A question about evolution

Jump to Last Post 1-24 of 24 discussions (261 posts)

66
aka-djposted 12 years ago
I just posted the below in another thread, but, because it can get lost within all the other posts, I decided to repeat it in it's own new thread.
Here it is:

I am so amazed!!
I look at the human body, and with what little I know, it is SSSOOO intricate, complex and perfectly well tuned to function, and then I listen to all the mutation and adaptation crap dished out as if it really is true, that it makes me shake my head.
Why the *%&#$ would something just somehow come together into a "body" and live, and be self coscious, social, reproduce and learn?
GIVE ME A BREAK! You all call yourselves "intelligent" & "rational".

Just take any single organ/system in the body, and look into all it's complexity etc, and then explain to me (no, everyone) why, and how, "mother nature", with no intelligence, purpose and no "knowledge" would make it so?

I eagerly wait for a REAL explanation.

(PS, pls do not include the words adaptation amd mutation). Thanx

PPS, I'm 55, and I don't have much time to wait.
reply report
1. 0
  ShaunLindberghposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi aka,
  
  My first response to this, especially since you're 55 is, "Why does it matter?"
  
  Your comment " how, "mother nature", with no intelligence, purpose and no "knowledge" would make it so?" is surely equally applicable to god.
  
  How did something supposedly so much greater than creation come into being? And please don't use "god always existed" That's not a satisfactory answer.
  
  I don't buy evolution or god and creation.
  
  Why does it matter to you TODAY?
  
  Why not invest your valuable and limited time evaluating whether the bible truly is the inspired word of god and living consistently with what Jesus taught like;
  1. Sell ALL your possessions and give the money to the poor.
  2. Go into the world an preach the gospel. And to quote Jim Rohn "Talk about things that matter to people who care.
  
  Get it wrong and you might be toast!
  reply report
  57
  exorterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the word says you are to take care of your own household first.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the "word" says to abandon all ties and possessions, leave and travel sharing your testimony. Read the book dude.
  reply report
  57
  exorterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you need to take your own advice
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We miss the point to Jesus' teachings when we refuse to take into consideration that he was speaking to That Hebrew peoples that just 100 years later were carried away and scattered through out the rest of the Roman Empire.
  
  There was an urgency for the message to be given to all of those people of the day.
  
  When that Hebrew Nation ceased to exist ... All of those prophesy that had been given to them would have to have been fulfilled.
  
  Just as Jesus said that they would be !!!
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Hebrew nation has been "reborn". So, the prophecies are revived, Yes?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did not intentionally ignore any post! over the last few day.
  I have been working like a young man (Manual labor)
  Too pooped to pop.
  ========
  
  I don't think that the rebirth of Israel causes those prophesy of old to ALL come back to life.
  
  But I do think that it indicates where we are at in prophesy.
  
  I think that the woman described in Rev. 12, that gave birth to the man child that is to rule the heavens and the earth, that was persecuted and carried away into the wilderness "WAS" that Hebrew Nation that was evicted out of their homeland.
  
  The 42 months that she will be fed there, and the 1290 days that she hides from the face of the serpent; and the 1335 days as mentioned in Daniel 12 should be converted by a prophetic timeline comparison as is also given in Daniel 9.
  
  62 weeks = approx 568 of our years.
  42 months = approx 1645 to 1650 years
  1290 days = approx 1683 years
  1335 days = approx. 1735 years
  This equation , a week = APPROX. 9.13 or 9.16 of our years.
  Apply these number of years from 149 AD
  42 months...and we arrive at approx. 1794 when the Hebrews began migrating back into the Promised land.
  
  1290 days ... from 149AD brings us to approx 1835
  In 1844 the caliphate signed a decree of tolerance allowing Hebrews to enter the towns.
  
  "Blessed is he who waits unto 1335 days. ... brings us to approx 1884 ... I believe that this indicates when the final season is to begin. Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit.
  
  I do not remember where I read it?? But in the LAST and Final days of indignation Israel will be given their land back for A generation. A generation is said to be approx 70 years.
  
  1948 plus 70 years = 2018.
  
  Again I mention that this equation is an approximate figure.
  reply report
2. 58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where would you get the notion that our bodies are "perfectly well tuned"? They are far removed from that and are riddled with problems, inefficiencies and left over "junk" from previous evolutionary adaptations of our past.
  
  I only see from your remark a complete non-understanding of the human body and evolution, an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
  
  I would suspect a great deal of study on your part is required to help you understand evolution and why your question is irrelevant and unnecessary. Good luck.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  I have done enough medical study to satisfy me just how wonderful, (awesome) the human body really is. Yes there are inefitiencies, but BOY are we wonderfully made for life on this planet.
  
  Please answer the question as asked though. That would be far more helpful.
  TY.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  did you do self-study or formal study? Familiar with genetics? Humans seem very complex (and have a bit more cognition than other animals and therefore conclude the world was made for them), but many plants and even single-celled organisms have a far greater gene pool than animals and humans.
  
  For example, the amoeba (which doesn't look very complex at all) has a genome 200 times that of humans (source: the rough guide to evolution by mark pallen)
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, there are so many variety of species that are completely different from us that live on this planet, too. I still don't see what it is your driving at? What is your point?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  not to mention allergies and other disorders
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ....because the body is meant for use-and-throw...it is not eternal
  reply report
3. 0
  Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So basically, your argument is "it is so complicated and I can't figure it out even though I obviously won't research anything, SO, the magic man in the clouds did it." Right. Excellent logic on that one. Did they teach you that in kindegarten?
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, Kindergarten.
  They tried to stuff my head full of evolutionary fantasy, which I rejected inlater life based on logic and (not so ) common sense. I think you guys call it REASON.
  God, by definition is NOT some "magic man in the sky". But if that's how you see Him, I can understand you ridiculous answer.
  Thanx.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  maybe you didn't get the correct information. You don't sound particularly open-minded
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Open minded is a blanket statement.
  I am about some things, but not others.
  
  EG, as far as I am concerned God IS. There is no open minded nuthin there.
  
  2+2=4. No open minded there either.
  Etc...
  reply report
  72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you get 2+2 equals 4, but how does that relate to god being a definate.
  
  The equation for lightning should be when negative charge created by friction > positive charge of earth = lightning (simplified)
  
  However until recent times the equation for lightning was simply 'god'
  
  Just as maths has progressed, science chips away at everything that an almighty figure was once needed to explain.
  
  There is no logical connection to God anymore.
  reply report
4. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  [71:14] ‘What is the matter with you that you expect not wisdom and staidness from Allah?
  [71:15] ‘And He has created you in different forms and different conditions.
  [71:16] ‘Have you not seen how Allah has created seven heavens in perfect harmony,
  [71:17] ‘And has placed the moon therein as a light, and made the sun as a lamp?
  [71:18] ‘And Allah has caused you to grow as a good growth from the earth,
  [71:19] ‘Then will He cause you to return thereto, and He will bring you forth a new bringing forth.
  [71:20] ‘And Allah has made the earth for you a wide expanse
  [71:21] ‘That you may traverse the open ways thereof.’”
  
  http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=14
  
  The Universe was created by the Creator-God Allah YHWH and the life was evolved as per His design.
  reply report
5. 57
  bjphillposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Professor Antony Flew used to be a champion for atheists. That all changed when at the age of 81, he finally stated that all the evidence points to intellignet design. What changed his mind? The complexity of DNA. You don't have to look at the human body to find compexity. Even in a single cell organism, DNA is very complex. Complex enough to change the mind of a prominent 20th centure philosopher.
  reply report
6. 72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I hate posts like that, it is obvious that the poster has not even looked at the basics behind evolution.
  
  I tell you what, try and convince me that some weird guy in the sky suddenly decided to create the world in a week, oh, and lets play the game your way, you cannot use the words god, omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful, or faith.
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of those which you count.
  
  Quran 22:47
  reply report
  72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That proves nothing, however I have to admit that spending a morning in church is indeed like a thousand days of my own life.
  reply report
7. 60
  qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Simple Aka:
  For changes to take place in a species, natural selection
  requires 2 things: 1.necessity 2.time for a "miracle" to be performed.
  The processes are slow and tortuous, but Mother Nature has great patience and endless time.
  If man lasts another 30 - 50 yrs, he may be able to speed up his evolution and cause those "miraculous" changes to happen in a very short time. But that concept is really nonsense because the future of Homo/sapienssapiens will be in great jeopardy over that period of time.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If there is so much "tortuous" trial and error, where are all the "rejects" of this process.
  Oh, what about the new mutations. Prototypes, if you will?
  
  Don't see any anywhere, do you?
  
  Mother Nature has no human attributes like time awareness, and patience.
  
  There is NO M.N. She's a figment of (our) imagination. She has never attempted to contact us, and communicate her "plans".
  
  At least God has done that, it's just that many have not received the message.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ak are you seriously saying that you do not believe in evolution ?
  
