as part of the explanation. you're claiming we've observed god through the nature of god within us, under the as-yet-to-be-proven assumption that the natural human state is the result of god-induced quality. There is no evidence to support that the nature of the human consciouness is the result of gods influence, other than the assumption that the claim of such conditions is true.

I'd like to point out here that creationism is not truly a theory, it's a hypothesis. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, it must stand up to scientific experiementation. Until one of you designs a scientific experiment that can test for the existence of god, creationism is just a hypothesis.

Also, just because darwinism/creationism is faulty or wrong doesn't mean the other one is right. You guys are assuming there are only two possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by streettrash

Also, just because darwinism/creationism is faulty or wrong doesn't mean the other one is right. You guys are assuming there are only two possibilities.

---

I agree, I was going to post here but didn't because it was so long, and there totally needs to be more possablities than that. The problem is that either possability has possablities within them. For instance, Creationsim means God created us right? So say that is what you believe but you don't believe in reincarnation, and some who believe god created us do. And just because one may believe that god created us, it doesn't mean they subscribe totally to the bible.

It is such a huge idea, not something I think any one group can ever fully understand as humans. When we die, then we will KNOW. Until then I just take what resonates with me, I don't worry about the label that has been put on it. My beliefs come from all kinds of sources, that tend to back eachother up, just in different words. And I am always open for new info to add to my growing spiritual belief system. I think it is a life long cycle. We are constantly learning new things, if we are open to seeing them.

My 2 cents anyways,

Eva

god did not create anything..the universe was not created by a big bang or anything..it just is its hard for humans to understand there is no beginning and no end. humans were always here they will always be here for all of eternity..i know ur thinking wtf is he talking about..i know its hard to understand but its like trying to understand the real world while ur mind is trapped in the matrix..keep in mind everything i have said and will continue to say may be and probably is completely wrong..i think words could probably only explain about .0001% of reality..give or take.

Evolution, God, God, Evoloution. As it really makes a difference. We are here and here we will be. (sorry for repeating words like that, wasn't trying to xD) Wither this "God" put us here or not will never be truly known. I like to blend the two. I have some faith in the idea of God. Not the Bibles point of view on God but my point of view.

Why can't it be like this? God (go along with this for a few moments before you "prove" it wrong) Created the basics of life. He/She/It left the life to fend for itself. To grow and expand on its own, and so it did. Over time it grows (evolves if you will) to the point that we are now. We still grow, and in time we will be something else. At least with this idea you can believe in God and the evoloution theroy.

Of course...Thats if you believe other of these ideas. Like pure, street, and sistar said before me, their are more possibilities. I for one do not Believe that "God" created us (because I believe God is a state of mind, an idea of hope and peace, but thats not the point right now) or that we have evolved as darwin put it. There is something we are missing, something that we just can't seem to see, or we see it but do not wish to reconize it because its very idea can change how we see the world and the universe.

Well...whatever. I might be way off here but hey its only a thought. I have no way to prove this much as any of you do. Still, its nice to wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureEvil760

god did not create anything..the universe was not created by a big bang or anything..it just is its hard for humans to understand there is no beginning and no end. humans were always here they will always be here for all of eternity..i know ur thinking wtf is he talking about..i know its hard to understand but its like trying to understand the real world while ur mind is trapped in the matrix..keep in mind everything i have said and will continue to say may be and probably is completely wrong..i think words could probably only explain about .0001% of reality..give or take.

---

what in the name of Iron Maiden (was just looking at my flag) are you talking about? I'm pretty sure humans didn't walk with the dinosaurs, let alone at the beginning of our volcanic earth and before there was an earth..... um..... could you pass some of that shit?

What other possibilities would there be? Either we were placed here, or grew up here.

u guys dont get it u ever here the quote '' playing god '' but what if we actually are god couse u can see us cloning sheep ect ect... making new breeds of mary jane u see this is another thing to think about when it comes to god

nd believe it or not im not stoned....Lol:p


edit: what if we were dropped on earth with amnesia and we just adapted???? man i got a bunch of these

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

What other possibilities would there be? Either we were placed here, or grew up here.

---

You're creating a false dilema argument though. just because dont' currently have a full explanation for the origins of everything, doesn't mean there isn't one. limiting ourselves to "either god put us here or we evolved" isn't going to serve us well in finding the true answers.