It sucks. I wouldn't speak of a God if I would not know Him. It would make my life much easier if I would accept evolution. But I cannot deny the truth that I know a God. So, evolutiontheory must be bullshit.

Written by [user id=30512] on 29.08.2008 at 19:27

...It would make my life much easier if I would accept evolution. But I cannot deny the truth that I know a God. So, evolutiontheory must be bullshit.

may i ask you about "old earth vs. young earth"?
sorry for off topic, i'm just curious...

Written by AiwiAstwihad on 29.08.2008 at 22:39

Written by [user id=30512] on 29.08.2008 at 19:27

...It would make my life much easier if I would accept evolution. But I cannot deny the truth that I know a God. So, evolutiontheory must be bullshit.

may i ask you about "old earth vs. young earth"?
sorry for off topic, i'm just curious...

Young earth

Written by [user id=30512] on 29.08.2008 at 19:27

It sucks. I wouldn't speak of a God if I would not know Him. It would make my life much easier if I would accept evolution. But I cannot deny the truth that I know a God. So, evolutiontheory must be bullshit.

Why? Where in the Bible does it say how God created life? It doesn't. In fact it says nothing about evolution one way or another. For me, it was evolution and other aspects of science that lead me to believe in God.

If the Bible flat out said "God did not use evolution" and we see scientific evidence of evolution, then there is a problem, but since the Bible doesn't mention anything on the topic, I fail to see how they controdict each other. Plus, if you read the begining of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew it is a poem, not a science text book.

I highly recomend you read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins.

Written by akatana on 01.09.2008 at 16:12

Once must shed almost all of the basic rules of christianity in order to accept evolution,

What do you mean by this?

Written by akatana on 01.09.2008 at 16:12

Written by Dane Train on 01.09.2008 at 14:55

Written by [user id=30512] on 29.08.2008 at 19:27

It sucks. I wouldn't speak of a God if I would not know Him. It would make my life much easier if I would accept evolution. But I cannot deny the truth that I know a God. So, evolutiontheory must be bullshit.

Why? Where in the Bible does it say how God created life? It doesn't. In fact it says nothing about evolution one way or another. For me, it was evolution and other aspects of science that lead me to believe in God.

If the Bible flat out said "God did not use evolution" and we see scientific evidence of evolution, then there is a problem, but since the Bible doesn't mention anything on the topic, I fail to see how they controdict each other. Plus, if you read the begining of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew it is a poem, not a science text book.

I highly recomend you read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins.

@Aei Ontos. Ah, the old faith over facts crowd, there should be a monument for these heroes of the generation of complete ignorance and bad taste.

Could you not under any circumstances accept the fact that this "truth" that you "know" is just subjective and personal and has nothing to do with the real world? On one hand you have the facts of nature, researched and supported by brilliant scientists in several independent fields and on the other hand you have you personal interpretation of a 2000 year old book with no evidence for it. Your unwillingness to accept reality shows to me that fundamentalism is not merely a problem of religious indoctrinated countries but is a matter of personal sanity/insanity.

At least I can't keep the lie up anymore. I must be insane. That at first, but now as second I want to make clear that I will at any possible time and under any possible circumstance accept that I cannot know and not understand the entire truth. Often I might be wrong. But I know the God of the bible so I know that I can be dead sure that the bible is true.

If I believe that the bible is true and that the bible is entirely true than, as you have already made very clear, evolutiontheory is wrong, at least partly wrong. I cannot present scientific evidence. You know that and it makes this discussion very difficult for me. And I know it sounds very arrogant to think that I know it better than these brilliant scientists. I am really sorry if I might have been very arrogant with this. But I know that there seems to be a lot of evidence against many details in the bible, but there is no theory that can explain the excistance of the universe and the excistance of any living creature without a God.

Science has not be able to create anything that could live in the future, even when aminoacids where created poisening gasses occured. The evolutionary case is not very strong when it comes to such main parts of the evolutionary doctrine. I might be insane, but you may try to expain it. I find you very faithful myself.

Written by Clintagräm on 23.04.2008 at 23:39

But I think that would be in opposition to a central idea of Christianity (and religion) and that is to have faith. One should not need proof to believe, that is why it is called faith, because there is no proof, and you must have a sense of doubt.

yeah, we're basically trapped, we want to know, but we don't need to know, and furthermore, we can't know(at least now)... it's almost as if we weren't intended to know.. yeah, mind-fucking..

