>

I honestly have no opinion of the big bang theory. Discussing it further would render only speculation. I need a better understanding of the idea before passing judgement on it.

When I included feelings with my description of faith, it was meant as the inclusion of a love for (a) god(s). Faith is merely a strong belief. If you want to play with words about how someones feelings are seperate from their beliefs go ahead. I don't think its a far cry to say that ones love for god leads them blindly.

What alternative theories seem silly to you? What I have a hard time wrapping my hands around is if some theories are silly, why does one in which a being who has ultimate power, knowledge and wisdom to create, control & change a seemingly huge universe not seem silly?

When I think about why someone would believe in god several reasons come about. First and foremost is parents. Religion is taught as truth as a child for many and it is wrong to be debated. I dont think its any secret what many at least christian organizations did in the last 1,000 years to the people who refused to believe. Second is that people like the cozy, secure feeling etc. A distant third comes the "its the most plausible explanation" reason. This is because theres no evidence. So when I at least weigh things that can be explained to something that someone long ago decided existed, its no contest.

I'm also not saying my belief here is subject to any less criticism. You can criticize it all you want. The problem is, the argument science vs. creationism can never fully blossom because people who argue for god have little argument. Theres no evidence, theres hardly anything to go on besides, "if it doesnt exist prove it" or "because the bible says so" or "beings are so complex it had to be thought out by a super-being." None of that is valid argument. So it ultimately goes no where.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 1:11 AM

just jump on youtube and search videos by brettkeane.

>

Whats invalid about that argument? I think its a damn fine one.

Its not an argument because its 100% opinion.

I'll add: if I say, ok: let's take the eye for example. Why can't that have been created naturally. Why do you think it had to have been created "intelligently?"

For me personally; I like keeping things simple. That eye has millions of rods and cones and if I were to create the perfect eye I'd include lets parts.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 1:29 AM

>


i skimmed through most of this thread.... but there are explanations for what happened before the big bang. i believe one of them is called M-Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Now what I'm about to say is very interesting if you strongly beleive in the evolution theory. Well...I find it very interesting.

They say the whole world started as a single organism that spawned into all that exists, over millions and millions of years.

what is the most simple living organism? A cell? yes!

but wait a minute..a single cell.. how do you get to a cell?

A cell contains various but very simple mechanisms, exterior membrane, reproduction system, suicide system..etc..

If you beleive the cell "evolved" from something else, there goes the problem, you just cannot remove one of the cell's system, the cell just cannot function properly without one of those very simple mechanism...it could live without the reproductive system, but eh...that would be the end...

I'm going to stop and make you think now



Just looking at the cell diagram..Its hard to visualize how everything started from zero.

This post has been edited by Rayme: Feb 26, 2007 - 5:40 PM

Pardon my haste but, just because you have a hard time visualizing what started from very little (not 0) and changed in a time period of billions of years doesnt change a single thing.

After re-reading your post, which I guess you think makes someone think about things except the fact that your implying a cell isnt a cell unless it has all those things inside. Your looking at a contemporary model of a cell. What your saying is that if a part of the contemporary model doesnt exist, the cell cant function or "live." And that maybe correct, but doesnt change the fact that it started out as something different and improved and changed function as time went by.

Whats the most simple thing RIGHT NOW? Maybe a cell. But billions of years ago it could have been the most complex...

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 5:51 PM

>

animal cells (like you pictured) are not very simple. you make it sound as though the single cell had to just appear. it took millions of years for the first cells to evolve, and they were very primitive. bacteria will give you a better example. more complex cells, such as plant/animal cells evolved from these earlier cells. even the mitochondria (organelles in animal cells) are believed to have been independent cells that then became part of the larger animal cell.

http://www.godexistence.com/five.htm

I am a Christian and at one point i doubted the existance of God and you all got some good points but this website has ALOT of good points

lol and I believe in dinosaurs

This post has been edited by pepsiman: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:14 PM

Pepsiman - theres not a single good point in that website. All those "rules" are nothing more than "should"s and "there is a creator."

It clearly states "General Proofs" but theres not a single proof of anything. Its not hard to grasp that concept either so why are many being fooled by stuff like this?

General Proofs:

Rule 1:
"For everything made, there is a maker"

This statement isn't supported by any real facts. They take examples like a table, and attribute it to life. You cant compare something that you can actually watch be created from something else and compare it to something like the beginning of life.

Rule 2:
A power by itself, unless mastered by intelligence, could destroy instead of building.

If its a rule, why is there could in the statement? Any power, could do anything. Whats their point?

Rule 3:
There should be a first maker.

This isnt a rule, this is an opinion.

Rule 4:
In the beginning was a very intelligent being who put together the atom.

Not a rule, opinion again.