  I find it hard to believe that anyone in this information age, so long after the Renaissance, can still seriously not accept evolution. Or are you lying to keep 'in' with the gang ?
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aka:
  Trite, trite, trite...lol
  I thought you said don't mention mutations? C'mon! Follow your own instructions.
  Inumerable numbers of "attempts" at new forms of life became extinct and are gone forever
  Regardless of what you think the derivation of Mother Nature is, the processes of "natural selection" are eternal and are very busy at this moment.
  The more complex a life form the slower the movement toward success. You see, I didn't use the terms: adaptation, mutation or evolution, just as you asked.
  "There is NO GOD She's a figment of (our) imagination. She has never attempted to contact us, and communicate her "plans".
  Lolol...:-)
  Qwark
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the rejects? they die and if the whole lot die because unable to cope with change they become extinct - probably like fundies will.
  
  Have you never heard of babies born with no brains? Children born with a bowel or heart outside their body (some are saved by medical science - previously they would have died).
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  without modern medical science, diabetics would die sooner, same with people with depression, autoimmune diseases, allergies, cancer etc etc. These things are part and parcel with evolution
  reply report
8. 70
  pylos26posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aka-dj…you surely gonna have to bust outta that bubble that you’ve spun around yo self fore you gonna understand any response offered ya by contemporary folk.
  
  It may be even money weather you got the time, tho, to break outta there. good luck sir.
  reply report
9. 60
  zachariahs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Both the "Theory of Creation" is just as far fetched as the "Theory of Evolution" Either you believe that God spoke everything into existence, or a huge random explosion created a single living organism (like you might find in a pond) and then over billions of years, every living thing under the sun came from that ONE singular organism. It seems simple really. Don't you think?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yea, it's simple alright.
  Until you try and put real life application of laws onto the problem.
  That's where it gets anything BUT simple. Nice try.
  reply report
10. 60
  Troy C.posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Genesis 1:26-31 exsplains it all. The who and how of mans creation. I'm 52 and I feel as if I have so much time left. So do you, God bless you and keep you.
  Troy C.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  The Biblical creation lacks any evidence. To say that it explains it all, shows a lack of any real motivation to pursue the truth.
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is absolutely no 'how' at all. None. Zero.
  
  And yes, I've read it.
  reply report
11. 0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  so intricate - with toenails that have no use what-so-ever
  reply report
12. 0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  what's your explanation for "throwbacks" eg bony human tails and dolphins and whales with bony limbs? Embryos of different species, including humans looking very similar? Animals that start to develop an eye and then have it close over (eg some blind fish)?
  
  You say evolution sounds to incredible, but clearly don't have any understanding of it, and you have nothing alternative to offer except "god did it" (which used to be how everything unusual was "explained")
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
  reply report
38
Dale Nelsonposted 12 years ago
Seems like you are battling a centuries old question between science and religion.

At 55 it seems like you have about 45 years left to start reading.

For religious answers try Sacred texts.com

For scientific explanation, trying reading up on Stephen Hawkins the paraplegic.

I have not decided on an opinion yet as I still have lots to learn.

If Adam and Eve were the first, where does the procreation go from there. Who are their kids ?
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like you are on the right track!
  You seem to have some pertinent questions.
  When you do make a decision on what side of the argument you will settle on, just consider all the evidence, and then go with the MOST plausible one.
  Your choice to make, not mine.
  Thanks.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  looks like you haven't looked very thoroughly at science if you come up with the standard pat excuses creationists come up with. At least I have looked in depth at both sides, and as I dig deeper, the bible & god fall apart more. Science makes so much more sense to me (and science isn't a religion, like many creationists claim)
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that science is not a religion.
  However, when it comes to theories that cannot be tested, they resort to "thoughts, assumptions, hypotheses, and imaginings".
  They then cannot be "proven", so it's neither science NOR religion.
  
  Besides all that, I am NOT arguing from a place of religion.
  
  But NONE of you get that. I'm neither surprised nor disappointed. I don't expect you to.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the theories are tested and there is overwhelming evidence. Which rock have you been hiding under?
  reply report
60
ADDHomeposted 12 years ago
Recent reports in popular press say that Hawking wrote that gravity (attraction) has "always existed." How is that any different from saying that God has always existed? Where did gravity come from? If it is acceptable for Hawking to say that a force is without origin, then why not accept that The Force is without origin?
reply report
1. 92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is.
  
  All complex things we know of are composed of simpler things and it is quite illogical to conceive that it could be otherwise. What forces would drive the thought processes, movement and indeed anything else you want to attribute to this "god"?
  
  Any such complex being would have had to evolve from simpler things. What forces would drive that evolution? None are imaginable.
  
  But even if you do want to posit the extremely unlikely, such a creature is no god. It would be just another strange creature.
  
  No gods are necessary or likely, but even if you insist on carrying that ridiculous idea to have one, nothing would imply that the trappings of religion have any bearing. If you must foolishly believe in a creator, you are being extremely illogical, but if you then add all the babble that goes along with it, you are being utterly ridiculous.
  reply report
  60
  ADDHomeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  "Yes" - to what? What yes or no question was in my post?
  
  You have no idea of my concept of God. You have answered me based on an entire set of illogical assumptions about what I believe, and you say that I am being ridiculous?
  
  Where does entropy fit in with your statement of evolution from simpler to more complex? Entropy is a fact within nature. Where did it come from?
  
  I'll read but not reply to your response, because you have so clearly demonstrated your bias and illogic.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Entropy does nothing to hinder evolution, it is simply the number of states any possible situation can present.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everything decays. (entropy).
  For information to be added, input has to come from outside forces.
  What forces ADD, in total opposition to the decay factor.
  
  Look in the mirror. You are decaying, not getting younger, stronger or healthier. If you are, it's temporary, I assure you. You are being "entropied as we speak".
  
  The apostle Paul put it really well; " though by outward body is decaying, my inner man is growing stronger each day" Referring to his spirit man, which is the part of us that lives on forever.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  entropy was about disorder in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system (as energy from sun is input). All the building blocks for life are in the crust of the Earth & the atmosphere (eg iron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, calcium etc etc).
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  BUT, there are serious problems in combining those elements to form the building blocks of life. The problem is NOT in the availability, but rather the method of assembly. We are NOT simple elements, but highly complex compounds.
  Sunlight, or any other form of radiation from the sun does more harm to these compounds than good.
  Lets not even include oxygen. Necessary for life, yet DEADLY to the processes in compound formation. Go figure...
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  what do you make of christians that believe in evolution?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what you mean "make of"? I don't assume to know everything. I am still learning.
  At one point I too tried to reconcile the two, but couldn't. I guess they are at a similar point in their lives.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  do you think they're deluded/deceived?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not words I would use, no.
  What words would you use for someone that hasn't learned something?
  Ignorant? Uneducated? Ill informed?
  I suppose ignorant, in a non judgmental way. Meaning someone who lacks the knowledge of something.
  What do you think?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
  
  I found this article from a christian perspective on why they think evolution and bible are incompatible.
  
  I actually think they are in compatible for some of these reasons too
  reply report
  72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The atheistic formula for evolution is:
  
  * Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
  
  In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
  
  * Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God."
  
  I looked at the site and saw the above in the first paragraph. I am not sure where this came about, however I have very serious issues with the fact that religious group is trying to align itself with evolution after all this time. Particularly since in religion it is very clear that god started it all, where as evolution tracks our beginnings back to the chemical stage.
  report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @ b/bear,
  I see the two as incompatible also.
  
  It's one or the other.
  No, actually, it's ONE
  The other is wrong.
  
  Mutually exclusive, I think is the term.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you would need water, so that get dissolved minerals/oxygen etc that chemical reactions can take place. Unlikely much would happen on dry rock on dry land
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  there are over 100 naturally occuring amino acids that can form proteins, but all of nature only utlises about 20; there are over 100 naturally occuring bases that can combine to make molecules like DNA, but nature only utilises 4.
  Acutally, you're wrong about radiation - radiaton can be excellent for getting atoms/molecules to combine. Elements are not commonly found in nature - everything is too reactive.
  Plenty of heat, radioctivity etc in molten earth to have a big chemical concoction going on
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That may be so, but, what brings these all together to form the first life forms.
  If you look at a single cell, it requirers several interdependent subsystems for the cell to "live". There is NO chance of sustained life if any one or two are not present at any one moment.
  
  Conclusion?
  
  Unknown forces acted upon these MOST unlikely accidental systems coming together at precisely the right moment. If God were that "unknown force", then it is possible. If not, then these unknown forces would have to be continually acting upon chemical compounds to form new systems, to come together, ad infinitum, to produce NEW life forms.
  
  If such forces were to be absolutely essential, we would be seeing them at work constantly, and would have identified them.
  
  Sadly, this is NOT the case.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you obviously don't have much understanding of even basic science - the "unknown forces" can just be movement in air or water giving rise to reactions eg zillions & zillions of air molecules are colliding all the time - put a bit of energy in the mix (eg lightning, heat) and will get billions of new compounds forming.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  it is thought that the earth previously was without oxygen, and the atmosphere had gases like ammonia and methane which were able to combine to form aminoacids & nucleotides etc (has been done in lab).
  