Written by akatana on 02.09.2008 at 21:01

Written by [user id=30512] on 02.09.2008 at 17:49

At least I can't keep the lie up anymore. I must be insane. That at first, but now as second I want to make clear that I will at any possible time and under any possible circumstance accept that I cannot know and not understand the entire truth. Often I might be wrong. But I know the God of the bible so I know that I can be dead sure that the bible is true.

Not necessarily insane, that was not the point f my post. But it takes a certain mindset to believe in something so strong even if there is no evidence for it.

You don;t know the god of the bible, you think you know him. What if you were born in india or iran, you would have "known" allah or vishnu. Or what if you would have been born 1000 years ago in america, you would have not known of the god of the bible at all. Your knowing god is just subjective and that is my problem. I have nothing against people acting with conviction based on objective evidence but when it comes to subjective evidence I must say that it is frightening. Blind faith in subjective evidence is dangerous. Not necessarily regarding you but in general.

Written by [user id=30512] on 02.09.2008 at 17:49

If I believe that the bible is true and that the bible is entirely true than, as you have already made very clear, evolutiontheory is wrong, at least partly wrong. I cannot present scientific evidence. You know that and it makes this discussion very difficult for me. And I know it sounds very arrogant to think that I know it better than these brilliant scientists. I am really sorry if I might have been very arrogant with this. But I know that there seems to be a lot of evidence against many details in the bible, but there is no theory that can explain the excistance of the universe and the excistance of any living creature without a God.

look, I am not saying you are arrogant or stupid or anything, my only objection is that you are rejecting facts and the only thing I am proposing to you is not to discard your faith in god but to accept that there are several thing that we know for certain to be true about the world. Like evolution and the age of the earth, etc. Now, this all does not mean that there is no god, this just means that the bible is not true or at least large sections of it are false.

Let's say that there is a god. What is more plausible, I ask you honestly, is it more plausible that all evidence we have since hundreds of years is false and some old book which contradicts itself is true or is it more plausible that even if there is a god, this old book might be written by people who meat it allegorically or was modified during these 2000 years and thus not reflecting the truth about the world?

And again the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life are not related to evolution. Evolution only explains the diversity of life after life begun. The big bang theory and abiogenesis explain how life and the universe came into being.

Written by [user id=30512] on 02.09.2008 at 17:49

Science has not be able to create anything that could live in the future, even when aminoacids where created poisening gasses occured. The evolutionary case is not very strong when it comes to such main parts of the evolutionary doctrine. I might be insane, but you may try to expain it. I find you very faithful myself.

I don;t quite get your point. Are you talking about abiogenesis? I can talk about that if you want but look, if science does not know something or cannot explain some part of the world, why is it always that people put god in that place? I mean, 200 years ago we thought only birds could fly and look at ho we are flying now. Why is god the only alternative?

One more important thing about our two very different philosophies of life and knowledge.
In science it is ok to say "I don't know", in science it is ok to have doubts because that is an invitation for others to go there and explore and find out the truth. If your explanation for everything is "god did it" we would have not advanced one bit, such an explanation is not really an explanation as it does not explain anything.

Life was created in the laboratory by simulating an environment that was likely to have been found on earth at the time that life begun. Of course scientists are not 100% sure of the exact composition of the environment but they have good guesses. The point to all these experiments is to show a possible method by which life came into being and to show that it is possible that life begun by natural processes.

But I have to stress this out again as you make this mistake over and over. How life begun and how life evolved are two distinct theories who are not linked. One is abiogeneis and the other is evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis and while there is enough evidence for that too, it is nowhere near to final and certain. Scientists are always working to find out the truth. In comparison, evolution has a million times more evidence and better testable and supported by empirical evidence. The big bang and abiogenesis are harder to prove but evolution is not, it has been proven beyond any doubt.
How life begun is NOT a main part of evolution. If you want to disprove evolution then you just have to disprove the modification in relative frequency of an allele at a genetic place(locus) in a population. You would have to show that natural selection genetic mutation, genetic drift are wrong. All of these have been observed and tested millions of times. Evolution has nothing to do with how life begun.

