Somewhat interesting video about the Big Bang.

[RiceRocket]

If God made everything then who made God?

[AndrewOW]

Being a dyslexic agnostic insomniac I often lay awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog.

 

 

Do you know, I think I've even seen one. She has a collar and sometimes does what I say!

[Chiefgroover]

Evolution has been witnessed and reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Evolution itself is a fact. Even the pope admits that evolution occurs!

It's only the hardcore wackos that continue to deny it these days.

 

Darwin's theory, on the other hand, IS sketchy - the concept of evolution through beneficial random mutation can be virtually disproven statistically. Whilst experiments seem to indicate that mutation is a factor in evolution, it is pretty much evident that it cannot be the ONLY factor.

 

It's a shame that many people can seem to distinguish the two.

 

 

Edit: I also don't see why creationism and evolution should be considered mutually exclusive - they clearly don't have to be. It smacks of people just wanting to have an argument abot religion where one doesn't really exist.

 

1. Evolution in lab conditions? so who did this and when? Dawkins says not.

2. Pope said (not with my backing) "it's ok to talk evolution as long as you say its the work of God."

 

Just because we don't know how evolution works, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

We don't really know how gravity or even light works either, so following the same reasoning, you'd have to disbelieve them too!

At last, someone admits what Dawkins had to admit, it's a theory and we dont know how it works.

Lot of work on gravity and light yet to be done. e.g. how do we actually prove light travels at a uniform speed over vast distances?

The creationist witch hunt, seems to be nothing more than a slaughter of all dissident thinking on the subject without objective learning - unbaised?.

One of the better posts IMO Snooze.

[Snooze]

As I was saying, nobody forces their ideas on others like evolutionists, blind sectarian hatred of non evolution belivers.

 

Do you really think that's true, mate?

 

Whilst, yes, most education establishments (incorrectly) teach Darwinian theory as fact, in the course of my lifetime, I've been preached at hundreds of times by creationists of various religions, but tend not to get pounced on by Darwinians in the high street!

[Chiefgroover]

Do you really think that's true, mate?

 

Whilst, yes, most education establishments (incorrectly) teach Darwinian theory as fact, in the course of my lifetime, I've been preached at hundreds of times by creationists of various religions, but tend not to get pounced on by Darwinians in the high street!

 

Sadly, but true,, the Evolutionary side of the scientific community are responsible for wrecking many careers of scientists who dont believe the evolutionary theory, thinking its too much based on assumed scientific principle.

The book I mentioned earlier "slaughter of the dissidents" clearly gives first hand accounts of blatent career discrimination of many scientists with either a religious belief or just not swallowing the evolutionary tale. I dont see the university/scientific workplaces doing the same against evolutionists.

 

If someone can show me without a doubt, using no theory or assumption that evolution is true then I shall believe it.

[Snooze]

1. Evolution in lab conditions? so who did this and when? Dawkins says not.

 

Well the predominant example used is in the reproductive adaptation of the human immunodeficiency virus (as it tends to produce the fastest results). Many other viruses work the same way.

 

I believe some insect breeding programs also produced results demonstrating evolution - lacewings have been used more than once IIRC.

 

BTW - personally, I don't trust anything Dawkins writes anyway - he's just trying to hawk his own theory of evolution, which is even less provable than Darwin's was!

 

2. Pope said (not with my backing) "it's ok to talk evolution as long as you say its the work of God."

 

A number of popes have actually discussed the subject, I believe, and yes typically also explaining how evolution and God would work together (and, in fact, a "Superbeing-controlled evolution mechanism" could be a valid alternative theory of explaining evolution), and also re-iterating that the level to which the debate has risen is totally unnecessary - arguments for arguments sake!

 

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

 

ie. he agrees with you, Chief : stop arguing about evolutionary theories and focus on the important stuff!

 

 

Bedtime for me for now - have a goodnight, all!

[benkei]

If someone can show me without a doubt, using no theory or assumption that evolution is true then I shall believe it.