  Anyway, you are bringing abiogenesis (beginning of life) into evolution, but evolution is about what happens when life is underway (ie after life has started). Evolution is a proven fact; the theory of biogenesis is still being studied. Even then, no-one was there, so there is speculation.
  Evolution is observable now
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like your first three words,...."It is thought"....
  
  That kinda puts a smile on my face.
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that's because the puzzle of abiogensis is still being solved. Evolution is not abiogensis- it doesn't rely on abiogenesis to work. Evolution comes after life is already underway - go with creation if you like (but there are major problems with a literal interpretation of genesis). But evolution is now accepted as fact
  reply report
  82
  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  
  Just because we don't know exactly how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that a supernatural explanation is the only valid one. That's like saying that we will never find a vaccine or a cure for AIDS because we haven't yet.
  
  You're also correct that evolution and the origin of life are two completely different questions. Obviously if the origin of life hadn't happened, evolution wouldn't be happening either, but that is where the connection ends.
  
  Maybe God was responsible for the origin of life and maybe he wasn't. Either way, his involvement at that stage has no connection whatsoever to the question of whether evolution is or is not happening today, and if it is, to what degree God is or is not involved in guiding it.
  report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @pcunix. You are getting two distinctly different things confused as one and the same. God does NOT = religion, or vice-versa. He would indeed have tp precede creation as the "causer or force, as you put it). That makes Him pre=creation and therefore pre-religion. Men created religion, but He IS before man.
  
  If gravity existed before creation, where does gravity come from?
  By definition, gravity is a force between physical objects. If none existed pre-creation, where was it, and how did it come to be?
  
  Further, if Hawking is looking for answers WITHOUT god in the equation, he has to postulate a possible hypothesis to use, else he too would have to concede, it must have been a "higher power" that was involved.
  
  Heaven fobrid. We can't have that!!!!
  
  Thanx for your response.
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess hawking's theory is supported by buddha..here i am not talking about religion but buddha, the man...even vivekananda's concept..that is universe being created again and again...so end point of universe a becomes starting point of universe b...if black hole absorbs everything and becomes tiny enough due to forces ...it may be called state of nothing...nothing which infact in something but cannot be seen...big bang would be result of such nothing...so here concept of creator doesnot arise and hawking's concept that law of physics are capable enough to create universe on its own becomes valid...
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't buy it.
  It had to have all started with "something", at some "time". It cannot be an endless circular process. If that's your view on all things, that's fine, but there is no evidence for that.
  That is more fairy tale that anything else I have ever heard.
  I am happier to accept multiple dimensions that multiple re-creations through black holes consuming all, ad infinitum.
  Where did that whole process start?
  I guess we'll have to wait for Hawking to figure it out.
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well if you seen how universe was formed with popular theory, buddha's concept is not fairy tale because universe is most likely to end that way ...coming to hawkings...I dont think he would figure that out but at some point of time it would be figured out...speculation is in both god is there and god is not there theories...but science is surely moving ahead in right direction..and what we think is fairly tale might turn out to be real or turn out to be false too...but i dont buy god was always there theory either...god cannot be always there...yes we can make god as hypothisis as constant..something to start with but that doesnot prove anything either...i think we need another 1k years to figure this thing out...till then all can believe in all forms of theory...there are strong points for everything and weak points in everything...no theory is perfect at this point of time ...
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why CAN"T God be there?
  
  You say He can't I say, He can. To me the definition of God is not limited to what we can understand. We can only know as much about Him as He chooses to reveal about Himself.
  If He hasn't revealed Himself to you yet, that's a different story.
  I wrote a hub on how you can meet Him. The choice is yours.
  He is wanting to reveal Himself to ALL who sincerely seek to know Him.
  Again, your choice.
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You say He can't I say, He can. ..fair enough..let us keep that way ...
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  instead of trying to strain your brain pondering origins, why not start from what we know now and work backwards (you are dragging abiogenesis into your evolution debate which neither proves nor disproves God). However, evolution is fact and means the bible version of young Earth etc can't be taken literally
  reply report
  59
  tommyjposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Funny thing. Not arguing with you, in agreement in fact, but you bring up a good point. Even god evolved. Its simpler parts were simpler concepts, established by simpler human minds. As the minds evolved as their knowledge base and experience grew, so did the concept of their gods.
  
  The 'god of abraham' is far from the progenitor of the species. Just one more in a long line of dead or dying god concepts.
  reply report
2. 72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Erm, seriously?
  
  You are using an argument that if you can believe physics has always existed, then you should believe that god exists?
  
  That comparisson does not make sense in any way shape or form.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why should gravity exist always? Please
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a matter of should or shouldn't. We can easily measure the effects of gravity now, we can predict what it'll do, and we can assume with some degree of certainty what role it played in the pass. Whether it was there or not always, is a possibility derived from observation, knowledge and logic. As in opposed to god, which is derived from wishful thinking and then trying to ressort to cheap, weak logic to back it up.
  
  In fact, since we're talking about gravity, let me make a point regarding faith, evidence, and the lack of both: Einsteins theory of general relativity, if taken to extreme conditions, predicted the existence of huge concentrations of matter in a very dense manner, from which even light could not escape. At the time this was just a theoretical concept that no one thought actually existed. Years later, this objects were found and called black holes. So there you have a case with theoretical evidence of something, yet they had no reason to believe that something existed. However, when the observations said the opposite, no one denied the evidence. In other words, they had no reason to believe something was there simply because it could be, nor they had a reason to disbelief such thing when proof of it was presented.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend spookyfox
  
  I rephrase my question.
  
  Why gravity existed always? Please
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I rewrite part of my answer:
  
  Whether it was there or not always, is a possibility derived from observation, knowledge and logic.
  
  Perhaps someone with a religious mindset will be used to answers claimed as absolute. Well, give it up. Science is not that way, it does not try to be that way, it does not claim to be that way.
  
  Needless to say I haven't studied gravity or all the reasons why it could or couldn't have been there all along, but I can think of two: because it works, and because it is there. Why ressort to something that might or might not be there, incomprehensible by nature, to explain something that is here (us, the Universe); when you can use something that also is here, and that we can observe and analyze? Specially when the one and only reason that being might exist is because what's here is here. Gravity still exists if no one's here to analyze an experience it. There are no traces of gods when no human was here.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In the observation of a given phenomenon, the act of observation changes the phenomenon.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense, phenomena occur despite anyone's observation of it.
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is not nonsense... In fact, it is one of the most puzzling principles of physics. Well, to be strict, they do occur despite the act of observation, but how they do change with the act of observation.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can you provide some examples?
  reply report
  48
  sambreath123posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your post is OUT OF PLACE. IRRELEVANT.
  Please post where it belongs!!!!
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are some planets where there is absence of gravity. Allah's forbidden zone ya know
  reply report
  72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are of course right, the scientific community has found ways to affect gravity but the cause of attraction of mass is still relatively unexplained.
  
  However the key point here is that it is unexplained. we don't just fail to exlpain it so attribute it to god, we search for the answer.
  
  over the centuries humanity has stretched it's intelligence to learn more about the world around us, and step we have taken has removed one more foundation from religion. I look forward to the day that particular house crumbles.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't agree with you. What you mean by "we" in your last sentence? Science is a joint product of humanity; and at any point of time the ignorance of religionists and/or irreligionists in science has been also a joint one. Gravity had been there; only the scientists at a given point of time discovered it, they neither invent it nor create it.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Our sciences have developed systems of reverse engineering and proved that engineering didn't happen ?????
  
  From my prospective ...There seems to be a flaw in that reasoning.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  good one...
  reply report
72
Rishy Richposted 12 years ago
Human body is not perfectly tuned & has plenty of limitations. Our brain & mind is an excellent example for this. We, the humans cannot explain the beginning nor the end. Whether you try scientific evolution or whether you try religious God, each concept has its flaws & stops at a certain point. No one knows how it began or how will it end. However, we know many things in between & one of them is that we are the Best species of this planet regardless of how many flaws we have.

And Science has details how this species - Homo sapience marveled to this level. Just like an Intel processor or Microsoft O/S, Human too had to develop step by step. Science can not tell who started this development process or why? But it has enough data to claim how this evolution process occurred. It can tell with surety that it took us millions of years to reach this level, not six days. It can tell with surety that there were other developed primates who might have reached our level of understanding but failed to survive over time because of us. And it can tell with surety that there were dinosaurs, pterodactyls & other species about whom no God of no religion had any idea. Behind all these claims, science has massive amount of evidence that you my friend can not prove wrong in your whole life time.

Its true that Science & evolution can not tell many things we want to know, but it can surely tell that the creationist concept is a crap!

No offense.
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No offence taken. Good that you thought about your answer.
  Microsoft O/S is a poor choice for an example, because not a single computer in the world has EVER "just happened" to grow an O/S. It had Intelligent design, and lots of input from people who added information.
  
  One of the best examples I have heard of about us humans is we are software (spirit/soul) and our body is hardware. Just like a computer without software is useless, so our bodies. (dead).
  