About the arrogant thing. It was not about anything you daid or did or whatever. I just sensed I had to say this because I feld I had been arrogant in this. I don't know all, and many times my interpreatation of what the bible says may be wrong. I cannot reject all evolution while God might have supposed all living creatures to change. So, I wanted to state that my thoughts are not the highest thoughts and I don't want to be defending my own thoughts. When I just think the way I think there is a hugh risk of just being wrong and denying the facts. That does not mean that all scientist are always right, like in the case of the age of the earth. There is evidence that prooves the scientific theory, there is also proof that denies it. As I believe that the bible is true I am easier convinced of the evidence that proofs the bible than I am convinced of the proof that disaproves the bible. I realise this. I will try to stay open minded.

If I read the bible I realise myself, and I know that almost any studied person finds this out, that the bible must be a complete lie, or completely true. There is nothing in between. If we look at plausibility I think it is more plausible that the bible is entirely true than that the big bang for example is true. I think you must admit that the bible is more plausible than the big bang theory. right? I am not discussing evolution right now. When you want to talk about evolution abiogenisis is necesarry is you need to understand from where evolution has started. If the bible is more plausible than abiogenisis, what I believe, than macroevolution needs another foundation, which I think can't be found. But I don't know for sure. All the evidence that we have since hundreds of years still isn't much, and often seems to be very contradicting. Do you really think that the now known scientific theories are more plausible than the bible?

The bible isn't more plausible because people just made it up, but not for no reason there are people so certain of this truth that they are willing to die for it, and I don't mean for 70 virgins or so. People who only have to reject their faith and they will live and have everything they want, if they just give up their faith in God. They don't believe in crap like people on mars like in the televisionshows, they don't put themselves in ridiculous clothing, but are still very dedicated. And they might be wrong in certain parts, a very strong dedication just like that does not say anything about if it is true or not, but why do they believe so strong? If I look at myself it is because I know God.

God is the only one that has created life. Life is never made in a laboratory, you really need to check your sources.
I know that in the future there might be stronger evidence supporting that not all is made by a God, there might be not, but for today, we cannot be certain. And I want to know for sure how it works. And then, still doubt remains, even with evolution.

Written by akatana on 05.09.2008 at 22:23

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 16:51

About the arrogant thing. It was not about anything you daid or did or whatever. I just sensed I had to say this because I feld I had been arrogant in this. I don't know all, and many times my interpreatation of what the bible says may be wrong. I cannot reject all evolution while God might have supposed all living creatures to change. So, I wanted to state that my thoughts are not the highest thoughts and I don't want to be defending my own thoughts. When I just think the way I think there is a hugh risk of just being wrong and denying the facts. That does not mean that all scientist are always right, like in the case of the age of the earth. There is evidence that prooves the scientific theory, there is also proof that denies it. As I believe that the bible is true I am easier convinced of the evidence that proofs the bible than I am convinced of the proof that disaproves the bible. I realise this. I will try to stay open minded.

That's good that you want to be open-minded. Please tell me, what proof is there that the age of the earth is not that which scientists say it is?

Yes, you are right, scientists are wrong from time to time, but that is the beauty of science, it corrects itself. Now, most scientists would never publish unless they are absolutely certain of a finding but errors do occur, either from carelessness, naivety or pure bad intention. But in the scientific arena other scientists are always trying to disprove existing theories, that is why most errors are corrected in short time. So when you have a theory that is supported by tons of evidence and has withstood the brutal academic testing of other scientists over a long period of time one can be sure that the theory is true. The longer a theory survives, the more probable that it is true. Imagine, if a scientists would have proven evolution wrong he would immediately be a world star in the academic arena, nobel prizes and funding would be his. And it is quite easy to disprove evolution, find a primate in the strata of the cambrian era, or a rabbit fossil burried in the same depth of the geological column as a stegosaurus, find me one organisms that combines parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) which are not explained by lateral gene transfer. But so far no evidence to disprove evolution was found. No doubt that you will find a lot of websites that claim that they have disproved evolution but the truth is that not one of those is really scientific or has any real proof of their claims. Again, go to the scientific journals if you want to learn the objective truth based on evidence.