 

Could you prove that a god, or creator exists? What evidence is there to suggest such a thing?

 

The bible is the biggest fairy tale I know of.

[Chiefgroover]

Could you prove that a god, or creator exists? What evidence is there to suggest such a thing?

 

The bible is the biggest fairy tale I know of.

 

 

 

 

Show me the post in which I used the word "bible" in this thread ?

BTW I seriously doubt you have ever read it in its entirety. Anyway go ahead and prove its a complete work of fiction, along with the secular records that confirm most of it.

 

So what your saying is, both need an element of faith? so you cant prove your side of the coin any more than I can.

 

I don't dismiss evolution on the back of popular opinion or what a prof told me, or what popular teaching may be, I dismiss it as the methods used to ascertain the info are flawed.

 

Another example of this is the "Frozen record". Evolutionists/uniformitarian scientists states there were about 30 ice ages over 2.5 million years based on the astronomical theory of the ice age. However the creation model of only one ice age is more likely as the Greenland ice cores show only one ice age, and only one post ice age. Multiple ice ages don't show up. Ref: camp Century core (retarding basal flow), study by evolutionary thinking scientists.

 

The only thing I see again from this thread is many people refuse, like Dawkins to accept any possibility of a creation account due to subjective bias.

 

I have looked at both sides of the story, and until you have properly investigated both sides to a large extent, I suggest you keep your blind bias to yourself.

 

Benkei what is your scientific based rejection of what i have written in these posts? Did you actually read them?

[tbourner]

Show me the post in which I used the word "bible" in this thread ?

BTW I seriously doubt you have ever read it in its entirety. Anyway go ahead and prove its a complete work of fiction, along with the secular records that confirm most of it.

HA! You don't actually accept it as fact do you? Seriously I can understand religious people for using it as a moral guide, a metaphorical story to base their life on, but it's OBVIOUSLY not true.

Just take Noahs Ark as an example - there's no boat in the world could hold 2 of every animal, even with modern technology we couldn't build one that could keep them all seperate in their own eco-climates. And did it include every species? Because we discover new ones all the time, we currently only have data on about 1.5million species, but there are beliefs that there could be over 100million different species on Earth - how the hell did Noah find them all!!! And where did he keep the woodworm?

Also, that means every single living thing on the planet comes from an in-breeding program, including humans. Was Noah and his wife the only humans on the ark? So even though they were in-bred from Adam and Eves children we are now all in-bred from Noahs kids?

 

So what your saying is, both need an element of faith? so you cant prove your side of the coin any more than I can.

It's not really about browny points is it? What level of proof would be acceptable? You can present someone with some evidence and they could claim it was falsified or the test wasn't set up correctly or God tampered with it to hide his identity etc. - OK so I'm getting a bit silly now but there's not much point in comparing who has the most evidence, it's all circumstantial in the grand scheme and I don't think we'll have solid PROOF in any sense of either theory in the near future.

 

The only thing I see again from this thread is many people refuse, like Dawkins to accept any possibility of a creation account due to subjective bias.

Erm.... Hello?

 

Benkei what is your scientific based rejection of what i have written in these posts? Did you actually read them?

I think he was just saying that because you asked for complete proof of evolution (which we all know is impossible at this time), so he repeated the counter argument asking for complete proof of God (which we all know is also impossible at this time). Stop getting so defensive!

[Mike]

Can you give us a bit more detail on creationism?

 

How did the world come to be then? are you saying there was a supernatural force that made it?

[Animal]

...take Noahs Ark as an example - there's no boat in the world could hold 2 of every animal...

 

Even worse than that - there were actually 14 of a lot of things.

 

...God instructs Noah to board the ark with his family, and seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and two pairs of the unclean animals...

[tbourner]

Can you give us a bit more detail on creationism?

 

How did the world come to be then? are you saying there was a supernatural force that made it?