Rule 5:
There is a very intelligent being who made both the atom and the solar system, who is all almighty, all-powerful, and all intelligent.

see above.

Rule 6:
People called an artist who started a wonderful piece of art, a creator, not just a maker. Then for this intelligent being who started the atom, and the matter along with it, and from it everything else, isn’t appropriate to call him “The creator.”

Basing rules off of something thats not proven...x4.

RULE 7:
The universe should be made by a person because of the beauty that is illustrated everywhere in the universe. The beauty must come from a person with a lot of sensitivity, feelings and a great touch of beauty.

Should again, wow opinion runs rampant.

Not a single one of those is actually a rule. This is convincing?

What I'm trying to do here is find some sort of argument thats FOR a "creator" or god. I personally do not believe there is, but thats because I don't see any empirical evidence for a creator. Thats not to say there CAN'T be one, but the more we explain things once attributed to the power of god, the more unlikely his existence becomes, and the farther from what has been described as a god it becomes therefore the existence of a "god" as described doesn't exist. Long path I hope I explained it well.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:28 PM

of course you are all right, but the whole picture is at some point, you cannot go from simpler to simplest, something will not work. I didn't create that problem, I've seen a show on it.

Its the same principle as what if you would cut something in half forever..at some point it would be impossible.

I'm not saying I'm right, im just showing the theories of why I don't beleive in creation from zero. A single string of DNA is in itself, very complex, and all living organism has it...now how the most simple life form can be ramdomly created and have all the systems necessary to start the whole evolution tree? its my 2cents.

>

Aren't comedians supposed to make fun of society and their child-hood and what not?

With that aside.. I believe in a form of evolution.. I believe we were created by something a higher power not from evolutions theory.

But people like an explanation to things.. Evolution to me is a theory and people can take it or leave it I don't care.

I believe that evolution happened after we were created... so maybe God (Term for higher power, life form or society..? whatever you want to think) created us billions of years ago.. primative.. and set the laws of evolution and then walked away. I also believe that .. if you want to look at the bible for creation story.. 6 days to God or a higher life form isn't equivelant to what we humans see as 6 24hr days.. I think for God each day may be millions or a billion years. To back this up.. since I'm already talking bible.. it is stated that God is the beginning and the end.. not under "times" constraint at all.

So I like to think of each day in the creation story as being 1 billion years.. that would be plausable. I do not believe that the earth (and heavens) are only 5-6000 years old..

Also .. if there is a God as the bible describes, than everything we research today could be of his invention.. to keep us occupied as we became more technologically advanced.. life would be a very boring dull event with out things to explore and discover.

I do think it was wrong for that excuse of a comedian to bash on evolution and whatever else... What's the deal with that? (har-har).

As for religion, I think it's fantastic.. except for the radicalist parts.. every religion has it's radicals.. Christianity is blood stained from the beginning.

But in itself religion is great.. It helps people to have a moral ground.. Whether or not in the end religion comes out to be true or not (As in, there is no God or higher power etc..) it wasn't/isn't a bad thing.

That is just my 2cents.

>

Let's add more thought.. If you don't believe in evolution, than you believe in creation. What has always made my brain come to a screeching hault and let out the biggest fart known to man is: What or how was God created? Our entire existance and everything around us is a total mystery..

Just thinking of how vast the universe is... What I REALLY love is anything pretaining to black holes.. I was watching a show on Discovery about it.. with Stephen Hawking.. Just blows my mind to think what possibly happens around and in a black hole.. The theories on it are amazing.

>

If you dont believe in creation for zero, which has nothing to do with evolution, then why do you believe in god at all. The bible says the universe was created in 6 days...

Punisher - Evolution isnt a "theory" as the common person takes it. Its a scientific theory. As in the Atomic Theory (everything is made up on atoms) or the Theory of Relativity. How would someone accept the Atomic Theory, and not Evolutionary Theory. Its not just an idea that you can say oh yeah it didnt happen. Its got so much evidence supporting it that it stands with the theory that atoms make up everything.

If I get this right - your saying god created something, billions of years ago with the intention of it becoming an "us"?

What you seem to be doing is changing around the bible to fit your own personal conflicts with. Its plausible if ... or It'd make more sense if you changed this...

I think a fair statement would be that you believe in a something, but not so much a "god".



I agree with the blackholes thing. Its hard to grasp a gravitational force so strong it doesnt let light out, making it invisible.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 7:47 PM

>

Uh.. I said that an idea to ME.. is that GOD created us.. and set evolution into action and let us evolve.. I do believe in evolution to an extent.. that life can adapt to it's surroundings given a long period of time. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. It is a theory, I don't care how much "scientific" fact someone claims to have. We can answer exactly how we were created.. but we can't cure cancer?