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 16:51

If I read the bible I realise myself, and I know that almost any studied person finds this out, that the bible must be a complete lie, or completely true. There is nothing in between. If we look at plausibility I think it is more plausible that the bible is entirely true than that the big bang for example is true. I think you must admit that the bible is more plausible than the big bang theory. right? I am not discussing evolution right now. When you want to talk about evolution abiogenisis is necesarry is you need to understand from where evolution has started. If the bible is more plausible than abiogenisis, what I believe, than macroevolution needs another foundation, which I think can't be found. But I don't know for sure. All the evidence that we have since hundreds of years still isn't much, and often seems to be very contradicting. Do you really think that the now known scientific theories are more plausible than the bible?

Actually the vast majority of religious people don;t hold the bible to be completely true or completely false, they interpret things. AS I said, it could be that there is a god but that man modified the holy book over the years and as such it diverges. One thing is clear, the bible was written by man. There are so many contradictions that it cannot be taken literally.

Plausible? Look, many scientific theories seem implausible to non-scientific and scientific minds alike. I mean when einstein published his work many scientists laughed or did not take him seriously, so outrageous were his claims that time and space is a single entity in the explanation of gravity. But evidence won, more and more scientists saw that the evidence supports einstein and so we are here today and his theory, implausible as it may be, is not disputed by anyone.

But the big bang is not implausible. Do you really think that these theories are just made up by some scientists when they are drunk? Theories are just the conclusions that scientists come to after studying the evidence. There is evidence for the big bang theory, otherwise it would not be a theory.

Look, do you know all the evidence for evolution, abiogenesis and big bang? I think not.
If abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang would have no evidence to support them then they might be regarded as implausible but as long as there is evidence they are not.

I must stress out again in scientific terms a theory is the highest rank of certainty you can have about something. That is why we say: the theory of gravity, the theory of electro-magnetism, the theory of relativity. Facts in science are just possible in mathematics. The nomenclature in science is different from what you find in everyday use of language.
When there is little evidence for a process scientists call it a hypothesis.

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 16:51

The bible isn't more plausible because people just made it up, but not for no reason there are people so certain of this truth that they are willing to die for it, and I don't mean for 70 virgins or so. People who only have to reject their faith and they will live and have everything they want, if they just give up their faith in God. They don't believe in crap like people on mars like in the televisionshows, they don't put themselves in ridiculous clothing, but are still very dedicated. And they might be wrong in certain parts, a very strong dedication just like that does not say anything about if it is true or not, but why do they believe so strong? If I look at myself it is because I know God.

People have been dying for the most absurd reasons and convictions, and people of all faiths have converted from one religion to another if their life was threatened. The fact that people are ready to kill themselves for a god which cannot be proven demonstrates to me that mankind still needs to grow up. Hundreds of years ago people burned women because they feared they were witches, because the bible said so, but since then humanity has matured. Just because the human race is in it's infancy regarding rational thinking does not serve as a proof for the validity of religion.

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 16:51

God is the only one that has created life. Life is never made in a laboratory, you really need to check your sources.
I know that in the future there might be stronger evidence supporting that not all is made by a God, there might be not, but for today, we cannot be certain. And I want to know for sure how it works. And then, still doubt remains, even with evolution.

Urey and Miller created the basic building blocks of life back in 1953. They replicated conditions on earth millions of years ago and accelerated the process and they got organic compounds like amino-acids which are the building blocks of life.

When life begun it was not even remotely as complex as today or even as complex as the most basic single-cell organism we have today. Early life did not even use DNA to replicate but RNA. In the primordial earth there were many gases in the atmosphere like hydrogen, hydrogen-cyanide, methane, ammonia, etc. For the formation of DNA one has to look at how the 4 basic nucleotides making up DNA formed. These base pairs within DNA, which actually transfer the genetic code, are made of simple nitrogen-based compounds. Scientists were able to synthesize many of the components of DNA from gases. In 1960 Juan Oró synthesized adenine, one of DNA's four bases and also a key component of ATP (adenosine triphosphate). After the formation of nucleotides the next step is the formation of polynucleotides which was also shown in the lab in 1980. These polynucleotides then joined to form RNA (ribo-nucleic-acid). And these strains called RNA are able to make copies of themselves. Thus you have the first self-replicating organic compounds. The first basic RNA strands copied themselves inaccurately, and over millions of years they grew more complex because of these changes in their copies until DNA was formed. The single strand thus became a double strand with the difference that these more complex DNA double strands need proteins to replicate, proteins which are made of amino-acids which we saw can form naturally. The DNA molecules were in the same enviroment as lipids which have a natural tendency to stick together due to their physical attributes. Thus DNA strands which connected themselves to these lipids were protected by lipid membranes. And this is the first primitive cell which over 3.7 billion years evolved and became more and more complex eventually turning into the first complex cells that are at the starting point of complex organism that we see today.