 

I believe there are beings who are more powerful than us, I have a dimensionaly based theory but it's a bit light cos of my limited knowledge of current string and M theory etc. Basically there are beings in the universe who are omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient and in the course of their lives they affect lower beings such as us. Their existense isn't in 3D like ours, they are unaffected by time and space (imagine being everywhere and everywhen at the same time, you'd have no concept of our life cycle!). It's possibly accidental that they create big bangs, maybe they know what they're doing and it's a hobby or something. Either way they don't care about what happens on one planet in one galaxy in one of the 4D universes they've created that lasted a measly 10trillion years or so - they don't listen to YOUR prayers. I think they just pressed the button to start it all, and they set the right parameters (laws of physics) in the program so that life could evolve, then it all went from there.

[Mike]

I believe there are beings who are more powerful than us, I have a dimensionaly based theory but it's a bit light cos of my limited knowledge of current string and M theory etc. Basically there are beings in the universe who are omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient and in the course of their lives they affect lower beings such as us. Their existense isn't in 3D like ours, they are unaffected by time and space (imagine being everywhere and everywhen at the same time, you'd have no concept of our life cycle!). It's possibly accidental that they create big bangs, maybe they know what they're doing and it's a hobby or something. Either way they don't care about what happens on one planet in one galaxy in one of the 4D universes they've created that lasted a measly 10trillion years or so - they don't listen to YOUR prayers. I think they just pressed the button to start it all, and they set the right parameters (laws of physics) in the program so that life could evolve, then it all went from there.

 

Oh, OK.. wacko stuff then? like David Icke?

[tbourner]

From the ghosts thread:

Maybe our creator (I hate calling it a God as that has so many strange ideals linked with it) is a Nth dimension being, decided to make something funky for a school science project (obviously I’m bringing in a 4th D analogy to rationalise something we can’t comprehend) and within one evening made the universe, grew it for a few billion millennia then decided to switch it off!

We can program 4 simple laws into a computer and get pixels to move and grow/die almost as if it’s a living being!!! [LINK] Imagine inputting all the laws of physics and nature into a computer, adding some starting variables and hitting ‘run’ – BIG BANG and whammo there’s the universe.

This is a creationist theory though, not a god theory.

[MrRalphMan]

If God made everything then who made God?

 

His Mum and Dad?

[AndrewOW]

I believe there are beings who are more powerful than us, I have a dimensionaly based theory but it's a bit light cos of my limited knowledge of current string and M theory etc. Basically there are beings in the universe who are omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient and in the course of their lives they affect lower beings such as us. Their existense isn't in 3D like ours, they are unaffected by time and space (imagine being everywhere and everywhen at the same time, you'd have no concept of our life cycle!). It's possibly accidental that they create big bangs, maybe they know what they're doing and it's a hobby or something. Either way they don't care about what happens on one planet in one galaxy in one of the 4D universes they've created that lasted a measly 10trillion years or so - they don't listen to YOUR prayers. I think they just pressed the button to start it all, and they set the right parameters (laws of physics) in the program so that life could evolve, then it all went from there.

 

 

Previously, I was nodding in reasonable agreement with you, but now you've lost me. Sorry

[benkei]

Show me the post in which I used the word "bible" in this thread ?

 

Show me the post where I say you did. My comment about the Bible was seperate from my question to you.

 

BTW I seriously doubt you have ever read it in its entirety. Anyway go ahead and prove its a complete work of fiction, along with the secular records that confirm most of it.

 

FYI I HAVE read some of the Bible, not all of it, I admit. I stopped because I felt it was becoming boring and ridiculous.

 

So what your saying is, both need an element of faith? so you cant prove your side of the coin any more than I can.

 

I have already said (If you've read any of my posts) that we don't know exactly what happened.

And faith, it's one thing to concider research and theories with evidence to back them up, and another to accept that everything was conveniently put here by a 'god'.

 

I don't dismiss evolution on the back of popular opinion or what a prof told me, or what popular teaching may be, I dismiss it as the methods used to ascertain the info are flawed.

 

I believe evolution as it makes more sense, and can be seen from viruses for example, as aposed to some ominpotent being 'made it'. C'mon... What kind of cop-out is that?!

 

The only thing I see again from this thread is many people refuse, like Dawkins to accept any possibility of a creation account due to subjective bias.

 

Oh, I believed it at one point, then one day it clicked... It was a rediculous thought, a story made up by people thousands of years ago in order to scare and control the population to live and act in a certain way, with 'omnipotent powers' as a tool. If you're bad during your life, then you spend etertnity in a place called Hell, where you are tormented and torured forever... Yeh.. Okay. How do these people know this? Who made Hell? Is there really a Devil? If there is an ominpotent being, did he create him too?? No, it's a lie to make people behave Remember, people back then were easily led as they knew no different. Much like a flock of sheep.

 

I have looked at both sides of the story, and until you have properly investigated both sides to a large extent, I suggest you keep your blind bias to yourself.

 

Blind bias?! I find that insulting. You're the one throwing sanity out of the window and putting the world and all existence in the hands of ancient stories!

FYI I have also looked at both sides, and I find the scientific researched ideas more believeable than some story about outdated mythology.

 

Benkei what is your scientific based rejection of what i have written in these posts? Did you actually read them?

 

Yes, I have read your posts, I find your point of view interesting if nothing else. However I like to look at the world through my own eyes, I don't believe everything I hear or read. I see what I see and I make sensible theories about why things are like they are, how things are made or put together, etc. I say theories as I don't know the real reason, or I don't have all the information. Simply saying that they were created like that and have been there since the beginning of time is silly. It bears no explanation, only a need for blind faith, which I'm afraid I don't have. I lost that a long time ago, and feel better for it.

 

Do you belive everything you read in the news papers, or everything you hear on the news? No? So why belive everything you read in a book, or was told at school? It's essentially the same thing. They tell you there's a god who did this and did that, you believe it. With no evidence ofcourse.

Also, isn't it strange how it's down to interpretation too? The same paragraph or quote can be interpreted in so many different ways.

And why are there so many different religions with different gods? According to you there is only one god? You can ALL be right?!

The theory of evolution is singular, with no interpretation. You can't misunderstand it.

[Mike]

I like the Nth dimensional being approach. It's far more tangible that this hokey evolutionist 'combining molecules over millions of years' clap trap

[Smellywelshman]

More a pamphlet than a book then?

 

My kestrel can say pamphlet....

[Mike]

My kestrel can say pamphlet....

 

That's probably the most intellectually informed post of this entire thread.

[Animal]

I like the Nth dimensional being approach. It's far more tangible that this hokey evolutionist 'combining molecules over millions of years' clap trap

 

I just get images of unimaginable beings in vast cities of non-euclidian geometry and Great Cthulhu watching from the depth's of R'Lyeh...

 

Maybe Chiefgroover swapped his bible for a Lovecraft compendium...

 

Ia! Ia! R’lyeh - Cthulhu ftagn! Ia! Ia!

Ia! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y’ha-nthlei!

[Mike]

I just get images of unimaginable beings in vast cities of non-euclidian geometry and Great Cthulhu watching from the depth's of R'Lyeh...

 

Maybe Chiefgroover swapped his bible for a Lovecraft compendium...

 

Ia! Ia! R’lyeh - Cthulhu ftagn! Ia! Ia!

Ia! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y’ha-nthlei!

 

I love that this theory is somehow more believable than a bunch of cells and molecules combining over millions of years... and that any argument against the god and jesus thing is just to line pockets.

 

Bizarre, but great entertainment.

 

So what does an Nth dimension being have for lunch? do they have a concept of lunch?

 

Trev - are you from the Isle of Wight by any chance?

[Smellywelshman]

That's probably the most intellectually informed post of this entire thread.

 

One does what one can....

[AndrewOW]

One does what one can....

 

 

And the guy even confesses to being smelly too. Was that by immaculate design, or just bad hygiene?

[Smellywelshman]

And the guy even confesses to being smelly too. Was that by immaculate design, or just bad hygiene?

 

Read my sig there boyo, all shall be revealed!