I think it would also be a fair statement that you are acting like a pompous ass now. You ask for peoples idea's and believes.. why? So you could try to scientificly shoot it down and tell us what WE believe? I believe in GOD as in a CHRISTIAN GOD. Take your fair statements elsewhere.

You are set on what you wish to believe in and so am I, there will only be head butting over something that neither of us can prove to eachother.. so there is no point in arguing about it.

PS> I said IDEA TO ME.. as in it is one of many idea's I have.. they are just my personal thoughts on something that I spend maybe a collective hour each year thinking about. I do believe fully that the creation stories 6 days are not really 6 24hr periods.. because to a being like GOD (yes, once again I believe!) there would be no such thing as minutes or days.

This post has been edited by Punisher: Feb 26, 2007 - 8:10 PM

>

Who said I beleived in the bible?

How about another theory, that life always existed, there was always life and will have life forever (on a universe scale), that there was no beginning and will never be an end. Life might be just organism flying from place to place and creating a large tree of evolution wherever it fall. If you think about it, its not anymore stupid than saying that the universe is infinite, which scientist says it is.

>

Well there you go. You dont have be going off and getting rattled and calling people names. Thats what happens when you are ill informed and your called out on it. Calling the Theory of evolution just a theory and you dont believe in it like its something you can just dismiss as if there wasnt loads of evidence for it. If you cant argue like someone who can sit and explore your own thoughts and ideas in a manner which is civilized, then make yourself absent in this discussion.

All I've done is state what is arguable, not arguable. Points that are backed by evidence and points that are only opinions which have no factual basis. You can THINK the evolutionary theory is just a theory but your wrong. Whether or not you can deal with that fact is up to you. Its evident you cannot and therefore resort to name calling.

I asked about evolution, not your beliefs. Go re-read it. I didnt ask about whether or not you believe in god, or what evolution is to you. I dont care what god you believe in, and since my fair statement was spot on considering if you believe in a Christian God, evolution didnt happen. So I can tell you right now, you dont kno wtf you believe, because everything you say contradicts something else.

I am not SET in what i WISH to believe. I see and hear and observe and I come up with a conclusion based on that. I dont believe in evolution like you believe in god. I see facts and agree with a conlcusion and explanation.

You summed up alot of narrow minded people in what you've said. You spend a collective hour, in a year thinking about something that controls your life. I think about this constantly. I re-evaluate what I believe all the time because thats what scientists do. They go back, rethink, retest. Its not that I dont want to believe in a god, so i dont. Its that with everything there is. believing in a god doesnt make sense to me.

Your first post showed something of a conflict between trying to believe in god and wrestling with all that science shows, and your second post here shows very clearly that your one dimensional.

I created this thread to get an idea on what peoples' take on evolution was. Not the beginning of life, not the existence of god, not what you think happened billions of years ago.

When people present what they think are facts or arguments that are arguing for the existence of a god that evolution never happened and that we are the way were were created, they are often invalid and basically garbage. I didn't make them that way, thats what they are. I just say it out loud. Sorta. I'd be saying the same things in person I promise that. I'm not saying nobody cant pick apart my beliefs, please do. I challenge them everyday myself and I honestly do it nearly everyday.


>

You said you did?

This discussion is so off base that its ridiculous. Evolution, isn't an explanation of how life began but how life has changed over the years to what we see today.

Its a real shame alot of people argue dont know what they're arguing against.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 26, 2007 - 8:42 PM

You know Super... people who believe are not gonna stop believing no matter what evidence or proof is shown. The design of religion is to reduce individual questioning of the universe to accept what is God's ultimate truths, so providing evidence only proves as a challenge and only strengthens belief itself. Pointless really. Understanding has to be gained independently.

Beyond that... I also don't expect much in terms of understanding or free discussion with the religious side ever (let alone HERE!)... unless these religious folk are theologians or philosophers in their own right. People in general do NOT distinguish between disproving of "Supernatural beliefs" such as Creationism and Miracles and such. "Supernatural beliefs" IS NOT the essence Christianity. You can take all of that crap out, and Christianity is still Christianity. Science, be it evolution or whatever is COMPLETELY compatible with the essence of religion. The essence of religion is LOVE. Love thy neighbor as thyself. What does that have to do with natural selection? Nothing really. It's ignorant literal interpretation of the bible that causes all of the headaches. Christian theologians will confirm literal interpretation of the bible is in fact... ignorant.

To close... Spirituality is fine and dandy and so long as you understand that religion is a guide to living a moral and just life; you can be a good religious person and believe in Science and evolution. It's the Supernatural stuff, the magic that people tend to believe in that is in contradiction to science.

>
Life in fact is NOT infinite. Energy, however, is. Our human interpretation of life is limited to our planet. Don't call that a theory unless it's a real Theory.