These are all chemical processes which are known to happen.

If you go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez you can search for "dna formation" and you will find over 25000 scientific articles related to the topic.

If you search for amino-acids you will find over 34000 scientific articles and if you search for dna you will find 50000 articles written by scientists and reviewed by the scientific community . And this is just on of thousands of journals containing scientific articles on genetics, biology and evolution.

Age of the earth things:
-The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
-Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
-Soft-sediment deformation?that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
-Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures' bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.


I haven't found contradictions in the bible yet. Of course I see that some people in the bible writing the same story have another priority when they are writing, so that some parts are missing in one story where they are present in the other one. But real contradictions, I haven't found them yet. Of course, I have read the bible only once fully. Even though the bible is already for some hundreds of years under attack, it still is very plausible. Of course it depends which scientific theory you choose, because one theory contradicts the other. I don't want to laugh about any scientist, not at all. I take them all very serious. But if two theories contradict each other, than one must be wrong.

I don't know all the evidence for evolution, big bang or abiogenesis, neither do I know all the evidence that contradicts it. It must be tons of evidence. As long as there is evidence that contradicts it it can hardly be published as truth.


Urey and Miller created nothing but a mess. Yes, they created a view very simple aminoacids, but they all fell apart within seconds and they created almost only poisoning gasses that would completely destroy the acids if they would meet the acids. Still the point stands strong: No life can be created within a laboratory.

Written by akatana on 06.09.2008 at 00:02

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 23:27

...

do you just copy-paste from creationist sites? Those false claims they make have been denied a long time ago. If you want the truth then such sites are not the right source. Look at their references, they all are form creationists sites, creationists books or journals, none is from a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. Every idiot can go on the internet and post ridiculous claims about anything, there is even a site with "scientific" evidence that the world is flat.
The only method to check claims is if they have been peer-reviewed by actual scientists and have been subjected through the process of verification in the academic arena. All other material is not valid. Wake up, you would not belive that the earth is flat just because it is written on the internet.

Please, believe that I am not blind, that's all I require.

Written by akatana on 06.09.2008 at 00:02

Written by [user id=30512] on 05.09.2008 at 23:27

I haven't found contradictions in the bible yet. Of course I see that some people in the bible writing the same story have another priority when they are writing, so that some parts are missing in one story where they are present in the other one. But real contradictions, I haven't found them yet. Of course, I have read the bible only once fully. Even though the bible is already for some hundreds of years under attack, it still is very plausible. Of course it depends which scientific theory you choose, because one theory contradicts the other. I don't want to laugh about any scientist, not at all. I take them all very serious. But if two theories contradict each other, than one must be wrong.

I don't know all the evidence for evolution, big bang or abiogenesis, neither do I know all the evidence that contradicts it. It must be tons of evidence. As long as there is evidence that contradicts it it can hardly be published as truth.

There is no evidence contradicting evolution. Find me one , just one from a respected peer-reviewed journal.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=18&hid=7&sid=d2e7f81e-66df-4656-ab64-dcfe6dfe798b%40SRCSM2
If you read this article, please tell me how this fossil was preserved so much. In the article there is spoken about a mudflow that may have caused it.

Written by akatana on 06.09.2008 at 00:02

... they advocate praying over medicine so next time you are sick just pray that you will get better, don;t go to a doctor. I am done debating imbecilic, insane and moronic creationist ideas.

What they are doing in their spare time, if they are doing so which I doubt, is their bussiness, not yours.