  Thanx.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you said you had medical training? Doubt they would have come up with a software= soul analogy
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They didn't.
  I never intimated it came from the same source, though.
  Hope you like it.
  reply report
2. 51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is God!
  
  Can you beat that?
  
  You can call it by either name....both are the same.
  
  Evolution occur by itself...so it must be the God we are arguing about.
  
  Glory be to Evolution, the modern man's name for God!
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is jam!
  
  Can you beat that?
  
  You can call it by either name....both are the same.
  
  Evolution occur by itself...so it must be the jam we are arguing about.
  
  Glory be to Evolution, the modern man's name for jam!
  
  Nope, it doesn't work like that.
  reply report
81
skyfireposted 12 years ago
Mother nature is YOUR assumption. Life on this planet evolved from single cell to such complex species. Take example of other animals as they have many parts which are more complex than humans. It took thousands of years to reach this complexity.

This is not one-shot like your biblical "god dun it" which has no empirical proof and not REAL.

You missed your biology classes and you deny evolution. So only explanation you seek "god dun it".Get over that assumption first before seeking REAL answers.

and some people want REAL answer by resorting to ignorance ?

So ? what does that have to do with finding real answers ? Evolution is around you all the time and will remain even after YOU.
reply report
1. 61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. I agree. Evolution is around you everywhere you turn.
  
  Here is the reason why.
  
  God created the "big bang" and as a result many things have evolved.
  reply report
  72
  Rishy Richposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah...but who created God?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong question.
  If He is self existent. always was, is and always will be, Has NO beginning and no end, it is an irrelevant question.
  
  He does not belong to out three dimensional world, so His origins are unknowable.
  
  if you can't understand what "spirit" is, then I can't take you any further in this answer. Sorry.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and your proof is??
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And now that you made the claim you can't prove it right?
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How is that possible? The Big Bang resulted in our early universe being flooded in nothing but radiation, which took hundreds of thousands of years before atoms began to form.
  
  This is not mentioned in your scriptures which actually claims all things were created in the forms we see them today.
  
  Is there some reason you felt the need to make up this false story?
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  You have understood it all sis.
  reply report
2. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @skyfire.
  Mate, you lost me from the very first point you made. IE, we all evolved from a single cell.
  
  I have done some research on this. Commonly called "abiogenesis".
  You don't have to read far to discover that there is NO explanation of HOW a single cell could appear. NOT ONE.
  Oh, there are a few propositions, but each one carries enough flaws, that they are IMPOSSIBLE.
  
  I'll let you trace this further.
  
  Thanks.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you have read abiogenesis and claim that it is impossible then i can assure you that you'll enjoy spreading myths of creationism. We are trying to achieve abiogenesis on satellite of titan which can prove this theory which YOU think is impossible without any valid proof.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's an interesting point.
  I hope they succeed at abiogenesis.
  Then we will have all the proof WE need to say
  "It took intelligent human beings applying knowledge, controlled environments and energy to 'create' life"!
  It will NOT have been a "natural" process devoid of intelligent design.
  Than you very much1
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  *sigh*
  
  in that case, that life will be similar to created in lab. there will be no evolution as we interrupted the process. so results will be the way WE want and not like your fav mother nature. but it takes education to understand this point. duh.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  my fav, mother nature???
  I got it.
  I see that you missed my point though.
  Oh well.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i'm referring to your first post with word "mother nature".
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there are very good explanations. Obviously, your research wasn't very extensive.
  
  Explain the flaws then and why it is impossible? Scientists don't see those flaws and I'm sure they'd be grateful for you to point them out.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read the hypotheses for yourself.
  They do not agree on HOW, because each one has
  problems that current knowledge cannot answer.
  
  I'm sure you expect they will overcome these.
  I expect they won't.
  That's cool. We can keep talking in the meantime.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, it is you who makes the claims it is flawed, yet you want me to go out and find those flaws myself? In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air. As I suspected.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lazy man.
  Wan't everything handed on a silver platter.
  
  GO AND LOOK for yourself!
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You call me lazy? I'm the one between us who actually has done their homework, you have not. All you've offered are empty faith-based claims without a shred of explanation.
  
  I have looked, and have not found the flaws you speak of, it is entirely up to you to support your claims. If you can't, then we can easily conclude your position on the subject.
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Empty faith-based claims you say?
  
  All the theories you speak of, aren't they faith-based as well?
  
  In this case, the researcher is God, not the scientist.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scientific theories are supposed to go under verification/falsification. Religious theories are faith based and they don't allow skeptics to touch them.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely not, there is this little thing you have overlooked called "hard evidence", something completely devoid in faith-based claims.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Beelzedad, Open your eyes. ada-dj is telling the truth.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  really ? that's news of the millennium. so he presented empirical evidence for his claims ?
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, he is not, by a long shot. He hasn't even a clue what he's talking about, and neither do you.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @beelzedad.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
  
  Now, read.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
  
  here is a huge list of what excuses creationist come up with and answers - read away
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I see. After asking you to back up your empty claims, you google it and come up with a wiki article (which you probably didn't even read yourself) and you still expect me to do your homework for you. LOL!
  
  Unless you can explain it yourself, I see no reason to expect you even know what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, keep on assuming. I can't stop you doing that!
  
  I DID rear it, not just this time of "googling" it either.
  
  Still, you're the one blowing hot air because you never responded to my claim that abiogenesis hypotheses all have flaws. You asked for examples to back that up, and I gave it. So, now what? Could it be that you CAN'T refute it?
  
  Now it's up to you to show me that there IS a flawless, irrefutable explanation for the event (abiogenesis). Get busy and prove that in an experiment, or else it's just "black and white pixels" on my screen.
  
  Knowing your type, I doubt I'll hear from you.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Flaws ? knowing how you want to exclude mutation, adaption from evolution. Do you even managed to understand the flaws in abiogenesis ? or you read one of those anti-evolution propaganda sites and make up your mind ? In any case, point us to the flaws you have grasped and post it here and show us instead of making blanket statements.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you did not, you provided a wiki link and told me to find the flaws myself.
  
  What flaws? You've provided nothing. Please list those flaws here and now and explain why they are flaws. Can you do that?
  
  My type? What type is that? The one that asks for evidence when others are making extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @skyfire.
  Why do you accuse me of reading anti-evolutionar propaganda?
  
  When exactly did you catch me doing that? NEVER.
  
  @ both of you.
  I point you, but you won't go, or don't read! Are we back at kindergaten, where you have to have someone read things TO you?
  
  Anyhow, here is another site (non-anti-evolutionary propaganda).
  Hope you can read.
  
  http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/cha … fault.html
  
  I direct your attention to the word (ALL CAP'S) immediately above the heading "Alternatives to Abiogenesis. It's close to the end of the paper.
  
  If you can't find "flaws" in the theory(ies), you are more closed minded than what you accuse me of. HAPPY READING.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, once again, you just post a link and run away, expecting others to do your thinking for you. That only clearly demonstrates that you really have no idea what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air. And, that is the real flaw here.
  
  report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I rest my case. I can lead you to the evidence, but CAN'T force you to read it.
  I guess you are too scared to find out that I am right.
  
  I guess I am blowing hot air, because you are not listening.
  
  Oh well, I TRIED.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Making an extraordinary claim, posting a link and running away is not trying. If you can't point out the flaws yourself, argue them in an intelligent manner, then you really have no idea what you're talking about. You have no case to rest.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I read your wiki article - it has a lot of feasible ways to demonstrate how simple cells can arise eg RNA and simple cell membrane, the kind of atmosphere etc. Scientists will figure it out, because they are open-minded thinkers, not clinging to a book of fables written for people years ago and believing in an imaginary friend
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see you have adopted the "lingo" of the open minded tinkers. Glad to see you found a group you can relate to and find acceptance from. (without prejudice)
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I borrowed those elsewhere. The ignorance of people just makes me more and more atheist. These forums are frustrating - am I a glutton for punishment?
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Me too.
  Should have quit a year ago.
  I didn't go then 'cause I was not going to be bullied out by
  militant atheists. Most of them ARE gone these days, so I have no excuses.
  
  But, truth is I love debating, until it turns ugly.
  
  It's been pretty good lately. You certainly haven't been like them.
  
  Thanks.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thanks - I'm probably a little irritable because my pentecostal mother had an emotional rant and accused me of having a mind full of rot (becaues I don't believe what she believes etc. )
  
  But really, I should quit this thread, as one can only take so much frustration. I am thinking of writing a hub about evolution - controversial subjects seem to do well. My ex-christian hub should become my most read and commented on hub by tomorrow
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the alternative is keeping minds closed with believing a book that self-claimed it was inspired by god - just think, we could be still riding donkeys, putting to death anyone that had an epileptic seizure (and looked "possessed") and cooking off a dung-fueled stove
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Besides, what sort of cell are you talking about - a modern animal cell?
  The atmosphere would have been different (rich in methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide etc), early organisms could be just with a small bit of RNA with membrane - prehistorical bacteria, DNA evolving later.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yea, ok. I'll play.
  