Sorry I mixed it, I took in consideration that people that beleive in evolution follow the thought that life spawn in a soup of molecules, and that there was the other group that thought that everything was created by some "god". Usually its creation vs evolution. I think origin of life = evolution and goes hand in hand but I guess its not universal.

-And I didn't mention the bible , actually I try no to mention religion, it goes nowhere..

>
You're from Canada... I doubt you guys up there have the same sort of problems with fundamentalist ideas as we do in "religious" America.

Religion was "created" long before "Christ" even existed. Religion was only made-up because people questioned why we were here on this Earth.

There is no perfect religion. If there were, everyone would be practicing it. A perfect religion, to me, is something that is proven true. Like for instance.. if Jesus "came back" or something.

God, I sound so intelligent. *sarcasm* Maybe this only makes sense to me. I tried explaining it to my boyfriend and he looked at me stupid.

everyone else is quoting posts...I wanna too...

>
B-I-N-G-O
>
B-I-N-G-O
>
and Bingo was his name-o

Kwanza sums it up pretty well IMO
expressing my personal religious opinions is NWS

Having let this topic rest on my mind for a day, I came up with something I think might be useful to contribute.

A person who believes in God does so out of faith. If we could prove (in the scientific sense) that God exists, there would be no faith needed to believe. Thus, a person who belives in God will always be unable to convince the person using deductive logic of the proposition. If all you have in your arsenal for intelligent thought is logic, you will be unable to conceive of the possibility that absolute truths might be found through faith. Its simply not logical.

Why is this important? Because if you are searching for the answer about whether there is a God, you will NEVER be able to answer that question scientifically.

So, if not logic, what do you base your belief on? There are many answers for this question but none of them will satisfy the scientific skeptic.

Lets try a little different tact on this. Why is it important that something be "provable" to be believed? I just argued above that if its provable, it requires no belief. Notwithstanding that, lets take something more simple than the existence of God.

Do you believe that being exposed to art (music, theater, etc) can effect fundamental change in a person?
Do you believe that laughter gives a person peace?
Do you believe that people need other people to lead fulfilling lives?

The answers to these questions may be opinions, yes. But they can also form the basis of a deeply held beliefs. The answer to these questions will never be able to be proved scientifically. Does that make them any less "true"? - I know what your thinking: "theres no scientific truth to those things". Thats not my question. My question is does the fact that no one can prove that laughter gives a person peace mean that the person who believes must be incorrect? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE SO FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT LAUGHTER GIVES A PERSON PEACE????? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!!!!! And the implication is that because it can't be proved, the believer must be wasting his time on a blind guess.

This gets us back full circle to one of Erik's original statements. He said something like religion is based on feelings and blind faith. Lets just say he meant "faith" for purposes of our discussion here. My response to that, as I mention above, is that he is absolutely right. However, because I make room for the possibility that both conclusions reached through scientific thought and those reached through belief can be true, I don't consider the conclusion to be an indictment of religion like he does.

> yes you can..
brain scans ftw im just being a jerk i know what your getting at.
>
science does prove this, in a sense. the universe had to be created. no matter how you look at it.
something just doesn't suddenly exist. im not talking about man made things. but some thing created the initial force that created the universe. the universe has laws, if those laws were slightly off like the force of gravity was a little bit weaker or stronger the universe would not have worked out the way it did.
hmm maybe i don't believe in God as much as I believe in a creator. but whats the difference?
im just waiting till 2012

I see what your trying to get at, but your analogies aren't quite the same.

Take laughter for example. Laughter produces endorphines in the body. Endorphines are like a drug to the body, and in fact, creates a calming, soothing reaction. So laughing bringing about peace in someone is actually scientifically fact. It can be reproduced in a lab over and over again.

Humans, by nature, are a social being. Does one NEED human contact to live, no. Do they need human contact to live a fullfilling life, maybe. Depends on who your talking to and what their idea of a fulfilling life is.

If art creates a fundamental change in someone, its not the art that does that, its the persons thought processes and reaction to the art form. Art now can be said is a catalyst for change, but not a cause.

Edit: Typos

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 11:25 AM

people like to believe in things. it keeps them going, and for some keeps them leading a good life.

no, religion is not necessary for individual survival. neither is art or sex, but for some people these things improve quality of life and for others it makes no difference.

religion doesn't necessarily have to refer to believing in a god. religion is what you believe in, whether it be one god, two gods, or none at all. if you're open minded you wouldn't try and force your religion on anyone by trying to convince them yours is correct

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 12:44 PM

>

Evolutin isnt "just a theory." Its scientific theory. Theres a difference.

Where are you getting your information?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Its disturbing seeing such strong willed arguments and saying "no chance of the eye evolving" when you dont have the facts.

Quotes from Charles Darwin:

Intro to Evolution of Species

"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality."

"We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act. "



This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:00 PM