Written by akatana on 09.09.2008 at 20:12

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.09.2008 at 14:46

Please, believe that I am not blind, that's all I require.

as long as you only regard creationist fraud I can call you nothing else

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.09.2008 at 14:46

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=18&hid=7&sid=d2e7f81e-66df-4656-ab64-dcfe6dfe798b%40SRCSM2
If you read this article, please tell me how this fossil was preserved so much. In the article there is spoken about a mudflow that may have caused it.

yes, so what about the mudflow? Even today there are mudflows, I don't get you point. But if you show me the article as a proof that evolution is wrong then I have to remind you that the article talks about the early cambrian era which was 42 to ~510 million years ago, that does not fit well with your creation story. I did not read it very attentive because I am busy but from what I get it's about a find of a fossilized worm which shows some distinctive features. How exactly does this article disprove evolution?

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.09.2008 at 14:46

What they are doing in their spare time, if they are doing so which I doubt, is their bussiness, not yours.

The point I was trying to make is that you as a person rely on medicine that was to a great extent discovered using the fact of evolution, and I refer to genes in particular, and yet you disagree with it. In that case you should disagree with all the treatments out there that use evolutionary findings and just rely on your only book of knowledge who uses prayer to cure disease.

I do not deny all science, I do not deny all evolution either. I do deny that from evolution other forms come into excistance. Like that humans would come from 1 celled creatures. I do not deny anything according to genes. But I think that the changes that evolution can cause are too small to change anything really big.

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.09.2008 at 21:38

...

But I think that the changes that evolution can cause are too small to change anything really big.

If you believe the world has only been around for 5,000 years then you are correct.

However, evolution can actually work in a world that is billions of years old. Even with only tiny changes, you must agree that a lot can happen in five billion years! That's plenty of time to produce phenomenal results such as human beings.

Let's suppose a tiny evolutionary change happens once a year. (Real evolution happens a lot faster, but let's leave it at once a year to illustrate a point.) So what happens after five billion years? Is there any way to picture five billion tiny changes?

Imagine holding a tiny speck of dust that is, let's say, 1/10 of a millimetre across. Now imagine lining up five billion similar specks of dust, side by side. What you get when you're finished is a very thin line of dust that's 500,000 kilometres long. Let's try to understand just how far this really is:

1) Starting from the surface of the Earth, your line of dust specks will extend past the orbit of the moon.

2) A modern jetliner would have to fly at top speed for three weeks to get from one end to the other.

3) A family car traveling a safe speed of 60 km/h would have to drive non-stop for almost a year to get to other end of your trail of dust specks. That's 12.5 times around the Earth.

So how did we get from a little bit of dust, barely visible to the human eye, to a distance astronomical in magnitude? Simply put, five billion is amazingly huge. It is also the accepted age of our planet in years. When scientists talk about evolution - about small changes eventually producing big results - they're working with a timeline that does make it possible.

The timeline suggested by the Holy Bible would make a line of dust specks only 50 centimetres long, so I can understand if evolution seems absurd to you. Under those circumstances, I'd be suspicious of Darwin, too!

So what? Because I'm part of a religion I can't post on a thread about religon?

This is a very interesting topic.

I was raised as a catholic but was actually never interested in going to the church, I just didn't see the point and I had better things to do.
I don't think I fit in any particular religion or belief system, because I look around a lot and incorporate anything that appeals to me into my life.
That is why I always try to be as open as possible to new ideas that seem plausible to me.
Conciousness is the most interesting thing of our lives, and I think it is worth the respect and wonder about it.

I think we are here to live and to love, nothing more magical or special.
I don't know about any afterlife, but it doesn't seem logical. Let alone heaven or hell.
If there is a deity or God, I don't think he punishes or rewards, or send people to heaven or hell.
To me God is everything, the entire universe, and is perfect.
It doesn't need to do or achieve anything because it is already everything, it just is, and it doesn't judge.
Nothing within the universe can be perfect, only the whole can.
But that brings me back to the God thing, it is really just a label. You could call it anything you want.
Just like saying you believe in love in all of us and at the same time say you are a Christian of Hindu confuses me. Because do you really need those labels or groups that identify themselves with a religion to live for what you believe in?
That's why I don't really consider me an atheist or agnostic as well, I'm just me.

What is it called when a question is the answer to itself?

I just came a cross this and, while it was written more as a joke, I thought it had a good point.

Written by Dane Train on 04.03.2009 at 18:55

I just came a cross this and, while it was written more as a joke, I thought it had a good point.

No, It's just being superstitious without suffering from the harms of the "opium of people".

Quote:
superstition (plural superstitions)
A belief, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that future events may be influenced by one's behaviour in some magical or mystical way.

So no, I don't think it's being superstitious without the benefits of community and ritual.
But it depends on what you consider to be spiritual. I prefer to approach things of this matter as philosophy.

With regards to "creationist"...couldn't the Earth have been created out of matter from other places? Isn't it scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for something to be created out of nothing? The bible mentions absolutely nothing about God creating the Earth out of nothing...if there were to be a God creating this earth, he would have used something to make it. Just because there are fossils that are millions of years old doesn't really disprove creationism...because there could have been other creations during other time periods. Not to mention Genesis is a very symbolic book. Religion will never disprove science.

Written by Konrad on 09.03.2009 at 23:23

With regards to "creationist"...couldn't the Earth have been created out of matter from other places? Isn't it scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for something to be created out of nothing? The bible mentions absolutely nothing about God creating the Earth out of nothing...if there were to be a God creating this earth, he would have used something to make it. Just because there are fossils that are millions of years old doesn't really disprove creationism...because there could have been other creations during other time periods. Not to mention Genesis is a very symbolic book. Religion will never disprove science.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you suggesting that fossils are from some sort of pre-Earth?

I do not know exactly...but I believe that there are living things on other planets, in other galaxies or universes. Due to the discovery of fossils, we know that creatures existed...but they could have also been created in other creations...but perhaps creation isn't a good word since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it only changes forms. Thus, I believe that we are living on a planet that was organized by God, but it doesn't mean God didn't organize other planets, and it also doesn't mean other God's didn't create other planets. I believe I only have one God whom I should worship, but it dosn't mean there cannot be other God's. I believe every human being has the potential to become like God, meaning God once was not a God.

The right word is "absurd!". I explain, we are either getting fooled by some strange geochemistry or we've trully found evidence of life in the outer space. I personally think that we are getting fooled. The sun takes up almost 95% of the solar system, and then Saturn and Jupiter takes almost all the rest leaving a tiny little mediocre fraction to the earth. Given that the solar system takes up the tiniest portion of our galaxy and that there are billions of galaxies out there still virgins, I wouldn't persume thinking of any prejudices. Plus, seeing that all the planets tought to be holding an important quantity of liquid water have been discovered and yet not a single glint of life.

For a reply to a deliberate broadcast.we would have to wait around for 200 years seeing that the nearest galaxy is about 100 light-years away from here. Well if you can do that Konrad, let me know .

Considering the fact that we haven't figured out a way to live without killing, stealing and raping each other, I think there is much we have not yet discovered. How do you know there aren't life forms even on the sun? Just because mechanisms we've had for a couple of years haven't detected them? Or laws we have made up that relate to this planet don't comply with other planets? It's funny most people accuse Christians of being close-minded and institutionalized...you are accusing me of being too open minded.

I know what you mean.
I've been asking myself the same thing sometimes.
But there actually have been documentaries about this. Theories about creatures that could live in the thick atmosphere of Jupiter, just floating around their entire life.
But you have to consider things like temperature when thinking about this. You mention the sun, and I don't think it's a strange question, but I think the sun is far too hot for any kind of life. Even extremophiles can't stand that. Then there's the extreme radiation.
I'm just trying to think in logical ways why life can't exist on certain places, but I'm not a scientist so I don't know enough of this.

I think we can't really be the only form of life in this universe, or even galaxy.

I'm not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, instead I consider my self to be a spiritual person. First for the difference between the two to clear up and misunderstandings.
1 - Religious is the belief in a divine being through an organized religion of sorts with set rules and beliefs that can not be broken. For example the Catholic church, even if they don't follow their own beliefs at times. So essentially a Religious person follows a set or organized religion with set rules and beliefs.
2 - Spirituality is a belief in a divine being on an individual level. A belief in god for example without the brick building called a church and priests telling you how to worship said god, even if they have a lesser understanding of the universe than you might.

Now back to the topic at hand, my beliefs are kind of strange and cross over to a multitude of organized religions. On top of all of that I believe that if there is a god, then he dosen't really care. He would probably get a laugh at our stupid antics than go and observe another of the likely many thousands of civilizations out there. What makes us so special that we would be the only civilization in a universe which has exist for an estimated 20 odd billion years. for which we have existed in our current for just 10000 years. That means if god created man in his own image than he must have waited a hell of a long time to do create us.

I should have made this into some kind of business, but I found a way that all of our fancies (spiritually, religiously, or what have you) can be real! God can be as real as a chair! Spirits can be as real as a piece of ice! You want it, you name it!

"...neurons process all of the "information" that flows within, to, or out of the CNS [Central Nervous System]. All of it! All of the motor information through which we are able to move; all of the sensory information through which we are able to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, and to touch; and of course all of the cognitive information through which we are able to reason, to think, to dream, to plan, to remember, and to do everything else that we do with our minds."

http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/neurons_intro/neurons_intro.php

I have been pondering this for some time so I want to ask you guys what you think? Besides being the ultimate loop-hole and cop-out, doesn't this make all things real? We use our senses to interpret the world. Senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) are all simply INPUT (electrical signals) sent from neuron to neuron telling us what we feel (or see, taste, hear, or smell) and thus makes that real to us. (By real, I mean what most of us judge to be physically real.) But there is another facet of our being which isn't acknowledged by our senses, and that is everything mental. You could mention love, hate, spirituality, and so forth. If this information is processed the exact same way (from neuron to neuron) in the exact same form (electrical signals), doesn't this make something like God or spirits as real as a chair since we are basically only interpreting electrical signals either way? Have I found the answer and now we can all be happy and realize that whatever we think, is real? Let me know. Note the sarcasm, but this could be a legitimate debate, I think. And please excuse my ignorance of neuro-science. I could be totally wrong. Cheers!

But in that case you can defend all the schizophrenics who claim to see and hear persons that they define as real in the same way.
It's interesting, but maybe a bit far fetched as well.
It really depends on how you define 'real'. Remember The Matrix?

I am not claiming to know what is real, by the way.
A few months ago I got the idea about that I wouldn't mind it that I'd live the life I do but at the same time being unconcious or lying in bed my entire life but not realizing this.

I work at a place where they take care of people with mental retardation, and this brought up another idea. Maybe we're all like those people and just not realizing it because we percieve everything in our own way. It might as well be a sign that I work here for too long already.

Written by Twilight on 10.04.2009 at 14:15

It really depends on how you define 'real'.

But what we define as real, if this whole neuron business is correct, is simply electrical signals. It's the exact same for everything else. It'll be a sad day when everyone realizes that their life is only electrical signals that their brain processes, but if it's true, then what? That means everything is the same as everything else.

The problem is, that what you said about solving the problem of a God or spirit or anything isn't really getting solved on that level.
Because only a few people will probably experience these electrical signals, and not everyone.
So I don't think you can bring the definition of 'reality' down to 'electrical signals'. It's more than that.
We can experience dreams as intense as real life, maybe even more intense sometimes. Does that make dreams real?
No, because it's a product of your subconciousness, in your own mind. And it changes everytime you dream again.
Yet, since we can see, move, feel, hear and smell in our dreams, it could be defined as real.

Reality is something that keeps on existing even in places where noone is around to percieve it.
It's something that we all percieve (or experience) in the same way.

Written by Twilight on 11.04.2009 at 12:01

It's something that we all percieve (or experience) in the same way.

Via these electrical signals. That's what I am saying. If everything is perceived this way what makes one "thing" more real than another? Maybe we'd like to think life is more than electrical signals, or an amalgamation of cells, or what have you, but I largely believe that is simply a product of our self-awareness, our eternal blessing and our curse.

Written by Clintagräm on 11.04.2009 at 18:19

Written by Twilight on 11.04.2009 at 12:01

It's something that we all percieve (or experience) in the same way.

Via these electrical signals. That's what I am saying. If everything is perceived this way what makes one "thing" more real than another? Maybe we'd like to think life is more than electrical signals, or an amalgamation of cells, or what have you, but I largely believe that is simply a product of our self-awareness, our eternal blessing and our curse.

Where did this blessing and curse come from?