  So, how does information increase without outside input.
  
  If DNA is already existent in your hypothetical cell, how/why will the number of nucleotide pairs increase?
  
  One day it has 46pairs, the next week 127 pairs ...etc. ? (pick any number, it matters not!)
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If is starts off as RNA, there are no pairs - RNA is single strand, like beads on a string.
  
  Of course, you won't find any answers if you are unreceptive to it in first place
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That door swings both ways. (unreceptive).
  You see the possible answer as it MAY be found.
  I see the flaws as they ARE now.
  reply report
62
Bill Manningposted 12 years ago
The human body is one of the most fragile and easily damaged of all the animals. Almost all other animals can endure more temperature changes, diseases and other things than a human can.

So humans are far from perfect, in fact they rank at the bottom of the mammals. That's not saying much about any god who made them huh?
reply report
1. 61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you have a Bible handy, read genesis and the order of creation.
  What.who was first?
  It doesn't take rocket science to know, animals minds are far "sharper" than ours.
  Could there possibly be a reason for this?
  Go figure.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That has been compensated with more intelligence, employing tools and sharing the experiences with one another and finding solution.
  reply report
3. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @BM.
  You said nothing about our intelligence. We are doing wonderful things to alleviate these weaknesses. Jus watch some National Geographic doc's, and see how animals suffer.
  Not sure I agree with you that we are somehow inferior to them.
  
  But, hey, if you think so. Good for you.
  
  @mom 101
  
  "In the beginning God...."
  
  I guess He was first!
  
  Ithink I know what you mean though. Thanks.
  reply report
  61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @aka, yep. you got my point. He was first, but then that also led to the other thought as well. And you got both.
  reply report
4. 51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brother, perfect is a relative term.
  reply report
5. 61
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  huh? humans are very adaptable. and not just physically, but mentally as well. we are resilient and intelligent, and creative. I don't think you give us enough credit.
  reply report
  61
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and also, we are capable of fixing ourselves. If a lion becomes sick, he very rarely recovers. when we become sick, we recover because we have adapted and learned how to survive.
  reply report
0
klarawieckposted 12 years ago
As souls evolve, animals and human beings evolve. Spirituality and Evolution go hand in hand.
reply report
60
Petra Vlahposted 12 years ago
For centuries religion has denied and punished the ones who did not agree with their view that “the Earth is at the center of the Universe and did not move”.
Why am I not surprised to still hear heated discussions about evolution?
reply report
1. 61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know, petra, neither side will change their mind. And i just had a thought. While we fill our minds on this type of matter, it is keeping our minds off some very serious problems. One being, this country is in critical condition, and in desperate need of a decent i.c.u. department.
  
  I got to ask this question. Why I do not know. But I do. So here goes? Can you tell me why a person is paid for 3 months out of a year, not counting PAID sick days, PAID personal days or any other benefits for not working yet others work 5-6 days a week 10-12 hour shifts without any sick/personal days even allowed let alone paid?
  reply report
  60
  Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Could it be that God is just and fair? Could it be that He loves all His creatures equally and with no exception based on color, age, sex or cread? You tell me!
  reply report
  61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Im sorry, I do not see the connection. Yes, God is just and fair.
  reply report
  60
  Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ask the ones who suffer and see what their answer will be? Where is the fairness of losing a home to the bank when the CEO of the same bank is getting millions in bonuses?
  If that's the way God sees justice and fairness, than we use different pair of glasses
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Petra I understand your reasoning. However I believe God doesn't interfere with the natural progression of us humans. I believe it is can be compared to the same logic we use in not interfering with nature. We all realize if we interfere with nature it can have serious adverse effects on the ecosystem yet we find it hard to understand why God will not interfere with us.
  
  I think he has given us what the majority has asked for...No God!
  
  I believe God does exist and he doesn't interfere for many reasons!
  
  Peace
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To all three above.
  
  God IS fair. He has give us the resources to help one another.
  WE are the problem.
  We have all that we need to help our fellow human beings, but won't do it.
  
  God actually admonishes us to feed to hungry, clothe the naked and heal the sick. Cry with the hurting and rejoice with the happy.
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've stated that many times aka-dj. It is our responsibility to feed the hungry! Jesus demanded that we do these things! Yet they blame God for people not getting fed or clothed or whatever! If people would start with the man in the mirror they would find the answers!
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well we can't be selective in praising god and not critizing HIM..if one figure is praised , sure He is entitled for bricks too..It cannot be only praise..that is not what leadership is all about...A good leader (here god) has to make sure system works properly..If it does he gets credit , if it doesnot it gets blame..If god is not fit for post..He should resign
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree Pisean! He not just a leader... he is God! This puts things in a different perspective! Leaders have faults. God is truth!
  
  If he created all... then he should be praised! If we fail to do as he ask and people starve and bad things happen... we should throw bricks at God for our shortcomings???
  
  I'd like to see the first person who stands before God throw a brick? LOL!!! It's all talk now... but when we all stand in front of a living God no person will go against him!!!
  
  I disagree respectively!!!
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well i respect your belief...but seeing how nature operates and taking all species into account i personally dont belief that god has anything to do with how people operate of earth.....He practically has no say in it...If we see holistically and not from point of view of humans alone..Humans can never be saved if we go by saving concept...We have wiped out 50% of other species in last 100 years...Now if i would have been god and have made those species , i wont have taken it lightly unless i can't do anything about it...
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You have limited understanding of Him.
  What exactly are you criticising/accusing Him of?
  
  If a tenant, in a moment of madness, trashes the neighbours house, why blame the landlord?
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well personally i never accuse or praise what one calls GOD...i am talking about religious people who praise god but forget to blame him..one should not be selective in it...
  
  coming to your example , if what you say happens in my building...notice would go to landlord and bills would be required to be paid...
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Landlord not responsible.
  Neighbour guilty.
  Simple legal issue.
  You have problem, see neighbour.
  Call police.
  reply report
  64
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well fortunately that is not how system works in my building..landlord is more responsible for how his tenants behaves and landlord cannot run away or hide from his/her responsibility...now whether landlord pays from his pocket or gets tenant to pay is his problem...
  
  but your example is not related here as far as i am concerned...god has nothing to do with how world operates...monitoring nature is perfect example to understand that...in other words..god is powerless in how people and world operates...so this landlord is helpless against his tenant ...
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the reality is the world is not fair - some people are nasty and get a "free ride", nice things, things go well, never get sick etc. Good people can have crap happen. And I don't believe in karma or an afterlife to fix up the unjustness.
  reply report
2. 51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not religion, pseudo religious men.
  reply report
60
spookyfoxposted 12 years ago
I think all the complexity is a sign of evolution, not the other way around. If we were god-made, why can't we all be as we see? Why would we even need organs, such weak physical bodies, constant feeding and breathing only air. Why can't matter just be a solid block? There is no need for Nature's laws to be as they are if the whole Universe was created for us.

Besides, looking at all the complexity not only in humans, but all of life in all it's diversity, you really think the world is only 6000 years old?
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't understand how e could function if we were like a piece of rock.
  
  Maybe we could just sit there and.....?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  how did you come to that conclusion?
  reply report
61
libby101aposted 12 years ago
The earth is very, very old. It's all in the bible if people would take the time to actually read it and use a little wisdom. All throughout the Bible there is evidence of the "old" earth. It had been destroyed by disaster...it sat in water... God formed it and put the waters back to where it was...

In 2 Peter he describes this as well. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Notice how it describes how ignorant we are that we don't understand??? That the heavens were old??? And the earth was destroyed??? And how it speaks of the "heavens and earth" which are new? This is NOT speaking of the flood of Noah. The heavens were not destroyed during that flood!

In the beginning (way before creation of present day man) God created the heavens and the Earth. Somthing catastropic happened. It was a total destruction! The Earth sat partially in water. God had to clean up the mess from this... and our creation events noted in the Bible are also God cleaning up the cosmos.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

Then God goes on to create again.

I believe we are not the first. I believe there were human-like people on "old" earth. And for some reason...maybe the war in heaven, maybe something else... it was destroyed. I believe it was a huge event. Even the stars were destroyed! Stars hold much water... and if destroyed would result in the Earth sitting partially in water! Notice it says the earth sat partially in and out of water... meaning not a flood on earth but a higher scale as in universal!

The bible is written for present man... and most of this "old" earth is not spoken about because it doesn't have anything to do with God and Man today. The bible was written in regards to a relationship between man and God!

After reading these things in the bible... I began to research an "old" earth. And there is a theory from long ago... way before Darwin's theory of evolution! This theory was not "made-up" to debunk Darwin's theory because his theory was not made yet!

My point is this...the earth is very, very old. And the bible tells us this. Most people do not see this because they skip over the verses thinking it means something else.

Re-read the first few verses of the Bible and notice how it is written and decide for yourself! Also there are other verses throughout the Bible about this. Isaiah has some interesting insight as well.

I believe dinosaurs walked on "old" earth as well!

I don't believe we were the first! I believe God has created long before we came into the picture! I believe something happened and God reformed the Earth and started over! Why should we think we are the first? And why should we ignore the facts that there is evidence of Earth being very, very old?? I've seen this evidence and it's quite compelling! I've also read enough of the Bible to see it makes sense! It is right in front of us and we ignore the facts!

I know not everyone will agree with my theory. But one has to read it for himself and come to his own conclusion!

I have so much research on this. I will be writing a Hub on this as soon as time permits. Just have an open mind about it and do a little research on your own. Those who are closed-minded will just dismiss this as nonsense! However if you are truly open-minded then just research it for yourself!!

"These are the generations (plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
(Genesis 2:4 KJV)

Notice the word 'generations"? This is plural!!!!

A 6000 year old earth is not logical! The earth is in fact very, very old. And it is all in the Bible if one will read it and not be biased to old dogma!
reply report
1. 61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You and I think of a week as being 7 days. Not so with God. No one knows how many years between events.
  
  Heavens is plural. But earth is not. Many theories on this.
  Could it mean that the closer the earth gets to the sun the less water we will see?
  
  I have seen many a posters here get angry. Angry uses energy. However, to an extent, anger can be a good thing. If and when something positive comes from that anger.
  
  Regardless of one or all of the many thoughts on creation or evolution, we are all here at the same point in time. There are so many things that we could make a difference in IF we all could just come together.
  
  And yes, Libby101a, the earth is much older than any 6000 years.
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. However I never said there were more than one Earth... it is the same Earth...just it was in ruins and he fixed it.
  
  I agree... 7 days to us is not the same as with God!
  
  I believe if we would stop fighting and share information and research we could discover more interesting facts! However, this is impossible with so many people so emotionally involved with their own belief systems.
  reply report
  61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I knew what you meant, but for some here everything has to be spelled out.
  
  You are correct. We could do so much if we just would....................
  
  For me, my belief is my belief. I will share my opinion, but never will I even attempt to force it on anyone else. But, because of my belief, lies the reason I feel the "prompt" to attempt to help others. I know. Sounds lame.
  reply report
2. 58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Every thumb that I have is UP to ya on this one.
  I agree with ya 100%
  
  You said; ...I know not everyone will agree with my theory. But one has to read it for himself and come to his own conclusion! .... However if you are truly open-minded then just research it for yourself!!
  
  =========
  Very few are open minded enough!
  The truth is too simple in a "In your face" kind of way that the more intellectual that we are .. the harder it is to see.
  Can it be so simple that all that we have to do is to "READ IT FOR OURSELVES?" That seems to be a new Age thing that is catching on! But hasn't really caught on yet but is making head way.
  
  We need to forget every "Interpretation" that we have "ever" heard and read it again.
  
  That was the introduction that I came into hub pages with.
  
  I do see it catching on. Finally!
  
  God is real ! And religion is a good thing and a bad thing "BUT" Religion has established many mind blockers that we need to see dispell, such as this one.
  
  I look forward to reading your hub.
  I'm fanning ya just to make sure I don't missit. Should have already dun it anyway.
  You got good sense.
  reply report
82
kerrygposted 12 years ago
I hear this argument all the time, both from creationists and from people who believe in evolution but believe that it was started or guided by God in some way (the latter category includes my own husband) and I don't really have a good answer for it. Ultimately, I think you either believe it's possible or you don't. If you believe in God, you will naturally be inclined to think you see His hand in the world around you; if you don't, you will naturally be inclined not to.

Personally, the scale of time we are looking at when discussing evolution answers the question for me. As I mentioned in the other thread, the last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived 6-8 million years ago. Modern chimpanzees, as a species, are only about 1 million years old; biologically modern humans only about 200,000 years old. Humans and chimps are 96% genetically identical, so it took the better part of 6-8 million years to change just 4% of our genome.

The living memory of humans lasts only about 150 years - we can scarcely comprehend the scale of the 2000 years back to the time of Christ, or the ~3000 years to the time of Ramses the Great, let alone 6-8 million years. When you consider that primates have existed at least 65 million years and mammals started diverging from reptiles about 315-320 million years ago...

And when you add changing environments and different types of interactions with other species into a scale that vast, it seems pretty obvious to me how evolution could progress without any kind of "guiding hand" and result in ecosystems where all the different species fit together as beautifully as clockwork. Life seeks to create the conditions that support life.
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A beautiful post
  reply report
2. 0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that's how some (don't know what proportion) christians combine evolution and belief in God
  reply report
3. 60
  JSAlisonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think these time scales are beyond genuine understanding for poor creatures such as ourselves. The reassurances of the bible are surely to be preferred by many.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  agree - millions of years, even thousands of years are too hard to comprehend. But evolution can be seen in action here and now - extinct and near extinct species, cancer, selective breeding of dogs and plants, tests that show that the proteins in all organisms are near identical, tests that show that the same very simple building blocks are used in all living things (and even non-living things if break down further), gene pools of "simple" looking organisms much larger than more "complex" looking organisms like animals and humans). This is without referring to drawings of animals over past few hundred years, and without even dipping into fossil records etc.
  reply report
60
thirdmilleniumposted 12 years ago
Very simple
No part of the body has atoms and molecules that can decide to bond together and become a liver, a middle finger etc. How could atoms on their own decide to have a mouth on a higher level and the anus at a lower level facilitating the passage of food etc downwards, given the gravitational pull? How did they know it?
It is intelligent design, my dear Watson!
reply report
65
awareposted 12 years ago
as creators ourselves . its natural that we look for the blueprints. and wonder the purpose of the product. Accepting that a roll of dice or just accidental luck dosent appease the human mind. and i feel your skepticism with all current ideas science has so far offered. we might never know. we might already know. one things for sure . we are here .life is very real and its vast in form. what we do with this short gift is what matters most. toiling over the unknown . is a circle running in circles. these are my thoughts alone .
ray
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First, I don't proscribe to the idea that god is" greater than" creation, that creation is a product of or part of "god" that taken as a whole, it is the same, as we, being part of said creation, are also a part of the whole. To think that consciousness, if linked to energy, as it must, as all things ultimately are, can be on a level equivalent to that which we sometimes call GOD, is not crazy, weird, or nonsensical. As to belief in things of a divine nature, consciousness is quite a package. You can't hold it in your hand, it has no true form, and does not consist of matter, yet, it inarguably does exist. Whatever god is, and god IS, exists outside normal space time, which is actually quite relative, unless, of course, god exists outside of ALL space time.
  reply report
71
aguasilverposted 12 years ago
So who created the chemicals?
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  MSG? LSD? The ones you're on. Did you just wake up?
  reply report
2. 60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll asnwer that if you answer this:
  
  Who created the being who created the being who created the being who created chemicals?
  
  'Who' is a tricky question, it is biased from the start. A better question, that would not only be more correct, but also much, much more informative is: How were chemicals created? And from that you could add: How do they interact with each other? How do we even know how they interact with each other? etc. and then you learn lots of things.
  
  On the other hand, if you reply 'god', that's it. Even if he did do it, that wouldn't answer how he did it, would it? And in most cases you're left ignorant, because being a being beyond human reasoning, you discard the possibility of understanding the mechanics behind it. In other words, you could say: Who did it? God. How did he do it? Magic!
  
  But then again, this is not what you asked, is it? Your question is not a question at all, it is a statement, a mockery trying to present your point of view; rather than an inquiry to actually trying to learn something new.
  reply report
  61
  hanging outposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its not an irrelevant question at all. It seems to me that science, including the question of the origin of chemicals goes, via reverse engineering as far as it can but can never go beyond that point. Yes molecules make up stuff, but where did molecules come from?
  Heres something interesting...
  Mark 4:39 And jesus arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
  The wind and sea have no ears to hear and neither can they hear. So how did speaking to them make a difference? The speaking was an outward show to prove the power of God over nature. Often jesus does this. So how did the sea and wind calm down?
  God is spirit. God is everywhere, He is on the macro level the micro level the subatomic level.. God is through ALL things and is the underlying principle at the fundamental level of everything. Jesus did not need to speak nor did he need to get out of bed to calm the sea and wind. God is all the laws of physics, with personality, purpose and more creativity/knowledge than any human being, shakespeare, Dali, Plato etc.
  Too ask who created you is only to go as far as your
  family tree will allow, but we know there are further
  generations beyond that.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Molecules are made of atoms which are simply a bit of matter with electrostatic charges. Chuck in a bit of energy from sun or radioactivity or heat from a molten ball (earth forming) and there will be all kinds of chemical reactions happening. Just need to change the charge on the atoms a little and they want to combine with each other - can be done in water, using friction, heat, lightning, radiation.
  Yes, is hard for non-scientists to comprehend - humans seem like the most complex organisms, but they aren't
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds really simple1
  
  Sadly, it is anything but simple.
  
  That's why evolution theory has taken such a strong hold on people. They make it sound so simple. Just a bit of this and a bit of that, given some accidents and a bit of time and VOILA, we have life and man and bacteria. Woo hoo, See, evolution works!
  
  Nice try, though!
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  aka-dj, I agree with you. We were not created by some form of magic. Most people are aware that it has to be a higher authority above all things.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wait. How that higher authority was born ? magic ?
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God is the higher authority and he is a spirit. God is the beginning and he is a miracle worker! Have you ever read the first book of the bible? It's called Genesis. If you don't care to recieve true revelation. I am wasting my time. Have a nice day.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Genesis is a story about where we came from that stone age parents would tell their children - even by the Iron age most people had got a better grip on things, the calender buildings of Stonehenge and pyramids etc all are part of that change. Then christianity tried to impose this story on people for over 1000 years by keeping people in dark age ignorance - then the Renaissance allowed the thinking people to tell the truth about the earth going around the sun, and also the roundness of the earth that sent people from europe exploring where before they were told the end of the world was.
  
  These days we know a lot of 'stuff' - we learned it in school mostly, then with life experience - Nobody can say that there is NOT a god because it cannot be proved, but we can say with absolute certainty that there is evidence of different life on earth going back millions of years - we have good solid theories about how the earth and sun and moon formed in space - Maybe the school you went to taught creationist stuff - if so they were lying to you - and they know they are lying.
  
  If you choose to believe in a god it does not mean that you must believe in any written thing, especially a collection of writing that comes from all the old tales right back to the stone age when people knew nothing much about their environment.
  reply report
  58
  J.R. Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is widely accepted and believed that pre-flood man was much smarter than we are, given the longer life-span.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Given the number of interpretations of biblical time and the ways in which many cultures use time in their literature Ithink we can guess that people living hundreds if not thousands of years is not true. However - I could agree that people were smarter back then, they understood a metaphor when they saw one.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know a thing called "empirical evidence" when you claim these things and refrain from giving proof ? Your emotional appeal for true revelation is meaningless if you can't back it up with "empirical evidence". You are wasting your time when you debate with people who understand science and expect empirical evidence. Your replies beg for emotional appeal and gives 0 proof.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you're so convinced that chemical reactions are "not that simple" when they actually are
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  religion has a strong hold on people - my family cannot comprehend why I no longer believe in god.
  God is a catch-all for things people don't understand - it used to be god sent lightning, rainbows, disasters, etc.
  But now we understand things like lightning - god gets too much credit
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science equally gets too much importance.
  People expect it to answer questions it is NOT equipped to do so.
  Trouble is people don't know how to make the distinction between the two.
  Science will never answer philosophical questions, and vice versa.
  
  Non believers far too often want "proof" in the scientific sense for spiritual claims. It is a false expectation, and when it is (obviously) not answered, the whole thing is ridiculed.
  
  Keep the two separate, and you may get somewhere.
  
  As for simple chemical reactions- again it's too general a claim on your part. I was referring to the origins of life in the first instance. Abiogenesis hypotheses are trying to answer the "how" question, but the chemicals needed don't "just happen" in a simple environment, unaided and uncontrolled.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  so you can't accept evolution unless you have a valid answer for abiogenesis? Even then you wouldn't believe. Like saying umbrella doesn't work if meterology not proven.
  Before science, god was given credit for lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, sickness, and anything else previously not understood. when something is not fully understood doesn't mean god did it!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  sounds pretty superstitious to me
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but like many others, you just duck the questions or miss the point.
  I answered your generalisation about chemical reactions with an explanation, and all you do is revert back to superstitions.
  I'm happy to chat, but lets play on the same field.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ha ha - can't you see that you're the one holding onto superstitions - you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's what philosophy is for. Duh.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol. that is because this universe works on principles of physics. everything around you is science and not religion. Religion is restricted to humans.
  
  Science is not any entity, it is dependent on the explorer. It doesn't give us concrete answers unless we do verification/falsification.
  
  Philosophy also becomes branch of science when it plays game of guessing/goal post changing.
  
  really ? so why it is hard to get proof for spirit and spiritual medium ? if you can't give proof for it, it becomes just another lie or fairy tale. so obviously whole thing is supposed to be trashed when it comes t facts.
  
  No. If you choose spirituality without empirical evidence, you'll get into delusion and not somewhere.
  
  You have to prove your claim that they don't happen uncontrolled or unaided. or this is just another rant or assumption of yours.
  reply report
  72
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh so you have a misunderstanding of chemistry too, fantastic.
  
  As it turns out Chemical reactions do just happen, some only happen when under intense heat and pressure at the earths core, other elements are formed over millions of years, since they need another type of catalyst. It can take hundreds of millions, even billions, of years for a planet to form a suitable world for life from the many elements found drifting through space. It has been proven that chemical reactions can lead to the simplest life forms. From there it is only a matter of time until a growing number of complex reations to environment turn in to conciousness, and from there, humanity.
  
  Chemical reactions are happening all around us on a day to day basis, all around us. Chemical reactions in plants give us the very air we breath, there is no God involved in the balance of plants and noxious gasses which gave us the breathable atmosphere available for humanity today.
  
  As the simple chemical reactions make more complex compounds, complex chemical reactions begin to occur. sometimes reactions require a set of circumstances, and sometimes you even get self sustaining chemical reactions.
  
  Life through chemical reactions is something which exists in the natural world at extremely long odds, but thing is, when you have billions of years, extremely long odds are fairly likely to crop up.
  
  Yes non believers want proof, because the proof you so simply laugh at is a lot more reliable than an archaic control system that picked at the mental weaknesses of humanity.
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well said hanging out!!! I completely agree!!!
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ultimately you will just have to accept an assumption on which to base your ideas....you will have to believe without proof.
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To a certain degree, yes, we have to accept some assumptions (it'd be great if you were a little more specific btw). I'm not so sure about the 'without proof' part. You want proof that science works? You're staring at it. If it wasn't for the scientific mindset you wouldn't be looking at your screen.
  reply report
3. 82
  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynt … osynthesis
  reply report
4. 0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  chemicals don't need a creator - see my other post about atoms (I have a degree as a chemist, so I do have a clue what I'm talking about)
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Chemicals don't need a creator".
  So what the heck did you get a DEGREE for.
  Just take a bunch of powder, and liquid and a spoon, ad some water and cleaning agents, mix it up, boil for 10 mins. Allow to cool and you have a cure for cancer.
  DAH.
  Every chemical we "create" takes intelligence!
  I presume you have some. Probably lots more than me, remembering all toe formulae etc.
  
  Come on and show some here and post seriously.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What was your "medical training" - a 2-day first-aid course? It is clear from your posts you don't even understand basic school chemistry and biology.
  You keep demonstrating your ignorance. You have wrongly assumed that chemicals need to be cooked up in the lab.
  I'm really wasting my time trying to explain anything to you, as you are not receptive at all - you mind is shut tight as a fish's bottom
  reply report
65
awareposted 12 years ago
ok i figured out the answer to every question posted.
we created words every one of them. gravity chemicals . they are merely words we create to describe what we think we know. gravity isnt gravity . its 7 letters we made up . whats really going on here is beyond our words. we are simply crickets chirping.
ray
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Little, itty-bitty microbes infesting a moldly lump of worm feces orbiting a flaming ball suspended in something whose main composition (Dark Matter) is one big question mark on even Dr. Hawking's blackboard.
  reply report
65
awareposted 12 years ago
lol nice wordage
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Part of my repertoire
  reply report
81
skyfireposted 12 years ago
OP's attempt is similar to Kent hovind -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

Moving goal posts without even bringing up evidence is typical play on religious forums.
reply report
1. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is not moving the goal post.
  What you need to understand that the word evolution encompasses more than one process. I wrote an hub about it, to define each major branch within the term.
  I notice the article above is 2002, and to date, the offer hasn't been claimed.
  That should say something.
  
  Where are all the die hard evolutionists?
  Why don't they just "coff up" and prove to the world, once and for all?
  And cash in at the same time.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is.
  
  irony ? person who is incapable of understanding biological evolution wrote a hub about it to ridicule ? duh.
  
  have you gone through the whole page before even getting some clue in your own favor ? i don't expect much from you though but still that page describes lots of fallacies.
  
  Unlike bible creationist their aim is not to preach and cash in.
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu
  
  this site gathers a lot of evidence in favor of evolution. if you wish to debunk it then you have to get into court with NCSE which your favorite creationist did many times and lost plenty of cases. Circular reasoning from religion is never answer to everything, it's just changing the goal post. i can haz lol ?
  reply report
  51
  Irshadnawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was a big explosion....sheets of paper flew everywhere....in that chaos, by chance unexplainable, the sheets collected together, bound and a book came to exist. it was the Oxford Dictionary.
  
  This is bedtime story.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, says islamic who have references of hadith and quran as being facts ?
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was a big explosion, no sheets of paper at all, everything was organized, and an Oxford dictionary appears out of nowhere.
  
  Yeah, much better.
  reply report
  59
  Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  cool. Where's Chris Angel? Gotta have an Angel. Luke! Come to the Dark Side!
  reply report
60
qwarkposted 12 years ago
lrshadaw:
Have you done any study at all in ref to your "religious" beliefs?
Or are you just parroting what you've been told and what you've read in your religious tomes....whatever they may be?
Are you a monotheist?
reply report
1. 59
  Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look at an ant, a dragonfly. There are a billion wonders out there, consider man, so unlike our relatives here. We wear clothes and build fantastic machines and wonders. We walk into a room and clap, and the lights come on. Our not too far removed ancestors would consider us gods, but we are never happy. More, more, more. People place blinders on their own eyes, then wonder why everyone else wanders in darkness. The first clue here is this: We aren't so big, bad and smart as some believe mankind to be. We are less than the flea on a dog's back.
  reply report
  61
  hanging outposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How big do we have to be to be important to the one who created us? 6 feet? 60 feet? 600 feet? and our world does it need to be a huge size bigger than canis majoris? to be important?
  Nope.
  Our size has nothing to do with our importance.
  reply report
79
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
LOL. If we are created by a higher authority that would be creation by 'magic'.

Otherwise it would be creation by abiogenisis and evolution. And if that is not how we were created God seems to want us to think we were (based on the physical evidence).
reply report
1. 61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How is that creation by magic?
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
I believe that it is written that Jesus said that those that adhere to the LETTER of the law and not the spirit of it are lost in it.

The same could be said to written history.

Most everyone knows that the ICE Age killed off a majority of life on earth.
It has recently been discovered that there is evidence of a meteor striking the earth in the northern hemisphere during the Ice age. This would have wiped out all life on the face of the earth.

So you see, evolution might have been true millions of years ago.?? But that line of evolving ended! And life on earth began all over again less than 10 years ago.

Some people ignore their scientific "FACTS" when those facts do not benefit their argument against a higher power that many call GOD.
reply report
1. 61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps some people do ignore it, but I found it hard to ignore scientific facts when it goes hand in hand with the bible. God is the true source of science, chemistry, molecules, etc. Science is not God. We all have a choice to believe this or not.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To not ignore scientific facts you have to be able to recognise one first.
  
  there is no particular argument about a god or no god in relation to science - if the idea of god is a metaphor for some creative power. There is an overwhelming argument against such a creative power choosing to put us here and then hide. There is NO proof of any kind of a god and no tangible evidence that there ever was a christ. Except of course as metaphors.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  sorry ..Had to run out for a bit.
  
  You are absolutely correct
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't! At all! The bible says the earth is 6000 years old, real, objective evidence says it's much, much older. The bible says the Universe is older than the Earth, the bible says god created the Earth first and then the stars (and he forgot to mention some of those stars were actually planets ).
  
  There is no subjective reason to WANT to believe the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. It's just what the Earth tells us.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But on the other hand, you can easily ignore scientific facts when they don't go hand and hand with the bible. Funny!
  
  How can you say that when, according to the scientific method, there is not even one iota of evidence for the existence of a God.
  
  And if we have any integrity, we'll choose not to believe this absurd assertion.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  getitrite, My message never indicated that I ignore scientific facts when they don't connect to the bible. Why twist my words and add to them? Science can't prove that God doesn't exist. I don't need science to prove that God exist. I found it strange that you once believed, and now you hate a God that you say does not exist. Good night.
  reply report
2. 0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  OH COME ON !!!!! Jerami life went on without interruption over many parts of the earth - it can be seen in the archaeological record without break in the mid east and Africa.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If the human species such as we know us, have been on the earth for millions of years , why is there not evidence of mankind having developed civilizations prior to the Ice age?
  
  What was keeping them from developing civilizations.
  
  Honest question??
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your interpetation of civilization may be in question - but there were organised people as we know them in Britain before the ice age - and aftier it. The 'red lady' whose remains were discovered in a cave in Wales pre-dates the ice age - it turned out to have been a man under analysis but it was buried or entombed with due ceremony - hence being covered in a red dye - and with tools and artifacts. Civilization as we know it is just 'how' we live in this period. Human habitation and remains with tools etc have been found that show mankind has been wandering around much as we are now for around a million years.
  reply report
  82
  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think China man's dates are a little off. My understanding of the science is that biologically modern humans have only been around about 200,000 years.
  
  One of the key changes that allowed humans to jump from primitive society to the beginnings of modern civilization was the arrival of the Holocene epoch about 12,000 years ago. It seems mind-boggling today that it took humans the first 190,000 years of our existence to put two and two together and develop agriculture, but scientists and anthropologist believe that the extreme climate instability prior to the Holocene played a major role in that. Once the stable Holocene climate settled in, it took only 2000 years for humans to develop agricultural societies and only a few more thousand years for civilizations that we would recognize as essentially modern in structure to form. From there, human knowledge and cultural development has snowballed.
  
  China man is correct, though, that some other essential human cultural characteristics such as complex tools, cooked food, art, music, and religion appear to pre-date agriculture by tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for your answer.
  Mind boggling indeed. No offense but That just seems to be too easy and short of an answer.
  
  I'm sure that the mighty glaciers erased a lot of evidence of whatever was here before.
  
  And the earth tilting on its axis ?? That which was above the oceans are now miles under the sea.
  
  Can we with all certainty know that there has not been advanced civilizations on the earth before?
  
  The earth and everything on it is in a state of becoming.
  Sometimes it is one step forward and two steps back.
  And sometimes we have to scrap one plan completely and develop a completely different one.
  I think that the earth may have done this a time or two itself. Everything else does?
  reply report
  82
  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It does, yes.
  
  The most dramatic was the Permian-Triassic Extinction event ~250 million years ago, which killed off 96% of marine species and 70% of land vertebrates. Of course, that was more than 100 million years before the first known mammal, and nearly 200 million years before the dawn of primates, let alone humans.
  reply report
3. 61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree Jerami! The earth is in fact very, very old! It was ruined! And I believe there were humanoids way before he created Adam and Eve! I believe it's right in the bible, right before our eyes! We have to look at the facts! I've seen evidence proving the earth is very old! You can't ignore evidence that is right in front of your face! God gives us all a brain and reasoning abilities! We have to learn to read his word and pray for understanding!
  reply report
  58
  J.R. Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are on to something there. There are several passages that point to "humanoids" The bible references nephilim,or the fallen ones. The key verse is in Gen 6. where they mixed with the daughters of man. there are many other verses as well about these "nephilim".
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amen!
  reply report
  61
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Angels
  reply report
  61
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can read all about Nephilim in the book 'High Places'. An amazing read!
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  libby, There are many who see the evidence, but choose to be in denial.
  reply report
  61
  libby101aposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  WHAT EVIDENCE?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are many, many truths hiding right there before our eyes.
  Something is getting in the way, or these things would commonly be seen.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is whimsical. It is also disturbing that someone could actually hold such a belief.
  
  I agree that the brain should be used for its reasoning abilities.
  reply report
4. 61
  Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jerami, sorry I agree with your message. The earth is in fact very old. There are many past generations before we were born.
  reply report
5. 60
  spookyfoxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, this is great, keep it coming. Life on Earth began 10 years ago. I knew the 90's were just a myth
  reply report
58
J.R. Smithposted 12 years ago
The book of enoch touches on them as well.
reply report
1. 0
  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really like Enoch - he was one cool dude. Real or imaginary, the writing is alive and expressive and outrageous; it talks about travelling in what would appear to be a spaceship, visiting 'northern' places with 'crystal' trees - verifiable of course by anyone who has those cold cold frosts that ice the trees - he would appear to be talking about visiting Ireland and Maes How - and Ireland has a (bronze age) tradition of a Princess from the east - and I see many Irish women with the olive skin and long faces of the middle east.
  
  Enoch is one mystery worth pursueing - some of the writing describes the far north in detail, and the rest is pure science fiction !
  reply report
  58
  J.R. Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps that's why it isn't accepted as inspired work. A wonderful read,though.
  reply report
66
aka-djposted 12 years ago
So how is this comment relevant to what I just said?
reply report
66
aka-djposted 12 years ago
Sorry. It's still irrelevant to my post.
reply report
81
skyfireposted 12 years ago
Accusation ? No.

I'm asking you to give me info about your opinion on abiogenesis which you think is impossible based on your reading of site that opposes it. There are sites which are against evolution and abiogenesis without any credible evidence and for that i asked you to come up with the sources. Vatican (which represents Christianity)and many other religions around the world are accepting evolution ONLY with credible evidence, and now only protestant and few creationist Christians are remained who are opposing evolution even after credible evidence given to them. Nothing like accusation or etc from me towards YOU personally, it is about your sources. Your posts in this threads are asking for evidence of evolution without "mutation", "adaption" process which are involved in evolution, which clearly points anyone towards anti-evolutionary propaganda's source. Still think your sources of evolution and abiogenesis are credible ? and not anti-evolution propaganda in it ?
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  anti-evolution propoganda - very fitting
  reply report
2. 66
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  skyfire, I posted a response to beelzedad above, but here it is again for you.
  No, it's not ant-evolutionary propaganda. Its a uni science paper. Lots to read, but I'm sure you are up to the callenge.
  
  http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/cha … fault.html
  
  NBote the conclusion the author makes just before the last paragraph.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

A question about evolution

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

A question about evolution

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies