DM's Beatles forums

Other forums => Different Conversations => Topic started by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 01:53:47 PM

Title: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 01:53:47 PM
A pet subject of mine.
I just can't accept that the universe was created by a supernatural being (ie God). (aside from the logic, what was he doing before? And after? Why did he bother? Who/what made God?)
But then again I find the whole Big Bang thing hard to swallow. (where did the atoms come from? What was there before? Don't get me started on multiverses).
I can think of only two answers:
a) some things are just to big for our ape brains to comprehend (though this doesn't mean God wins by default.)
b) the universe has always been here, constantly expanding, imploding and starting over again.

Any thoughts????
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 02:19:20 PM
I always like to think about this and keep falling back to the same ideas.

The Bible and all the stories in it are fake and that includes the son of god, The Bible to me was written at a time when there was no law and no one cared for there actions, robbing,raping and murder and it made people think about there actions.

When you see these worlds hairiest men photo's it makes you think there is every chance that we evolved from monkeys and that we could have came together from one huge bang, but then i think to myself everything is to perfectly planned.

Everything on this earth has a purpose, from us having 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand to be able to hold things to reproducing. If everything happened by accident then why one man and one woman with reproductive organs ??? it all seems a little too thought out also We are the just the right distance from the sun and the moon for plant life and not be fried alive ? could be coincidence but when they all start to add up it seems a little organized , So what i believe is yes there was no Adam and Eve and we werent the first to inhabit the earth and yes we came from a huge bang but that bang wasn't accidental and someone planned it.

I also believe in the heaven and hell thing, with our life on earth as our purgatory where we are being judged.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 11, 2009, 02:19:21 PM
B) is the most logical answer (to me at least) of the two you give. Personally I've of the opinion that there are a multitude of universes, and ours is just one of them. Our universe may be just another 'galaxy' in the grand scheme of things. But where does the grand scheme start and end?

I think it's impossible for the layman to comprehend some of the stuff that goes through the minds of theoretical scientists. Infinity, for instance, time and space etc. My brain hurts already.

I'm also of the opinion (totally unfounded though it may be) that there is a missing link somewhere in history. The Aztecs where able to do things far in advance of anyone for thousands of years to come. Where did this knowledge come from. If you believe Erich Von Daniken, beings came from outer space to teach them. Personally I think that's a load of tosh. So how did they do it?

Where's Roscoe?!!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 02:28:16 PM
I think Erich VD is an oppotunist who saw a chance to make some cash. None of his theories stand up to any logic and he has been completely discredited..
There's quite a few examples of technology being abandoned or misused. The ancient Greeks had a very workable steam engine - trouble was they never thought to use it as an energy source and instead used it to blow steam on stage during plays. The Babylonians (I think) had primitive batteries, use unknown, but probaly for burnishing (?) copper. If aliens showed them how (which the fringe believe) then they were pretty stupid, because you'd need hundreds of them to power a single light bulb (which they didn't have anyway.)
You and I couldn't make an arrow head out of stone, make fire or build a pyramid - because we don't need to. Conversly a Pharoah would have great difficulty working a DVD player.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 11, 2009, 02:35:28 PM
^ I can make a fire, but I'm useless with the DVD player! I can just about use my mobile. And it hasn't even got a camera.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 02:44:46 PM
Quote from: 758
Everything on this earth has a purpose, from us having 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand to be able to hold things to reproducing. If everything happened by accident then why one man and one woman with reproductive organs ??? it all seems a little too thought out also We are the just the right distance from the sun and the moon for plant life and not be fried alive ? could be coincidence

Okay - my thoughts. Imagine two human-ape ancestors. One has 4 fingers and thumb, another has 3. Mr 4 Finger has an advantage and so produces more offspring than poor fumbling always-dropping-his-nuts Mr 3 Finger. Eventually the 3 Finger family has died out and 4 rule. Evolution isn't chance or coincidence. It's a fact that ALL populations produce variations, and its a fact that those with variations that give an advantage will out produce those that don't.
It seems to be generally accepted (though not confirmed) that there are billions of planets out there. Life requires certain temperatures, elements etc to survive. Hence life flourishes here, and not on Mercury (we presume). Logic, not coincidence methinks.
So many people dismiss evolution as "chance." It's not. It's a logical, observable and measurable sequence of events, no more "coincidence" than gravity.
Phew
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 02:46:07 PM
Without getting all Roscoe on you's,but doesnt it all seem a little too coincidental ?  that we came about and everything our body needs to survive came also ? we need water to stay hydrated, we need vegetables and fruit for nourishment and energy , air to breath..... take away any one of those and were finished so if it was a huge bang it was a very thoughtful one. maybe a planned one ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 02:47:26 PM
Sorry Kevin last post was written before i saw youre last post
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: 758
Without getting all Roscoe on you's,but doesnt it all seem a little too coincidental ?  that we came about and everything our body needs to survive came also ? we need water to stay hydrated, we need vegetables and fruit for nourishment and energy , air to breath..... take away any one of those and were finished so if it was a huge bang it was a very thoughtful one.

Sorry - I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If any of those things weren't here then we wouldn't be. Of all the billions of planets in the universe one/some had to provide the right conditions. We know because we're here that this is one of them.
That's no coincidence.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 02:51:48 PM
ditto
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 02:55:13 PM
Quote from: 185

Sorry - I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If any of those things weren't here then we wouldn't be. Of all the billions of planets in the universe one/sum had to provide the right conditions. We know because we're here that this is one of them.
That's no coincidence.

So in saying it isnt a coincidence are we agreeing it was an accident or just that i belive it may have been planned and yourself belives we made it because this planet was perfect for life were as the other planets just weren't ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: 758

So in saying it isnt a coincidence are we agreeing it was an accident or just that i belive it may have been planned and yourself belives we made it because this planet was perfect for life were as the other planets just weren't ?

yes. Life exists on this planet because the conditions are right. If they weren't it wouldn't. They aren't on Mecury so it doesn't. We don't say "ooh what a coincidence" when rains falls from black clouds, because we know black clouds produce the right conditions for rain. Fluffy white ones don't. Not a hint of coincidence, chance or accident.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: 483
B) is the most logical answer (to me at least) of the two you give. Personally I've of the opinion that there are a multitude of universes,

My problem with this: I've always dismissed religion as it encounters a problem (the origins of the universe) and comes up with an answer (God) that is unprovable. Conversly I've always upheld science as producing answers that are proveable.
Now science comes up with it's own answers (multiverses, string theory etc) that are also unproveable. They exist only in the minds of mathematicians. To me this is no better than religion, and does a terrible diservice in diluting science's standing.
They are a possibility, but then again so is God. I'd rather go with the "we don't know right now" theory.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 11, 2009, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: 185
Now science comes up with it's own answers (multiverses, string theory etc) that are also unproveable. They exist only in the minds of mathematicians. To me this is no better than religion, and does a terrible diservice in diluting science's standing.

But hasn't science always come up with it's own answers? You need to start off with a theory, and then set about attempting to prove it. If it doesn't workout, you move on. Theories are usually based around the most likely cause/set of events/explanation for something, based on logical sense and the knowledge that we have at that time. Are they not? So scientists regularly have to make big leaps in order that they can make any sense out of anything.

Sort of. Over to you. This is fun!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 11, 2009, 03:59:54 PM
Quote from: 483

But hasn't science always come up with it's own answers? You need to start off with a theory, and then set about attempting to prove it. If it doesn't workout, you move on. Theories are usually based around the most likely cause/set of events/explanation for something, based on logical sense and the knowledge that we have at that time. Are they not? So scientists regularly have to make big leaps in order that they can make any sense out of anything.

Sort of. Over to you. This is fun!

Damn - I agree. But as long as we make it clear that they are possibilities and not facts.
Still - thinking of an answer then looking for the facts to prove it bothers me.
It really narks me when people call evolution "Darwin's theory." It's like calling gravity "Newtons theory." Try jumping off a very tall building.
Another big worry - apparently (I'm no expert) the laws that exist for big things (gravity, solidness, being able to be in only one place at a time etc) that we presumed to be universal don't seem to operate at the molecular level. For a discipline that spends its time looking for some great unifying truth (just like the church...hmmm) there seems to be a whole new set of different laws (if laws exist) going on down there. So then we can't assume that laws that exist here necessarily exist elsewhere.
I need a drink.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 11, 2009, 04:13:06 PM
Quote from: 185

Damn - I agree. But as long as we make it clear that they are possibilities and not facts.
Still - thinking of an answer then looking for the facts to prove it bothers me.

Isn't it a bit like making a calculated guess? A scientist thinks that something is possible, or very likely, then sets about to try to prove it. They're driven in a certain direction for a reason, i.e. that there may be no other explanation. A bit like a prosecution lawyer trying to prove that someone is guilty of the crime charged. Often the police will charge someone because they are the most likely suspect when no one else fits the profile. They then set about constructing the case for.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 04:40:34 PM
 Scientists are so set on one explanation and following it up to prove it, that they can overlook other possiblities, in the same that priests will disregard facts for blind faith ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 11, 2009, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: 185
Who/what made God?

Even if we knew who the God's creator is, we still wouldn't know who created God's creator. That's why that question has no sense. By definition, God is the only not created being. God is before the beginning of time and after the end of time, and our minds are finite to understand it. God is just the key of the existence, whatever that key is, and that's why we can't explain God. Since I know that I exist, there must be one source from where I come, and I understand that such source is God.

Personally I do believe that God is the God of the Bible. But believing in God is not just believing in God's existence, it's believing in God's message. My God is the Word that Jesus preached: Love.

"It's so fine, it's sunshine, it's the word love!" :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 06:18:18 PM
I belive in some greater Being if you want to call him God thats fine but the Jesus bit ive explained in a previous post.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 11, 2009, 06:27:12 PM
Well, you can't deny Jesus's words, they actually exist. Whoever said those words of wisdom is my God, and it seems that Jesus did. Actually, according to the Bible, God is the Word.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on June 11, 2009, 06:38:56 PM
Quote from: 1997
Well, you can't deny Jesus's words, they actually exist. Whoever said those words of wisdom is my God, and it seems that Jesus did. Actually, according to the Bible, God is the Word.

It seems that this is true. Seems, because I am also being careful like Hombre.
It is not that universe was created first, about which Kevin wonders. It is that WORD came first. Not material things, but spiritual things or thing. First WORD and thus REASON. Then Reasonable creation of everything. Material things.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 11, 2009, 06:47:43 PM
Quote from: 1393

It seems that this is true. Seems, because I am also being careful like Hombre.
It is not that universe was created first, about which Kevin wonders. It is that WORD came first. Not material things, but spiritual things or thing. First WORD and thus REASON. Then Reasonable creation of everything. Material things.


You're right, Jane. Nothing can exist without the Word. Everything we can feel with our physical senses could be an illusion, but we certainly know that the Word is real because it's inside us.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on June 11, 2009, 09:29:19 PM
I may be in the minority when I say this, but I think there can be a happy medium between religion and science. The bible has been translated and re-translated so many times, who are we to take it literally? When it's said that it took seven years for God to make the earth, maybe that was just symbolic. Maybe that really meant millions of years.

In any case, I do believe in something bigger. I studied philosophy this year and it really made me question some of my beliefs, while at the same time affirming some others. It's too bad that so many people have to see these things in black and white. Even Pope John Paul II believed in evolution, unless The Simpsons has been lying to me.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: alexis on June 11, 2009, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: 1997

You're right, Jane. Nothing can exist without the Word. Everything we can feel with our physical senses could be an illusion, but we certainly know that the Word is real because it's inside us.


Ain't it ironic that it was John who wrote: "The Word is Love".

I believe in the God of the Bible. I also believe that the half-naked savage in the bush who prays to a god of Life and Peace is worshipping the same thing. I believe that our scientists are discovering the workings of God's universe. I believe that man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together, just a few thousand years after it was created: http://creationmuseum.org/  
 http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/

OK, I don't believe that last one. But I do believe that we all have homework here on earth, and that is to try to be as good to each other as we can. Realistically, at least for me, that means more like trying to fail miserably at that task as little as possible. I do believe in the biblical Jesus, and in life after death, and I'm pretty sure I believe in some version of Heaven if you're good (with permanent front row seats at all Beatles venues, including Quarry Bank High School, and gigging with the boys in various hotel rooms in 1964).  But I don't believe that people who don't share these beliefs are necessarily condemned to an eternity of Wayne Newton.

I can't justify these things, but they are there. I kind of think it doesn't really matter if someone believes these things or not, so long as they practice Love of fellow man. Jesus, ...?..., Ghandi, MLK, they are all tapping into the same thing. And somehow the Beatles felt Love was the key to life also. To me, that's pretty cool.

BTW, I follow the string theory and expanding universe stuff closely too. My theory is that every thing that has happened since the beginning of time also occured in an infinite number of different ways in an infinite number of different universes. So in one universe, I'm going to hit "Post" in about 1 minute. In another I say this is all too silly to commit to the internet, and I hit delete. In yet another, just before I hit send, I'm struck down by a flaming pie. Taken too far, this kind of thinking can make you crazy because then it really doesn't matter what we do, because an infinite number of other "us"-es will do it differently, covering all the bases.

And sometimes I think we are all one fraction of some sort of a translational rotation from anywhere, or anytime. Sort of like one of George's songs. Whoops, this is sounding a bit like one of those nutcase posters who like to visit now and then. Maybe I should just delete all this ...
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 11, 2009, 10:06:33 PM
Quote from: 218
I may be in the minority when I say this, but I think there can be a happy medium between religion and science. The bible has been translated and re-translated so many times, who are we to take it literally? When it's said that it took seven years for God to make the earth, maybe that was just symbolic. Maybe that really meant millions of years.

In any case, I do believe in something bigger. I studied philosophy this year and it really made me question some of my beliefs, while at the same time affirming some others. It's too bad that so many people have to see these things in black and white. Even Pope John Paul II believed in evolution, unless The Simpsons has been lying to me.

Actually the evidences that support the evolution theory also support the biblical narration of the creation. Just see the order the things were created: light; plants; animals in the sea; animals on the earth; humanity.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 11, 2009, 10:07:48 PM
Quote from: 568
Ain't it ironic that it was John who wrote: "The Word is Love".

I always thought that "The Word" was about the Bible, even if John didn't mean that.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 11, 2009, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: 218
I may be in the minority when I say this, but I think there can be a happy medium between religion and science. The bible has been translated and re-translated so many times, who are we to take it literally? When it's said that it took seven years for God to make the earth, maybe that was just symbolic. Maybe that really meant millions of years.

In any case, I do believe in something bigger. I studied philosophy this year and it really made me question some of my beliefs, while at the same time affirming some others. It's too bad that so many people have to see these things in black and white. Even Pope John Paul II believed in evolution, unless The Simpsons has been lying to me.


This is what i was going for earlier, that both Scientists and Religion figures will ignore the others beliefs even if it makes more sense than there own, blind faith/ignorance. I belive we were created by a greater being but i dont believe in the whole Adam and Eve stuff, i also believe we did evolve and we may have also came from a big bang, but that bang was planned.

So i too believe in the big cross over and wish that both Science and Religion could also recognise that both there beliefs are flawed and work together for a greater explanation
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on June 12, 2009, 12:07:25 AM
Well said fendertele!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on June 13, 2009, 06:09:42 PM
I would love to believe there was a higher power looking out for us, but human nature tells me it was just our ego that created "him." But really, there are things just too big for us to understand, so who am I to say anything is or isn't.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: pc31 on June 13, 2009, 06:25:44 PM
well a controlled bang is what i like  ;)....there was some sort of randomess in the beginning...i don't think the bang theory applies as an experiment...the only way they can measure distance is from point of origin...that means here...anything measured would seem to be traveling away from us...i side with science because religion is too organized....choas is how nature reacts to castrophy....the bang if occurred was a natural occurence,as natural as it was random....i can't believe the planned part...as for life else wheres...yes...this universe could be full of life and we are the ignorant ones,ig being not advanced enough to percieve,be it with a guage,machine,faith,will or some other device.....we can only see what we realize is real.....i believe that jesus was on this earth as for him being an offspring of a devine god,i don't believe it...but it sure gives an uncanny faith to those who believe it,so why dis it...it helps develope faith which is what rationality needs...you can have faith with out it,i do.....as for god...i believe in surperior life but not to the god sense...the words are great wisdoms but time is so old already..noone knows where it all comes from...gifts and comforts collected for survival do deserve some type off homage...but why should the church recieve it...i can deliver my extra spoils better than they...
the missing link seems to be a truth type deal but for whose race really????the saline solution i was in for nine months in my moms belly tells me water is involved in my total being..we are mostly water...with all the things we depend on water for,can you believe how we abuse it???water to me is a god...not to be sacrelidge because i do intend it most times...i would like to discuss this without the church because i believe in evolution not creation......if it was creation,it was scientific....evolution is a tricky word tho..things change to adapt...can you say it evolved if it happened for adapability?
conditions shape evolution factors so they are not actual evolutions...
definitions from human reality is only useable by us...our reality is just ours...other life forms besides our will have no use for them...confused? live with honor is all i can say...be true to your word...
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: pc31 on June 13, 2009, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: 216
I would love to believe there was a higher power looking out for us, but human nature tells me it was just our ego that created "him." But really, there are things just too big for us to understand, so who am I to say anything is or isn't.
fence walker!!! ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on June 14, 2009, 05:10:32 PM
Our mind is imperfect. It is incomparable with the Higher Mind or Reason (or God), which created everything. That is why we will never be able to understand God or our world to the full. No matter how hard we try to do it, no matter how much we try to develop science and combine it with religion, we will fail to understand it all. That is why we speak about faith. Understanding refers to science, faith, belief refer to religion. And a person is free to choose. It`s up to a person to believe or not, because nobody is able to explain where everything came from or prove the existense of God. But the paradox is that great scientists, physicists, mathematicians were and are religious people. At one point they come to accepting religion. This has always perplexed me. And it is true that even Darvin was religious. Which means that religion and science do not contradict each other but complement.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on June 15, 2009, 09:44:17 AM
Why does it after to be a big bang , it could just as easy have been a small bang or a slight ripple in time that sparked it all off  ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 15, 2009, 09:48:33 AM
Quote from: 971
Why does it after to be a big bang , it could just as easy have been a small bang or a slight ripple in time ?

Because this is what the evidence indicates.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on June 15, 2009, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: 185

Because this is what the evidence indicates.

Some evidence maybe , but their is not enough matter in the universe according to some to support a big bang theory , think the boffin's are now talking about "String" theory as they could'nt make the big bang theory add up ?
Looks to me like they have'nt got a clue and God still holds the answer to the big question , maybe they should  just take the dog for a walk and get a life ?

(teeth1)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 15, 2009, 10:18:16 AM
Quote from: 971

Looks to me like they have'nt got a clue and God still holds the answer to the big question , maybe they should  just take the dog for a walk and get a life ?

(teeth1)

In the Big Cluedo Game that is life I don't think you can say God did it just because some of the other answers don't add up. I think to say "hmm - not enough matter in the universe to support The Big Bang (for which their is some compelling evidence) therefore it can't be true - therefore it must have been made by a supernatural being (for which the evidence is zilch) is a bit silly.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 15, 2009, 10:32:40 AM
One thing I want to push - whether or not The Big Bang or any other scientific answer about the universe's origins can be proven correct DOES NOT alter the fact that evolution proves beyond doubt that man is descended from a common ancestor of the ape.
And is it not a basic tenant of the bible that god created man in his own image? If it is so wrong on this one basic issue, how can you so unquestionably accept the rest of it? Don't you EVER go "hang on a bit...made woman out of a rib? That don't seem right????"
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on June 15, 2009, 10:55:19 AM
 ^^^^I think there is evidence to support Evolution Kevin , but thats more within our control to examine , we can dig things up and Carbon date things , it's Earth bound science ?
The Big Bang theory or String theory is about the wider universe and i'm not sure we have the tools to examine it , yes we have the Huble telescope and  the space station  and some great minds on Earth .
But until we do some serious deep space travel and collect and examine things , everthing is just Earth bound theory as far as i can see .
My feeling is we are still in the foothills when it comes to our knowledge of the universe .
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 15, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
agree with that Dave.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 15, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
Quote from: 185
One thing I want to push - whether or not The Big Bang or any other scientific answer about the universe's origins can be proven correct DOES NOT alter the fact that evolution proves beyond doubt that man is descended from a common ancestor of the ape.
And is it not a basic tenant of the bible that god created man in his own image? If it is so wrong on this one basic issue, how can you so unquestionably accept the rest of it? Don't you EVER go "hang on a bit...made woman out of a rib? That don't seem right????"

I don't see why understanding the origin of the universe would deny the existence of God. I think it would just be a "technical explanation" of how God created everything.

About the evolution theory, it's not true that it was proven beyond doubt. The adaptation of a particular specie is certainly a solid theory, but the evolution from one specie to other still has some holes. If the evidence is that humans and monkeys have almost similar DNA chains (about 97% of coincidence), I could say that God used similar tools to create almost similar life. You can read the evidence in different ways.

Anyway, I don't think that the Bible would be descridited if the evolution theory were proven; just read the chapter 1 of Genesis: the order of things that were created is the same order according to the evolution theory. You must think that Genesis was written about 3500 years ago, to people from that time, so don't ask for scientific explanations. Thus, you shouldn't read the Bible so literally. And the Bible says that God created man in his own image because man was created to govern on Earth.

About the rib, the non-literal interpretation could be that God used part of the DNA information of man to create woman, since the Y chromosome of man has less information than the X chromosomes.

I could be a bit subjective in my opinion because of my faith (which is not blind but based on the light from words of wisdom), but everybody is subjective at one point. The subjective premise of atheists is that God does not exist: that's the most blind faith.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 15, 2009, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: 1997

About the evolution theory, it's not true that it was proven beyond doubt. The adaptation of a particular specie is certainly a solid theory, but the evolution from one specie to other still has some holes. If the evidence is that humans and monkeys have almost similar DNA chains (about 97% of coincidence), I could say that God used similar tools to create almost similar life. You can read the evidence in different ways.


A word about the term 'theory'. In scientific terms the word is not used as a suggested explanation, but for an idea that at least meets basic requirements. Evolution is without question. Although there are still 'missing links' enough is known, and provable beyond doubt, to support it. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever for the creationist. Unless you believe a book written, in the most part, several hundreds of years after the events depicted.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 15, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: 483

A word about the term 'theory'. In scientific terms the word is not used as a suggested explanation, but for an idea that at least meets basic requirements. Evolution is without question. Although there are still 'missing links' enough is known, and provable beyond doubt, to support it. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever for the creationist. Unless you believe a book written, in the most part, several hundreds of years after the events depicted.

I'm quite happy to debate it, and everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what a shame that a promising and enjoyable thread on the origins of evolution is being hijacked by the god squad.

Evolution is just a reading of the evidences. I admit that evolution fits to the evidences, but evidences can have different readings. And the evidences are not against the Bible narration of the creation since, as I already said, the order things were created is the order according to scientific evidences: light; vegetables; animals on water; animals on earth; humanity. You couldn't ask more to a book written about 3500 years ago.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 15, 2009, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: 1997

Evolution is just a reading of the evidences. I admit that evolution fits to the evidences, but evidences can have different readings. And the evidences are not against the Bible narration of the creation since, as I already said, the order things were created is the order according to scientific evidences: light; vegetables; animals on water; animals on earth; humanity. You couldn't ask more to a book written about 3500 years ago.

But most of the Bible has been proved to have been written much less than 2000 years ago. Or do you not trust science at all? And onec again, there is no evidence for creation against evolution. If you think there is, please tell.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 15, 2009, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: 483

But most of the Bible has been proved to have been written much less than 2000 years ago. Or do you not trust science at all? And onec again, there is no evidence for creation against evolution. If you think there is, please tell.

Actually, I'm a scientist: I do investigation in food science. But this doesn't go against my faith.

I meant the book of Genesis, it was written by Moses about 3500 years ago. I don't know what proofs you are talking about, I haven't seen them. But of course part of the Bible, the New Testament, was written about 2000 years ago since it was after Jesus. And during the Bible times it was transcribed several times because the paper got old, so there's not an "original Bible" to be dated. But we know the dates from the historical people who wrote it. Moreover, there's archaeological evidence that proves some events described in the Bible. Do you know the story about Joshua's long day? There's evidence from different cultures (from Joshua's time) who reported that miracle: the sun didn't "move" for about 24 hours.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 15, 2009, 04:12:35 PM
About the creationism vs. evolution, I'm just saying that the same evidence can support both of them depending on how you read it.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 16, 2009, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: 1997
About the creationism vs. evolution, I'm just saying that the same evidence can support both of them depending on how you read it.

Hi mate. Enjoy your responses.
I have to really refute that last statement. The evidence proves evolution, has no evidence for and removes the need for the hand of a supernatural being. I can't disprove Santa made DNA, but the onus is on the Santarists to prove he did, not vice versa.
There is not a shred of evidence of some gods hand in anything to do with evolution. Not an iota.
Actually I find Creationism a bit sad. A hundred years ago your god was an all powerful creator of the universe and man and everything around us. We were (according to the religiouis)the direct result of his work. He was ominpotent, answering our prayers and directing our destinies. Now as evidence and logic encroaches on your beliefs you've reduced him to the role of a mere chemist, mixing together amino acids or whatever. Whats worse, his present job seems to be the manager of a rather exclusive hotel, and even then he can't even be ar*ed to man the door.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 16, 2009, 09:23:15 AM
^^ It's no longer 'god created the universe', in order to counter the evolutionists arguments it's now 'god created evolution'. Clutching at straws. That is sad.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on June 16, 2009, 02:08:18 PM
Quote from: 1997

I don't see why understanding the origin of the universe would deny the existence of God. I think it would just be a "technical explanation" of how God created everything.

About the evolution theory, it's not true that it was proven beyond doubt. The adaptation of a particular specie is certainly a solid theory, but the evolution from one specie to other still has some holes.


I agree with you. The bible was written in plain language, in simple words so that people who lived long ago could understand it. Especially taking into account the fact that science wasn`t developed at that time. How could certain things be explained to men? Only in such a way. So do not take the text literally. It is written figuratively. It is much deeper and wiser than some of you think it is. And as science develops it becomes easier to explain certain things, so science comes to help give "technical explanation", as Hombre writes, to biblical text.
The evolution theory hasn`t been proven, and there`s a link missing which is supposed to show the thransition from ape to man. NO SUCH LINK. All of a sudden comes HOMO SAPIENS. The theory seems to be far-fetched.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 16, 2009, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: 1393
The theory seems to be far-fetched.

You really think that evolution is far fetched? And creation isn't?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 16, 2009, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: 1393


The evolution theory hasn`t been proven, and there`s a link missing which is supposed to show the thransition from ape to man. NO SUCH LINK. All of a sudden comes HOMO SAPIENS. The theory seems to be far-fetched.

Sorry, but the fossil record  has given us an almost embarrassing amount of what you call "missing links". Howabout Australopithecus or Australopithecus afarensis or Paranthropus boisei??? Combine it with the geoligical, anatomical and genetic evidence and the case for evolution is watertight.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on June 16, 2009, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: 483

You really think that evolution is far fetched? And creation isn't?

No, BlueMeanie. The point is a bit different. Evolution is science. And since it is science it MUST be proved, it must have sound scientific foundation, based on evidence, for us to accept it. Since there are gaps and shortcomings in the theory of evolution, it is imperfect and can`t be relied on totally. It can`t be called scientific theory. So the ultimate conclusions seem to be far-fetched. You see, with science everything is easier.
Creation is not a scientific theory. It is a part of religion. It is not supposed to be proved. It can`t have scientific foundation. You can believe it or not. You can try to understand it and build some logical connections. But the thing is that you will never be able to prove it completely. We can only wait for the day when some more evidence will come into light and open the veil. Just a bit.
Thus, the conclusion is that we can discuss theories and their flaws and see whether we should believe them or not. But creation is beyond us so far. That`s what I think.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 16, 2009, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: 185

Hi mate. Enjoy your responses.
I have to really refute that last statement. The evidence proves evolution, has no evidence for and removes the need for the hand of a supernatural being. I can't disprove Santa made DNA, but the onus is on the Santarists to prove he did, not vice versa.
There is not a shred of evidence of some gods hand in anything to do with evolution. Not an iota.
Actually I find Creationism a bit sad. A hundred years ago your god was an all powerful creator of the universe and man and everything around us. We were (according to the religiouis)the direct result of his work. He was ominpotent, answering our prayers and directing our destinies. Now as evidence and logic encroaches on your beliefs you've reduced him to the role of a mere chemist, mixing together amino acids or whatever. Whats worse, his present job seems to be the manager of a rather exclusive hotel, and even then he can't even be ar*ed to man the door.

You seem to put the question as science vs. religion, but their objectives are different. Science answers the "how" question while religion answers the "why" question. The Bible teaches us about a philosophy of life that is good beyond the fact that the evolution theory is right or wrong. I found God in those words of wisdom, not on proven facts, even though some Bible facts were proven by archaelogical evidence.

For some reason every culture of the world believed in the concept of a Higher Being, since it explains everything science is not able to. You got nothing from nothing, so there must have been Someone or Something before everything. So I understand that mind is before matter. It doesn't matter what logic you use, you'll always fall in a big hole if you want to explain the existence without God.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on June 16, 2009, 03:52:48 PM
I'm gonna stop now (unless someone says something real stoopid. ) or I'm going to get all preachy.
Congrats all on staying cool and calm in what tends to be contentious subject
My last comment - I don't think there is a "why." Just an "is." Therefore I think my logic remains intact.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 16, 2009, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: 185
I don't think there is a "why." Just an "is."

And God IS. :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on June 16, 2009, 04:57:56 PM
Everybody is right in this argument. And that is true.  :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: fendertele on June 16, 2009, 08:00:19 PM
we'll nobody is wrong thats for sure ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on June 17, 2009, 12:38:35 AM
In before someone starts quoting Christopher Hutchens.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Bobber on June 17, 2009, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: 483

Isn't it a bit like making a calculated guess? A scientist thinks that something is possible, or very likely, then sets about to try to prove it. They're driven in a certain direction for a reason, i.e. that there may be no other explanation. A bit like a prosecution lawyer trying to prove that someone is guilty of the crime charged. Often the police will charge someone because they are the most likely suspect when no one else fits the profile. They then set about constructing the case for.

Makes me think of the Dutch author Harry Mulisch: "The fact that every man and woman that has lived also died, is no prove that it will happen to me as well."
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 22, 2009, 08:58:14 AM
Not wanting to rake over old coals, but my girlfriend is a Jain (a Budhist/Hindu offshoot from about 300BC). She sent me this info which outlines some of their core beliefs. Finally a religion for aethiests!! I found it pretty astounding:

Jainism and God
Jains do not believe that the universe was created by God or by any other creative spirit. Jain writings are scornful of the very idea:
If God created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?
No single being had the skill to make this world -- For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?
If God is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

There is no God who demands worship
Any being that desired anything would not be perfect and thus not a god.


Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 22, 2009, 09:50:25 AM
 The Bible is clear woman was created from Adam's rib , that part of Gods creation cannot be disputed ?
Not so much a big bang but more divine surgery .
I don't think that sounds to fanciful that all women oh their existence to man and Gods wonderful surgical brilliance .
Women really should know there place in the grand scheme of things  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 22, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
 :)
I especially like the bilbe story of Abraham. To test his loyalty God tells him to murder his own son. Poor old Abraham drags little Isaac up a mountain and is just about to slit his throat (how terrified are these people at this point?) and only at the last moment God sends a messenger to tell him he needn't bother.
What kind of insecure power-freak does that?  He sounds more like a character from The Godfather than the light of truth and love.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 22, 2009, 10:11:46 AM
^^^^ Such wonderful stories Kevin , wonder if you would get them published in today's PC world ? me thinks not  ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 22, 2009, 10:17:13 AM
Oh, and here God orders a bit of mass murder:

Exodus 32:27-29 (King James Version)
 27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
 28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.


Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 22, 2009, 10:35:04 AM
Last one. Genesis 11.
The people (who are united and speak one language) decide to build a tower to reach heaven. God checks it and thinks "Bugger this, if they reach heaven they'll become omnipotent too and then that's me f*cked." So he scatters them and gives them different languages so they'll never unite again.
Good move God. You've just set up mankind for thousands of years of strife and war, but at least your monopoly on power has been secured.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 22, 2009, 10:57:44 AM
I think Jesus inherited a bit of his dad's paranoia and power issues:

Matthew 34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.       
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on July 23, 2009, 12:44:35 AM
:)
I especially like the bilbe story of Abraham. To test his loyalty God tells him to murder his own son. Poor old Abraham drags little Isaac up a mountain and is just about to slit his throat (how terrified are these people at this point?) and only at the last moment God sends a messenger to tell him he needn't bother.
What kind of insecure power-freak does that?  He sounds more like a character from The Godfather than the light of truth and love.


This is is going to sound kind of weird, but when I was a kid I watched this anime video bible series called Superbook. It was about two kids and their robot friend who went on bible adventures with the help of a magical talking Bible. I am completely serious.

Anyway, that was one of the stories they animated, and it was one of my favourites! Now that I think about it, it was a pretty weird thing for a kid to love. I also liked the one about Jacob and Esau, but I think that had more to do with my own older sibling-inferiority complex.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 23, 2009, 08:18:37 AM
This is is going to sound kind of weird,

hi Mairi - I'd be dissapointed if you sounded anything else.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on July 23, 2009, 09:48:39 PM
Thanks Kevin, and don't worry, I will never dissapoint you.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 24, 2009, 09:12:07 PM
BTW religion is also the thing that keeps certain people together, people of some nationality. It saves their way of life, their view on the world, on how things should be. If you give it up you will lose this thin but very important spiritual link and you may even lose your way of life. It`s all not that simple.
The Soviet Union lived without religion for 70 years, from 1917-1987. And what happened? Other people filled in the gap, cause people need something to live by, some religion or ideology. This ideology became marxism-leninism, imposed by the scoundrels, who had nothing to do with the native nationalities but who knew pretty well the unifying power of religion. Of course, they prohibited it, crashed and destroyed the churches, and people couldn`t go to church, couldn`t pray, and started to forget their traditions which are also kept by church. Mind that the gap will never be empty, either politicians will fill it in with some theory which is certainly much worse than any religion, cause it will serve the needs of these politicians, who crave for power, who are always dirty; or some other ideology or even religion will take the place of yours (and some will turn in the case of the loss of your religion to the other ones) don`t even doubt it. Either way you will have to live by something. It`s better to stand by something that is yours and not invented by some aliens or just very imperfect humans. So think twice before...
As far as I can see the West has lost its religion, it believes in nothing, it doesn`t have anything that is to be saved, to be considered sacred, it doesn`t believe in a man`s soul. The West has become increasingly material, the only thing that is important is money, dollars. What else? Please, tell me. Even LOVE between man and woman, which is the most beautiful thing in the world, соль земли - the basis of life and everything is not sacred any more there. It`s only materialism that counts and thus - money, comfortable spiritless life, consumerism, sex without love (we have no souls only body), drugs. Very sad.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 25, 2009, 09:42:44 AM
^ I agree with you totally Jane. I've said all along that religion is a very important evolutionary tool, binding communities together. And religion provides obvious comfort to many. i don't knock that.
Buit it still defeats me how obviously educated, logical, intelligent people like yourself can believe that life was created and ruled by some supernatural being, for who despite all his so called powers not one jot of evidence of his existance exists. Yet you all continue to fall to your knees and almost beg for his love. You should be stronger than that.
Besides, if tomorrow you did prove God's existance I'd think s/he was an absolute ass and would rather burn in hell than kowtow to such an obviously demented, paranoid tyrant. "Love me or suffer forever" indeed.
Oh, and I know to aethism gave us Hitler.  And humans without religion seems a bit...unhuman.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 25, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
I don't know, but I don't understand why, if you're educated and intelligent, this means you shouldn't have faith in a higher power. Like you should know better or something. The bible is not meant to be taken literally. It has nothing to do with the science of things. I think it's very sweet that people can have that kind of faith. It's at least one tiny thing that remains unjaded in them.

Also, times were SOOOO different back then and people were a lot crueler in general. I mean, how can you possibly make judgment on something that supposedly took place in a world we could NEVER relate to! I mean, people crucified and tortured other people and this was thought to be normal. Throwing people to the lions. How about that? It just isn't the same. So comprehending a scripture that was written at a time when people were pretty barbaric, probably has a bearing on things. But still, if you read the new testament, Jesus sounds like a hippie. His words are very beautiful.

Again, I can't bring myself to believe, but I don't feel that I know enough about this universe to arrogantly say that those with faith are stupid or that there isn't some higher power. We still know SO little about how things work. Always keep an open mind. Or something!

PS
If I haven't totally annoyed you Kevin, maybe we'll have another dance sometime. ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 25, 2009, 11:43:14 AM
PS
If I haven't totally annoyed you Kevin, maybe we'll have another dance sometime. ;D

Annoy me!! I'd rather have some one violently disagree with me than have no opinion at all. I looove arguing, I mean debating.
I saw a documentary last night "Don't Be Denied - The Neil Young story." Nils Lofgren was in it, though he wasn't fat. If I go to sleep thinking of pimperknickels.......
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 25, 2009, 09:35:14 PM
Buit it still defeats me how obviously educated, logical, intelligent people like yourself can believe that life was created and ruled by some supernatural being, for who despite all his so called powers not one jot of evidence of his existance exists. Yet you all continue to fall to your knees and almost beg for his love. You should be stronger than that.
Oh, and I know to aethism gave us Hitler.  And humans without religion seems a bit...unhuman.

Kevin! You are right when you ask the question how can educated people believe in God. I think there are different ways to believe. Common people, not very educated, just believe in him literally, for example as a man sitting on a cloud, and take every word he said as it is. But the most interesting thing is that when you start to think about it all, you open horizons and treasures of wisdom contained in the phase or even one single word. Educated people think about their faith differently, more deeply.
No ideology can substitute it, or it will only repeat it again (but will be said by an ordinary man, again a politician) like the Moral Code Of A Communist does. Imagine that! There was such a code for the Soviet people, because there was nothing, no religion, as it was destroyed, but people had to have some moral values, some spiritual values. So the Code was invented, and it contained practically the same statements or what do you call them, as the Bible in its commandments. Cause nothing better has yet been invented or given to humanity than the ideas in the Bible. They are pure wisdom, they have been tested by times, they are above social order, they have survived. If you accept the code than you believe your leader, who created it and presented it to you. But why should I believe him, or in him? He is just human, imperfect, sinful, he is definitely corrupted. Why does he create spiritual values for me? Maybe I should create spiritual values for him! And thus in a society there appear special people who take charge of your soul, but again who said they are spiritual people and are you sure they do not pursue some personal aims? I`d better believe in a perfect being, who is devoid of all these things, and believe a clergyman, who has nothing to do with the government.
Frankly, I do not think much about whether God exists or not, I do not think about who created life, because this puzzle can never be solved, but I doubt very much that we descended from apes, who started working, and turned into humans - to me this is absurd, I do not fall to my knees, as you say, but deep in my soul I do want to believe. Maybe weak people want to find comfort in God, but strong people do not seek it. Strong people think, like you do. Strong people do everything themselves, rely on themselves, but they think, which is good and doubt, which can`t be bad. Like some ancient said: I doubt and so I exist.
Humans without religion are not inhuman, but they have to have something to abide by, some principles then, some positive principles. Can they be strong enough to stand by their principles? If yes, then it`s ok. All their lives people try to come to terms with themselves. But how?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 25, 2009, 09:42:08 PM
I don't know, but I don't understand why, if you're educated and intelligent, this means you shouldn't have faith in a higher power. Like you should know better or something. The bible is not meant to be taken literally. It has nothing to do with the science of things.
But still, if you read the new testament, Jesus sounds like a hippie. His words are very beautiful.
Again, I can't bring myself to believe, but I don't feel that I know enough about this universe to arrogantly say that those with faith are stupid or that there isn't some higher power. We still know SO little about how things work.

I agree with everything said above. And Jesus indeed sounds like a hippie! He was so unusual! So modern! Nothing better has been said yet.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 25, 2009, 11:57:39 PM
Kevin! You are right when you ask the question how can educated people believe in God. I think there are different ways to believe. Common people, not very educated, just believe in him literally, for example as a man sitting on a cloud, and take every word he said as it is. But the most interesting thing is that when you start to think about it all, you open horizons and treasures of wisdom contained in the phase or even one single word. Educated people think about their faith differently, more deeply.
No ideology can substitute it, or it will only repeat it again (but will be said by an ordinary man, again a politician) like the Moral Code Of A Communist does. Imagine that! There was such a code for the Soviet people, because there was nothing, no religion, as it was destroyed, but people had to have some moral values, some spiritual values. So the Code was invented, and it contained practically the same statements or what do you call them, as the Bible in its commandments. Cause nothing better has yet been invented or given to humanity than the ideas in the Bible. They are pure wisdom, they have been tested by times, they are above social order, they have survived. If you accept the code than you believe your leader, who created it and presented it to you. But why should I believe him, or in him? He is just human, imperfect, sinful, he is definitely corrupted. Why does he create spiritual values for me? Maybe I should create spiritual values for him! And thus in a society there appear special people who take charge of your soul, but again who said they are spiritual people and are you sure they do not pursue some personal aims? I`d better believe in a perfect being, who is devoid of all these things, and believe a clergyman, who has nothing to do with the government.



That's a great perspective on things. And I can never understand why intelligent people CANNOT bend enough to see that this is a good way to look at it. Die hard atheists are just as stubborn and rude as militant Christians. Plus they have that extra air of smugness to them that is somewhat nauseating.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 26, 2009, 12:38:20 PM
Common people and people who may not have had a great education can have just as much faith as someone who as wealth and great learning ?
Faith is not elitist in that way , it's for everyone if you want to believe in it .
 
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 12:52:35 AM
"I think it illogical to disbelieve anything we are unable to disprove."
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 08:21:31 AM
"I think it illogical to disbelieve anything we are unable to disprove."

Sorry Sondra but that's silly, and such a cop out. Can you disprove vampires, fairies, goblins or leprechauns? By your logic it is illogical to disbelieve in these things.
How about I say to you there's a two headed green monster living in my attic? You can't disprove it. Therefore you must believe in it? Surely the onus is on me to provide proof.

I completely understand the benefits that religion bestows on individuals and society. I know the secular alternative isn't that wonderful either. But still.....fairies are a nice idea too. But rational adults (I hope) go "hang on, if there were fairies then......" But you seem able to suspend this kind of logic when it comes to this god person.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 08:42:02 AM
"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind."

;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 08:42:23 AM
You see what I'm doing here, right?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 09:08:39 AM
You see what I'm doing here, right?

Doh! Do I feel stupid. Hands across the water.....
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 27, 2009, 09:24:07 AM
The notion of guardian angels seemes to be held by a lot of people ?
I quite like the idea of angels been by our side , once when i was on the hospital ward at work i was sat with an old man who was dying , all of a sudden he started to beckon with his hands and cry angels angels angels , i looked but could'nt see anything , but the peaceful expression on his face made me wonder if he was seeing angels .
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 09:25:58 AM
And finally..

"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

Oh wait, one more.
“Believing would be easier if God would show himself by depositing a million dollars in a Swiss bank account in my name”
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 09:37:42 AM
The notion of guardian angels seemes to be held by a lot of people ?
I quite like the idea of angels been by our side , once when i was on the hospital ward at work i was sat with an old man who was dying , all of a sudden he started to beckon with his hands and cry angels angels angels , i looked but could'nt see anything , but the peaceful expression on his face made me wonder if he was seeing angels .
Yes, they're a nice idea and very comforting. i would like to believe in them. it must be nice. But..
Probably that old man was seeing angels. Who knows what thoughts your brain would generate in that moment of supreme crises. Just like some people see UFO's and ghosts or the virgin mary or Elvis Presley. Don't mean they're there though.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 09:40:19 AM
BTW, dragons, leprechauns, vampires and so can indeed be disproved and really, nobody is claiming they're real. We can trace back to when they were fictionalized or how the myths were created. I'm not saying I believe in God btw, I've already said I don't. But I agree with Einstein that you have to have a certain amount of humility when discussing things that are out of our relm of understanding. To say it's silly or stupid to have some sort of faith in a higher power is a bit arrogant.

And right away, your thing about the old man. Why be compelled to rationalize it away? Again, who are we to say? And the UFO/Elvis comparison isn't the best comparison. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 09:57:45 AM
BTW, dragons, leprechauns, vampires and so can indeed be disproved and really, nobody is claiming they're real. We can trace back to when they were fictionalized or how the myths were created. I'm not saying I believe in God btw, I've already said I don't. But I agree with Einstein that you have to have a certain amount of humility when discussing things that are out of our relm of understanding. To say it's silly or stupid to have some sort of faith in a higher power is a bit arrogant.


But I can trace the god myth back to it's source. And plenty of people do or did  believe in those other things. Why don't we anymore? Because we accept there is absolutely no evidence for their existance. My same arguement about god.
And if I'm guilty of arragonce (  :) ) in making a judgement about something I can't comprehend, then aren't the religious guilty of the same crime. They, armed with the same knowledge, say definately There Is A God. Shouldn't they all just say "I don't know." ?
The aethiest campaign here get's it bang on. There tag is "there probably isn't a god." Nothings impossible. Just some things are highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 09:59:57 AM

But I can trace the god myth back to it's source. And plenty of people do or did  believe in those other things. Why don't we anymore? Because we accept there is absolutely no evidence for their existance. My same arguement about god.

And if I'm guilty of arragonce (  :) ) in making a judgement about something I can't comprehend, then aren't the religious guilty of the same crime. They, armed with the same knowledge, say definately There Is A God. Shouldn't they all just say "I don't know." ?
The aethiest campaign here get's it bang on. There tag is "there probably isn't a god." Nothings impossible. Just some things are highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 10:14:56 AM
Can you disprove the existance of vampires?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 10:17:54 AM
Leprechauns and vampires are based on folklore and mythology. The Bible/Torah is not. Please tell me you can see the difference. Also, please show me how you traced the God myth to its source. I've heard/read so many different things. There have been documentaries linking stories to actual places and people. People are still working on this because there ARE some reasons for doubt. These are intelligent people. Not blind sheep.

Also, I don't mean to call you arrogant. I'm saying die hard atheists who feel the need to put down others for their beliefs or who feel the need to make everybody say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas are arrogant and just as bad as the die hard Christians.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 10:20:44 AM
Can you disprove the existance of vampires?

I'm sure I could if it wasn't 3:18 in the morning. I know I've read and seen programs that go into the whole origin of the myth and how it got twisted.  Vlad Tepes, Braham Stoker's Dracula being two big contributors.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 10:35:43 AM
Leprechauns and vampires are based on folklore and mythology. The Bible/Torah is not. Please tell me you can see the difference. Also, please show me how you traced the God myth to its source.

Certainly elements of the bible are based on real events. That's not my arguement. I'm talking about accepting the existance of a supernatural being, not whether King Nebbafdoodah ruled Eygpt.
You can't disprove vampires existance. Therefore by your logic that's enough. If it can't be disproved we accept their existance....
Western tradition rightly places them firmly under the "folklore" heading. Plenty of africans would disagree with you. For them witches, vampires and evil spirits are very real. African children are killed in this country because they are possessed. And you can't disprove that they are, yet we all know it to be a flasehood. We demand evidence, some kind of rational thought, not superstition. How is god different?
I think god is based on folklore and mytholgy. So do plenty of other people.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 10:47:57 AM
I don't know enough about African beliefs to be able to speak to it. And I believe that the vampires that we are discussing, the ones with fangs who suck blood can and have been explained. The ones in the African religion probably have nothing to do with that vampire thing. Yes, the Bible contains folklore. The creation of woman, Noah's Ark, etc. But this is not the entire book. This is what people are still trying to find out about.

Also, in our history are stories of evil spirits and witches too. These things were people's way of explaining mental illness, disease, and bad crops. When we acquired the medical and scientific knowledge to disprove it, people stopped believing/practicing these beliefs. Now do these African people you speak of live in a community that has access to this? Is it done now mostly by tradition? Do you think that if they were exposed to the medical and scientific PROOF they might think otherwise?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 10:54:04 AM
I Also, in our history are stories of evil spirits and witches too. These things were people's way of explaining mental illness, disease, and bad crops. When we acquired the medical and scientific knowledge to disprove it, people stopped believing/practicing these beliefs.

Just as more and more people now disbelieve in the existance of god. We don't need him to explain away the mysteries of our world. Education is killing him. Christianity is dying in western europe. We may be worse off because of this. I think so. Community belief is a good thing.
And just to press my point - I'm not doubting everything in the bible - just the existance of supernatural beings, of which god is one.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 11:09:39 AM
Yeah, it's different over there than here. And people have been saying religion or God is dying for a long time. Could be. But doubt it very much. Maybe organized religion. Education has nothing to do with it though. Maybe a bit, but a lot of it is this lack of humility and arrogance that people seem to have a lot more of these days.

And as you know, the world is HUGE and there are still many, many, many countries that are deeply religious.

And God doesn't explain the mysteries of the world. Again, the "folklore" was not meant to be taken seriously. It's all about lessons, a moral code, stories to prove a point and so on. It's the way people take it that makes the atheists crazy. They can't imagine anyone telling them how to live their lives I guess. But it's really not supposed to be that way. There are just a lot of people who NEED to be told how to live. If religion wasn't around, they'd find something else or someone else to control their lives. All and all, I think spirituality is important to human beings. However they get it. I think more people believe in something than you realize. Even in progressive Europe. The belief in the existence of "God" is becoming something different. Something not so cut and dry. Most people realize he's not a being, but a higher power. Something unexplainable, but not some creature that wears white robes and points his finger to get his way. This is more due to spiritual enlightenment than education. A lot of so called educated people speak a lot of crap too.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 11:23:19 AM
BTW, I believe that when we die, that's it. We don't exist anymore. We just rot in the ground or get turned into ashes and that's it. I believe this cuz that's pretty much typical of how most things are in life. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I think people created the concept of an afterlife because it's too difficult for most people to deal with the reality that one day they just won't exist anymore. That this is pretty much all there is. Too bad! I love going on about this to my mom cuz it drives her crazy. That's called payback.

But this is MY belief and I don't impose it on anybody. Except my mother. And again, I don't have enough knowledge to say to someone, you believe in an afterlife? You're so silly!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 27, 2009, 12:05:54 PM
But this is MY belief and I don't impose it on anybody. Except my mother. And again, I don't have enough knowledge to say to someone, you believe in an afterlife? You're so silly!

Jeez - we're on the same side and still we argue. We'd make a great married couple.
I like to think I'm pointing out the error of people's way, rather than imposing my will.
And I think you do have enough knowledge to at least say an afterlife is highly unlikely.
I think we're done now. I'm off to start a John Lennon Was A Mysoginest Prat thread. See you there?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 27, 2009, 05:36:28 PM
I like to think I'm pointing out the error of people's way

Yeah, and THAT'S the part that drive's me crazy.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 27, 2009, 05:55:42 PM
There have been documentaries linking stories to actual places and people. People are still working on this because there ARE some reasons for doubt. These are intelligent people. Not blind sheep.

Indeed these are very intelligent people, much more knowledgable than we are. They are scientists, who nevertheless believe in God.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 27, 2009, 06:31:48 PM
Certainly elements of the bible are based on real events. That's not my arguement. I'm talking about accepting the existance of a supernatural being, not whether King Nebbafdoodah ruled Eygpt.
 We demand evidence, some kind of rational thought, not superstition. How is god different?
I think god is based on folklore and mytholgy. So do plenty of other people.

Kevin, you can`t demand evidence of something that a human can`t understand. Our argument also proves it. God is beyond human mind, the proofs of his existence are also beyond our understanding. It is all much more complicated than "this is a supernatural being and this is a vampire". We can`t even say whether God is a supernatural being or idea or word. But what was first? Think about it. And many people did, and they all finally came to the conclusion that it was WORD not material substance. What was before everything? Idea or Materia? How can material substance be first, what did it come from? From Idea.
And God is not superstition, he is against superstition. God is belief, faith.
Another thing. The Bible came to ancients when they were rather primitive people. Who could have written such wise, unsurpassable ideas, so much different from everything believed and practised at that time? Not any contemporary.
And another thing. The proof of God`s existence is everywhere. Just look around, at this grass, this sky, this flowers, birds and animals. And certainly people. It is all so rational, so well-thought-out and worked-out.
Answer the question: What is a law of nature?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 27, 2009, 07:05:24 PM
Just as more and more people now disbelieve in the existance of god. We don't need him to explain away the mysteries of our world. Education is killing him. Christianity is dying in western europe. We may be worse off because of this. I think so. Community belief is a good thing.
And just to press my point - I'm not doubting everything in the bible - just the existance of supernatural beings, of which god is one.

1. That more and more people disbelieve in God is the wrong idea. More and more people in Western Europe disbelieve in God is the correct idea. And more and more people in some other parts of the world come to God (maybe on a new level), so the proportion remains. And another correct thing is that Anglican Church is in decline. Unfortunately. But what must be must be. If it disappears then it is the way the situation is to develop. To tell you the truth I am really sad that The Church is in decline, cause it is Christian religion, which is the most humane of all, it is our religion. I am sad that the monarchy is threatened, cause this is the true British tradition, I am sad that the House of Lords is being reformed, cause there true English aristocrats sit, these are no chance people like other politicians who come and go and whose aim is to grab as much as they can.
2. Kevin, the more we learn, the more we understand that we know nothing. We do not need God to explain the mysteries of the world, we need science to do it, which it does. God is for something else. Education doesn`t kill him, education only opens the veil a bit. What we knew centuries ago about our world hasn`t changed at all. What concerns the world as it is we are at the same level of knowledge, we only have learned about some laws and have developed the technology, but we haven`t answered a single question about the creation of the universe or people.
3. Christianity is dying in Western Europe, you say. Yes, and morals are very low. Look at the morals! Some people say that drugs are ok, some say there`s no need to get married, some say children can be born out of wedlock, some say a male can marry a male. All this is considered to be a norm, or even worse, normal behaviour. It is all advertised and advocated in the mass media, shown on TV and at cinemas. Let it all be, since we live in a liberal society, but advocate it and accept it as normal behaviour...What is that? Total degradation.
I am very sorry for all these ideas, but just couldn`t help it.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 27, 2009, 07:11:14 PM
And people have been saying religion or God is dying for a long time. Could be. But doubt it very much. Maybe organized religion. Education has nothing to do with it though. Maybe a bit, but a lot of it is this lack of humility and arrogance that people seem to have a lot more of these days.
And as you know, the world is HUGE and there are still many, many, many countries that are deeply religious.
And God doesn't explain the mysteries of the world.
The belief in the existence of "God" is becoming something different. Something not so cut and dry. Most people realize he's not a being, but a higher power. Something unexplainable, but not some creature that wears white robes and points his finger to get his way. This is more due to spiritual enlightenment than education. A lot of so called educated people speak a lot of crap too.

I agree with these, Sondra.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 28, 2009, 03:14:05 AM
I love going on about this to my mom cuz it drives her crazy. That's called payback.

For all the homemade dresses?  ;)

OK, this is an interesting topic.  My parochial school education exposed me to the Bible and the belief in God.  My natural inquisitiveness led me to question what I learned and look for proof.  Dave spoke of an experience he had with a patient on the ward.  I've had a similar experience.  My uncle was terminally ill and our family was gathered around his hospital bed.  He gazed beyond us and said "There's Papa standing in the doorway."  He was referring to my grandfather who passed away two years before.  We turned around to look.  Of course, no one was there.  When we turned back to him, he had slipped into a coma.  He passed away several hours later.  Both my grandfather and my uncle were very religious.

As a doctor, I've seen other similar episodes with patients.  Kevin's explanation of what the old man saw might indeed be what it was all about.  But I believe there is an order to creation dictated by a force we don't understand fully, as Jane remarked.  I'm thankful for the skills I've learned in my profession but I know full well that I merely just guide and assist the human body, a most wonderful and intricate creation, in its healing.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 28, 2009, 10:10:01 AM
^^^^^ I'm a very very liberal Christain i don't accept there should be any discrimination in any faith , whats written by man in the Bible on this subject is wrong and should be removed from the text .
 That's my big bugbear with gods so called word.
Jesus was a cool guy , he interests me and i tend to focus on him .
But i ignore the rest of the Bible's  fanciful stories , i have my own brain and whilst it's working i trust my own judgement .
Think the idea of angels and people from the afterlife is as hard to prove as creation , some mysteries are best left unsolved .
What i do know is science is a wonderful thing if used for the right reason , it moves forward while the Bible lives to much in the past for me , it's more about control which is way religion turns many people off ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 29, 2009, 02:19:10 AM
Kevin, you can`t demand evidence of something that a human can`t understand. Our argument also proves it. God is beyond human mind, the proofs of his existence are also beyond our understanding. It is all much more complicated than "this is a supernatural being and this is a vampire". We can`t even say whether God is a supernatural being or idea or word. But what was first? Think about it. And many people did, and they all finally came to the conclusion that it was WORD not material substance. What was before everything? Idea or Materia? How can material substance be first, what did it come from? From Idea.
And God is not superstition, he is against superstition. God is belief, faith.
Another thing. The Bible came to ancients when they were rather primitive people. Who could have written such wise, unsurpassable ideas, so much different from everything believed and practised at that time? Not any contemporary.
And another thing. The proof of God`s existence is everywhere. Just look around, at this grass, this sky, this flowers, birds and animals. And certainly people. It is all so rational, so well-thought-out and worked-out.
Answer the question: What is a law of nature?

This is a very thoughtful and perceptive post, Jane.  Each time I'm in the operating room I reflect upon just "how well-thought-out" it all is.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 29, 2009, 08:45:14 AM
Kevin, you can`t demand evidence of something that a human can`t understand..... The proof of God`s existence is everywhere. Just look around, at this grass, this sky, this flowers, birds and animals. And certainly people. It is all so rational, so well-thought-out and worked-out.
Answer the question: What is a law of nature?

Rational, well thought out and worked out? Right now about 18 million africans are suffering slow painful blindness as the parasite Onchocerciasis eats through their eyes. Is this part of your God's rational plan?
Evolution via natural selection is a measurable, observable scientific fact. There's your "law" if you need one. Even the churchs' now accept it as fact and have given up fighting it. That's why they've invented creationism to accomodate to what even them is blindingly obvious. Life doesn't need god to be explained.
And I most certainly can "demand evidence of something I don't understand." That sort of thinking is medieval. It is precisely because mankind seeks that evidence that we no longer cower from thundergods or witches.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 29, 2009, 11:37:39 AM
Another thing. The Bible came to ancients when they were rather primitive people. Who could have written such wise, unsurpassable ideas, so much different from everything believed and practised at that time? Not any contemporary.

Sorry but no. Even the most optimistic religious sites date parts of the Old Testament to the 12th century BC. These "ancient primitives" had high civilisation, literacy, accountancy, bureaurocracy, architecture, taxation, laws, armies and empires.

But that aside, the bible is wise and unsurpassable? Genesis alone is littered with talking snakes, magic trees, plants before the sun (umm photosynthesis anyone) and woman made from ribs. He makes the earth first ( a whole day) but knocks out the stars (trillions of suns and their accompanying planets) as an afterthought on the 4th day. We know this to be false (radiometrics). Oh and it completely omits billions of years (dinosaurs, neandertals etc). Full of absurdities and glaring omissions more likely.

All cultures have creation myths. The illiterate Maori believed NZ had been fished out of the sea by a bloke in a canoe. Now we know that's silly. But oooh, if you say it's not supposed to be taken literally (that old religious standby), and NZ did rise out of the ocean (volcanoes, earthquakes etc) then goodness how wise and unsurpassable were they?
Chinese creation myth (which predates the bible) has mankind formed from god's parasites. We know we evolved from simple single cell organisms. Again, if you don't take that literally but.....
Or the Hindu creation myth (contempory with the old testament): The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The Bible story doesn't seem so unique after all.

Just for a finisher, here's the bible's (and I take it by that you mean God's) wise and unsurpassable cure for leprosy. try it some time. Sounds like folklore and superstition to me:
Lectivus 14:
14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean , and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:  
14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:  
14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it , and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:  
14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 29, 2009, 09:11:07 PM
1. - Rational, well thought out and worked out? Right now about 18 million africans are suffering slow painful blindness as the parasite Onchocerciasis eats through their eyes. Is this part of your God's rational plan?
2 - Evolution via natural selection is a measurable, observable scientific fact. There's your "law" if you need one. Even the churchs' now accept it as fact and have given up fighting it. That's why they've invented creationism to accomodate to what even them is blindingly obvious. Life doesn't need god to be explained.
3 - And I most certainly can "demand evidence of something I don't understand." That sort of thinking is medieval. It is precisely because mankind seeks that evidence that we no longer cower from thundergods or witches.

1. What do you mean by YOUR God`s rational plan? Kevin, God is OURS. We all live in one and the same world.
2. You are mixing up two approaches: naturalistic approach and theological. Unfortunately, naturalistic approach can`t explain spiritual and structural or systematic things. And they do exist. Naturalistic approach explains very well materialistic things. And why does evolution take place? Why does it occur? Evolution is observable - ok - but why does it progress and why in this very direction? You say it`s a law. Who created this law? Nature? And what is this powerful nature that creates laws? This powerful nature, idea, reason may be called God. Maybe IT was presented to ancients as SuperBeing for them to understand IT better. Imagine they had been told it was some universal reason or idea that was behind all things. Clear to them? No, very vague. But if you prefer to call it in this way(reason) or call it a law of nature, then all the same you are accepting God. Also - from where did evolution start? what was first? why are people created in this very exteremely clever and at the same time vulnerable way? I have always wondered at human skin, there is no analogue to it in nature, it is something magical! (But this is just a thought).
3. Well, you can demand evidence. But the thing is whether you will be able to understand it and to analyze it properly. Humans can`t so far. I think that evidence is everywhere. And forget about witches, who mentions them? they are for children, we should think deeper...
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 29, 2009, 09:33:26 PM
Sorry but no. Even the most optimistic religious sites date parts of the Old Testament to the 12th century BC. These "ancient primitives" had high civilisation, literacy, accountancy, bureaurocracy, architecture, taxation, laws, armies and empires.
But that aside, the bible is wise and unsurpassable? Genesis alone is littered with talking snakes, magic trees, plants before the sun (umm photosynthesis anyone) and woman made from ribs. He makes the earth first ( a whole day) but knocks out the stars (trillions of suns and their accompanying planets) as an afterthought on the 4th day. We know this to be false (radiometrics). Oh and it completely omits billions of years (dinosaurs, neandertals etc). Full of absurdities and glaring omissions more likely.

These ancient primitives may have had philosophy and architecture but were at a very low stage of development concerning morals and spirituality. They demanded and watched executions, they adored bloody violent spectacles, where a person was killed, they gave their wives to strangers as a sign of hospitality, the brother inherited his dead brother`s wife and so on. Such things were taken as normal. And if we take not just single individuals like great philosophers but common people of those times, they were practically all illiterate and dump. That was why the Bible explained the things to those people in such a way. Even now a lot of people wouldn`t understand complicated reasoning...
And one day of creation can mean 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years. Don`t take it literally.   
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 29, 2009, 09:42:40 PM
This is a very thoughtful and perceptive post, Jane.  Each time I'm in the operating room I reflect upon just "how well-thought-out" it all is.

Thank you very much, Hello Goodbye! You know, I am not a fanatic, by no means! I am thinking and trying to understand. Though I understand that it is impossible to understand (such a calambur) it all, still we are humans and we have intellect.
Our world is beautiful and a human being is the peak of our world, of all creation. 
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 30, 2009, 02:38:58 AM
And one day of creation can mean 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years. Don`t take it literally.  


Yes, Jane.  Even in Biblical times there were rival factions, those who took the Scriptures literally and those who followed a figurative interpretation.  So, the debate in this thread is an ancient one.



You know, I am not a fanatic, by no means!


I know you're not a fanatic, Jane.  Indeed your feelings on the matter are quite sensible.  Thoughtful and sensitive individuals share such religious beliefs which attempt to answer some very profound questions.

My early academic studies which prepared me for my profession included inorganic and organic chemistry, biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy and physics.  These studies formed the foundation of my medical and surgical studies later on.  I treated all these studies like one long novel.  The story has not ended as there are always advances made in research and technology.  I marvel at all this!

Perhaps the most exciting discovery of the Twentieth Century was the structure of DNA by Drs Watson and Crick...The Double Helix.  Dr. Crick exclaimed: "We've found the meaning of life!"  What an amazing structure DNA is with its precise base-pairing of nucleotides.  So even on a molecular and atomic level, there is an order to things.  Did this all happen by accident?


(http://www.chem.ucsb.edu/~kalju/chem110L/public/tutorial/images/WatsonCrick.jpg)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 30, 2009, 04:10:53 AM
1. What do you mean by YOUR God`s rational plan?

Atheists like to use that term. It's part of the condescending attitude that I just can't get with. No matter what I believe.

Sorry Kevin!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 30, 2009, 08:24:23 AM
Hello everybody. Again, how good to be able to talk about this without it getting all nasty. Few more things then I'll stop for awhile (but please don't take my silence as surrender.   :)  )

Jane - you changed your arguement from the bible being full of unsurpassable wisdom and way ahead of it's time to being a primer for illiterate idiots. That's bit of a jump.
And I say "your god" because it's not mine. Don't mean to be arrogant (though I understand how it could be taken that way.) I completely refute the supernatural.
Human skin is really no different from most mammal skin. Common ancestors you see.
And the "why" question only has creedence if you think that life must have some point in the first place. which aethiests don't.

And HG - evolution isn't an "accident." That's really old fashioned terminology, like "missing link." Populations produce variations - fact. Variations that provide an advantage outproduce those that don't - fact. No chance, accident or randomness required. DNA evolved in exactly this same way. And do you really find that harder to accept than it being the work of some supernatural being.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 01:35:48 PM
Hello everybody. Again, how good to be able to talk about this without it getting all nasty. Few more things then I'll stop for awhile (but please don't take my silence as surrender.   :)  )

We will definitely do it! If you stop... ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 01:45:25 PM
Jane - you changed your arguement from the bible being full of unsurpassable wisdom and way ahead of it's time to being a primer for illiterate idiots. That's bit of a jump.

Absolutely not! Again you are mixing things up. You are jumping from one line of reasoning to another. From the content to the form. The Bible is full of wisdom - content. But the way of the presentation of this wisdom - form - is plain so that ancient people, who were mostly illiterate and dumb, could understand it. No contradiction in my post! You have to accept it.  :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 02:03:50 PM
And I say "your god" because it's not mine. Don't mean to be arrogant (though I understand how it could be taken that way.) I completely refute the supernatural.
Human skin is really no different from most mammal skin. Common ancestors you see.
And the "why" question only has creedence if you think that life must have some point in the first place. which aethiests don't.

One can`t completely refute such things.   :)    Because such things require thinking and at least doubting. By absolutely refuting it you accept that you refuse to think. You just stubbornly refute. Though nobody knows for sure the answer. And you can`t know it. As one philosopher said, I doubt therefore I exist...
The thing is, Kevin that I don`t think there are some die hard religious people here, we all think and reason and do not refute the ideas at once. We are flexible, I dare say we, cause judging by the posts, people choose not to have one single answer to this question.
And how was this common skin created?
And, yes, a question to you: how many times have you been to church service? Roughly.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 30, 2009, 03:03:11 PM
One can`t completely refute such things.   :)    Because such things require thinking and at least doubting. By absolutely refuting it you accept that you refuse to think..
And how was this common skin created?
And, yes, a question to you: how many times have you been to church service? Roughly.

Trust me, I've thought about this more than is healthy. I refute the supernatural because not one iota of observable measurable evidence exists.
Skin was "created" (I hate that word) via evolution. I'm not a bioligist, but the path from cell walls to simple membrane to skin seems logical to me. I'm sorry, but if you don't accept evolution then you're refuting the findings of the entire scientific community. Is that the case?
Been to a few christmas masses for a good old singalong. Went to sunday school a bit as a child. That's it. Oh and attended a mass in Greece as an interested tourist. Please don't say this disqualifies me from commenting on the existance of god. I've never been to university either, but I can still read scientists' findings.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 30, 2009, 03:13:07 PM
Sorry Jane, but one last thing.
We don't need god to expain the universe or life. We have scientific answers that, (at the risk of being repitive) provides observable measurable evidence. To ignore it is to ignore the evidence.
It really is that simple.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 30, 2009, 04:42:29 PM
And HG - evolution isn't an "accident." That's really old fashioned terminology, like "missing link." Populations produce variations - fact. Variations that provide an advantage outproduce those that don't - fact. No chance, accident or randomness required. DNA evolved in exactly this same way. And do you really find that harder to accept than it being the work of some supernatural being.

Kevin, if you take the time to read what I wrote, you'll see that I did not say that evolution and DNA was an accident.  This is what I said:

"So even on a molecular and atomic level, there is an order to things.  Did this all happen by accident?"

I was specifically referring to nucleotide morphology and binding producing the DNA double helix.  That's biochemistry and there's nothing supernatural about it.  My question "Did this all happen by accident?" was rhetorical.

While Drs Watson and Crick were working on the structure of DNA, Drs Miller and Urey, in 1953, described how they were able to create cell precursors called "coacervates" by passing an electric current through a mixture of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.  They recreated the "primordial soup" existent on this planet when it cooled down after formation.  The electric current represented lightning storms.  Miller and Urey thus recapitulated "Creation."

I certainly believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, selection and survival of the fittest.  But there is an order to things on the atomic and molecular level of creation of life which remains difficult to explain and is more than just coincidence or accident.  The precise differential lengths of the cytosine-guanine and adenine-thymine bonds in the DNA model produce the double helix and enable "unzipping" for RNA production and protein synthesis.  It's amazing, really, on the molecular level, but this is dictated by laws of physics and and biochemistry.  We know how these laws work.  We do not know who set these laws.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 30, 2009, 04:46:15 PM
Again, how good to be able to talk about this without it getting all nasty.

Yes, Kevin, being nasty doesn't add credibility to one's arguments.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 30, 2009, 07:48:44 PM
John and Paul are great examples of evolution and natural selection their "Double Helix" as guitar strings attached to it  ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 08:09:57 PM
2. Kevin, the more we learn, the more we understand that we know nothing. We do not need God to explain the mysteries of the world, we need science to do it, which it does. God is for something else. Education doesn`t kill him, education only opens the veil a bit. What we knew centuries ago about our world hasn`t changed at all. What concerns the world as it is we are at the same level of knowledge, we only have learned about some laws and have developed the technology, but we haven`t answered a single question about the creation of the universe or people.

There is science and there is theology. They are different things.
There are laws of society and there are laws of nature. Laws of society were created by people, laws of nature were created by something or somebody...what is behind them?
 
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 08:17:02 PM
Evolution is observable - ok - but why does it progress and why in this very direction? You say it`s a law. Who created this law? Nature? And what is this powerful nature that creates laws? This powerful nature, idea, reason may be called God... But if you prefer to call it in this way(reason) or call it a law of nature, then all the same you are accepting God.

Please, comment on that. If you accept it is a law of nature, you accept some kind of POWER, that controls nature. What is this power? All the same it is God.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 08:35:13 PM
Skin was "created" (I hate that word) via evolution. I'm not a bioligist, but the path from cell walls to simple membrane to skin seems logical to me. I'm sorry, but if you don't accept evolution then you're refuting the findings of the entire scientific community. Is that the case?

Who told you I don`t accept evolution? I do accept it. Certainly the world evolved. What I don`t accept is that Man evolved from apes. Man is not animal, and has never been. Man has different brain and no matter how hard that prehistorical ape tried to use a stick and apply some kind of labour (as atheists teach us) it won`t help. Labour won`t make a human out of an animal. And mind that the entire scientific community nevertheless believe in God. That is the paradox. Science doesn`t refute religious ideas, science elevates understanding of them to a new level.
What I am trying to tell you is that one shouldn`t be a die-hard atheist. If it was all that simple humanity would have solved the puzzle long ago, but somehow the argument continues. The best brains don`t know the answer for sure.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 30, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Been to a few christmas masses for a good old singalong. Went to sunday school a bit as a child. That's it. Oh and attended a mass in Greece as an interested tourist. Please don't say this disqualifies me from commenting on the existance of god. I've never been to university either, but I can still read scientists' findings.

Kevin! It`s vice versa!!!!!!! To me you are a religious person! It doesn`t disqualify you, by no means.
Now, wonder what my answer to the same question about attending church service would be! Can you guess?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 31, 2009, 02:09:15 AM
What I don`t accept is that Man evolved from apes.

Well, actually we did evolve from apes.  Humans are one of four genera of Great Apes (Hominidae).  The other three are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.  They say that we, as humans, speciated from from other Great Apes about 7 million years ago and evolved into our current form, Homo sapiens, about 150,000 years ago.


Man is not animal, and has never been. Man has different brain and no matter how hard that prehistorical ape tried to use a stick and apply some kind of labour (as atheists teach us) it won`t help.

Semantics here... Man is the "Human Animal."  The human brain is physically similar to the other Great Apes.  Our early human ancestors were just as clumsy as other apes.  They differed in chromosome content.


If it was all that simple humanity would have solved the puzzle long ago, but somehow the argument continues.

I agree with you there, Jane!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 31, 2009, 02:21:38 AM
I don't take issue with what anyone believes, it's how they choose to treat others based on these beliefs. Trying to explain why and how and whatever is useless. We should just respect that there are things we will never understand. And that includes why people FEEL a certain way about something regardless of the "proof."

But I love reading everyone's posts. You guys are very deep and I love that.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on July 31, 2009, 03:06:24 AM
I never understood the concept of judging someone's intelligence based on their religious beliefs. Spirituality transcends intelligence. It's just... it just is.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 31, 2009, 03:14:12 AM
But I love reading everyone's posts. You guys are very deep and I love that.


(http://sherrychandler.com/wp-content/uploads/bjung04.jpg)

See what we can do if we try?   ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 31, 2009, 03:17:38 AM
I love that movie!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Sondra on July 31, 2009, 03:18:55 AM
I never understood the concept of judging someone's intelligence based on their religious beliefs.



It's a cop out.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 31, 2009, 08:37:34 AM
Wooh. When I said "I couldn't understand how rational intelligent people could believe in a god" I wasn't for a moment doubting their rationality or intelligence. I know there are university professors and doctors and many minds far greater than mine that believe in god. And Hitler was a Darwinist who didn't. I just don't understand how you can make that leap of logic. And as much as I will apologise for any offence incurred I can't change that opinion. I'm sure the workings of my brain must be as equally baffling to you. I watch the Archbishop of Canterbury on Tv and think "but you're a smart man..." I don't doubt your rationality or intelligence, just how that allows you to reach the conclusions you do.* I hope you see the difference. On reflection that is arrogant, but I can't pretend I don't feel that way. Apologies.
(*though I can come up with a perfectly lological evolutionary reason why you do so  :) )

And HG - I know you're knowledge on the subject must be vast. But I get quite passionate about defending evolution. And I'm always up against that charge that to believe in it means you believe life is random. So words like "accident" set me off. And when I argue these things I do try and keep short and to the poiint. Sorry if this comes off as curtness or disrespect.

And Jane - the evolutionary link between a common ancestor of apes (and all other primates) and humans is proven in the genetic, anatomical, fossil and geological records.   I go back to my first point - you're obviously a very smart lady, but how can you refuse to believe in something for which there is irrefutable evidence but be able to believe in something so ardently for which there is none? Sorry, but it baffles me. It's almost as if you're determined to see the world as you want it, regardless of what reality (ie evidence) tells us. But I fully accept that it may be a far better (and happier) way to live a life instead of a lifetime thinking your sole reason for existance is to propagate and die. If I believe in evolution than I accept that it is the cause of religious belief and therefore religion has been advantagous (sp) to us.I've never said religion is a bad thing, it's just the god bit that gets me.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 31, 2009, 10:02:02 AM
Have to get this off my chest - I'm aware I'm on the verge of preaching here.
My original point was that the creation of life baffles me. I have seen the evidence for, and while I don't presume to understand it all, and accept the universe we live in today was made by the Big Bang.
It's the bit before I can't get my head around. For a long time I thought I had two choices: religion's that god did it or sciences that everything came from nothing. Both to me seem so highly unlikely as to be impossible.
I'm also p*ssed that science is resorting (as HG said it continues to find things like molecular behaviour that it can't explain) to the thing I've always critisised religion for - passing off unsubstantiated theory as fact. But to science's credit it always covering itself with "maybe's" and "possiblies."
So the Lord knows I've read, and if I had to put my money on something it would be that the universe has always been here, contracting and expanding, bang after big bang. But can I prove it? No. That's a b****. Amen.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 31, 2009, 10:29:36 AM
What i find bonkers about creationism is they believe the earth is only 10.000 years old and that some of the Bible characters are 2,000 year old people .
This kind of nonsense is brainwashing of a serious kind , might as well just have a congregation of Zombies .
I think a lot of this stuff is more to do with the rise of Islam , christianity is a passive religion it likes to sound tuff so it kicks evolutinists and queers .
It's more to do with apeing radical Islam and most christian's fall for it ? rather than embracing Jesus and keeping true to him ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: DaveRam on July 31, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
I think when christianity is under pressure and it is under pressure from the rise of Islam , it kind of does'nt think in a logical way and it's followers fall back into believing the ridiculous , it's the way the church as always controlled it's dumb flock , put fear in there minds ?
Islam on the other hand embraces scientific achivement .
Christians should stop reacting like this , evolution is a well thought out theory with evidence to back it up .
The logical thing to do is have an open mind .
And read only what Jesus is said to have said , and bin the rest of the Bible only the gospels are worth reading ?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 31, 2009, 01:34:10 PM
Well, actually we did evolve from apes.  Humans are one of four genera of Great Apes (Hominidae).  The other three are chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.  They say that we, as humans, speciated from from other Great Apes about 7 million years ago and evolved into our current form, Homo sapiens, about 150,000 years ago.

Hello Goodbye, you are killing me with this ape thing!  :)  I can accept the theory that humans evolved from humans who were more primitive, looked differently, even had more hair on the body, but were humans. Were they apes? Even human apes? A human has will, has emotions and feelings, which do not evolve. You either have emotions or not. They are inherent only in humans and never in animals or any kind of primitive humans, who according to Darwin were practically animals. Could there have been such a great discrepancy between the apes` body and their emotions? Then they would have felt so terribly awful having such an appearance! Here, I am joking, of course.
HG, please, tell me, if such things like emotions, such psychological and psychiatric things evolve, come to an absolutely new level? I think they are related only to humans.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 31, 2009, 02:02:41 PM
And Jane - how can you refuse to believe in something for which there is irrefutable evidence but be able to believe in something so ardently for which there is none? Sorry, but it baffles me. It's almost as if you're determined to see the world as you want it, regardless of what reality (ie evidence) tells us.

Kevin, you are a bit wrong here. As you were a bit wrong understanding Hello Goodbye. You ascribe certain things to us which we have never mentioned. It happens because you stick to your own train of thought. And immediately everybody who doesn`t have the same ideas as you do, falls under the category of the opposite number, I mean belongs to the opposite camp with all the following conclusions. It`s not like that. You think of Atheists (no God), and Believers (definitely God), while we may be sceptics, who refrain from giving the final judgement. While you do. So, your word ardently is the wrong word. BTW true believers do not write here as you can see, they prefer to keep aside, they are more modest than atheists.
Did I say I believed in something? What I have always said is that one should think and doubt, and that one can`t be 100% sure of one`s rightness in such things.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 31, 2009, 02:10:22 PM
So the Lord knows I've read, and if I had to put my money on something it would be that the universe has always been here, contracting and expanding, bang after big bang. But can I prove it? No. That's a b****. Amen.

Kevin, as follows from this post, you should join the camp of sceptics-thinkers-doubters, but not atheists. The Big Bang theory is not much different from any religion. Nobody can prove it, so you just have to believe in it. Why not doubt it?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on July 31, 2009, 02:54:46 PM
No, I am an aethist. Not a skeptic. I have no doubts about the existance of god. Just because I don't the answer to something (what was there before the Bing Bang)        doesn't mean I'll fill in the gaps with god.

I will stop for awhile now. This must be annoying to others I haven't said anything about the beatles for ages.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on July 31, 2009, 04:05:32 PM
Thanks for the conversation!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 31, 2009, 10:35:28 PM
Hello Goodbye, you are killing me with this ape thing!  :)  I can accept the theory that humans evolved from humans who were more primitive, looked differently, even had more hair on the body, but were humans. Were they apes? Even human apes? A human has will, has emotions and feelings, which do not evolve. You either have emotions or not. They are inherent only in humans and never in animals or any kind of primitive humans, who according to Darwin were practically animals. Could there have been such a great discrepancy between the apes` body and their emotions? Then they would have felt so terribly awful having such an appearance! Here, I am joking, of course.
HG, please, tell me, if such things like emotions, such psychological and psychiatric things evolve, come to an absolutely new level? I think they are related only to humans.


Jane, that's the way humans are classified, as one of four genera of "Great Apes."  I think you'll find the Latin more appealing:  Hominidae


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hominidae.PNG)


I don't feel insulted by this classification.  Homo sapiens have a long ancestral lineage including those hairy creatures you mentioned.  That's how we evolved.  We're different because our genus' chromosomes are different than the other genera.

As far thought and emotions, go to a zoo and observe the gorillas and chimps.  It's obvious that they think and have emotions.  So do other animals.  You should see what happens with horses when a foal is weaned from her dam (mother).  It's heartrending!

We just happen to be the most intelligent life form on this planet, which unfortunately doesn't make us the smartest.  In the movie Going My Way, Bing Crosby sings "Swinging On A Star" to some children who were complaining about having to go to school.  The lyrics are worth posting here:

Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a mule?

A mule is an animal with long funny ears
Kicks up at anything he hears
His back is brawny and his brain is weak
He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak
And by the way, if you hate to go to school
You may grow up to be a mule

Or would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a pig?

A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace
He ain't got no manners when he eats his food
He's fat and lazy and extremely rude
But if you don't care a feather or a fig
You may grow up to be a pig

Or would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a fish?

A fish won't do anything, but swim in a brook
He can't write his name or read a book
And to fool the people is his only thought
And though he's slippery, he still gets caught
But then if that sort of life is what you wish
You may grow up to be a fish

And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo
Every day you meet quite a few
So you see it's all up to you
You can be better than you are
You could be swingin' on a star



That last verse is a killer!  :)


Bing Crosby "Swinging on a Star" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTUKHMlbYGA#lq-lq2-hq)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 31, 2009, 10:46:45 PM
I love that movie!

Me too, Teach!    ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on August 01, 2009, 08:18:35 PM
We and Gorillas have the same ancestors? Impossible! Only if we have evolved from different predecessors...But if it`s a part of the general (divine) scheme, then ok...
Thank you very much for your kind conversation, Hello Goodbye, and all the knowledge that you shared!  :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on August 02, 2009, 03:54:03 AM
We and Gorillas have the same ancestors? Impossible! Only if we have evolved from different predecessors...
Jane, the chart I posted shows that we're more closely related to chimpanzees (genus Pan) than to gorillas, as we branched off from the common tribe Hominini.



But if it`s a part of the general (divine) scheme, then ok...

;)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on August 02, 2009, 01:49:37 PM
I didn`t know what Pan meant! lol...
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on December 02, 2009, 03:18:07 AM
I think when christianity is under pressure and it is under pressure from the rise of Islam , it kind of does'nt think in a logical way and it's followers fall back into believing the ridiculous , it's the way the church as always controlled it's dumb flock , put fear in there minds ?
Islam on the other hand embraces scientific achivement .
Christians should stop reacting like this , evolution is a well thought out theory with evidence to back it up .
The logical thing to do is have an open mind .
And read only what Jesus is said to have said , and bin the rest of the Bible only the gospels are worth reading ?

I think when christianity is under pressure and it is under pressure from the rise of Islam , it kind of does'nt think in a logical way and it's followers fall back into believing the ridiculous , it's the way the church as always controlled it's dumb flock , put fear in there minds ?
Islam on the other hand embraces scientific achivement .
Christians should stop reacting like this , evolution is a well thought out theory with evidence to back it up .
The logical thing to do is have an open mind .
And read only what Jesus is said to have said , and bin the rest of the Bible only the gospels are worth reading ?

*sorry for thread bumping*
 

I agree with DaveRam. (even though he isn't here) But to me, the Christain religion takes it's beliefs and drills it into people's heads to the point of brainwashing. And if you don't accept their views they turn against you. I have been in situations like this before. The people where I live are so Christian they make their kids pray outside a public school. And my family is Christian based, but I am not. I believe in the "Big Bang" completely, I believe in Gay Marrige, and believe that people should be able to get an abortion if they feel so. I am not a complete athiest though. I believe there is a higher being but the odds that the Bible is fact are very slim.

And again, sorry for thread bumping.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Bobber on December 02, 2009, 08:20:53 AM
Why don't you come living in the Netherlands?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on December 02, 2009, 09:35:53 AM
*sorry for thread bumping*
 

I agree with DaveRam. (even though he isn't here) But to me, the Christain religion takes it's beliefs and drills it into people's heads to the point of brainwashing. And if you don't accept their views they turn against you. I have been in situations like this before. The people where I live are so Christian they make their kids pray outside a public school. And my family is Christian based, but I am not. I believe in the "Big Bang" completely, I believe in Gay Marrige, and believe that people should be able to get an abortion if they feel so. I am not a complete athiest though. I believe there is a higher being but the odds that the Bible is fact are very slim.

And again, sorry for thread bumping.

I can't help myself.
I'm a card carrying, uniform wearing athiest and no christian's ever turned against me. And I'm not sure about the brainwashing thing either.
To be honest I find the agnostic thing - I believe in something but I don't know what - more mystifying than any religious beliefs. However flawed I see their arguement, or logic, at least christians can base their convictions on the bible. But I can't see how your belief in a "higher being" can be based on anything other than wishful thinking. If you believe in this, what do you base it on? What did it do, and what does it continue to do? Do you have any evidence for its existance, its actions, or any explanation as to why the universe needs one in the first place? If, as you say, the odds of the bible being fact are slim then.......
People in glass houses and all that.
If you "believe completely" in the big bang, then I have to assume that you've looked into it's logic (otherwise, in just believing what someone's told you, are you any better than the "brainwashed" christians? ) So if you have, then you accept that the origins of our universe can be found in observable, measurable evidence. How can you then have this belief in a "higher being" , for which none of the previous exists. You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on December 02, 2009, 09:21:34 PM
Guys, I am not quite sure, is abortion legal where you live? Emmi, is it?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on December 02, 2009, 09:25:26 PM
I identify as a Christian, and last time I checked I've never tried to ram my views down anyone else's throats. I support gay marriage (in fact I support gay men more than I should... ahem), and although I wouldn't have an abortion, I do think they should be legal. So yeah. Not so much into the whole "blanket statement" thing.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: I_Will on December 02, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
It amuses me that every forum I've even been to (no matter the subject) ALWAYS has at least one subject such as this one.

Contributing to the thread, I am a very outspoken atheist (raised Methodist, but never believed any of it even when I was young) and I just cannot comprehend how anyone could think that there's a "magic man/entity" in the sky who made everything.

By the way, any fellow atheists (or agnostics, theists, deists, etc interested in discussing this further). You should check out http://forum.richarddawkins.net/ (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/). Great debates and topics!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on December 03, 2009, 01:35:06 AM
Contributing to the thread, I am a very outspoken atheist (raised Methodist, but never believed any of it even when I was young)

*shivers* I'm sorry.


Anyways, Kevin, you are right. And the whole thing is I'm not allowed (by my own parents) to call myself an athiest. I don't know why, they just get really mad when I say that. But I do believe in the big bang and I am completely outspoken about that. I am actually so outspoken about it my family threatens to send me to a catholic school. But I think you are totally right.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: sgt. peppie on December 03, 2009, 01:48:36 AM
Boy am I uncomfortable :-X
I'm a muslim, and after everything I've learned, it makes a lot of sense. I never really questioned that often about the beliefs. If you put aside the whole terrorism thing, you get a really good depth of history. With Islam, they really never edited the Quran over the years, like the Christians and Jews did. (btw, terrorists aren't real muslims, killing people and raping people is the worst thing you can ever do)

Though I did question about how far back time goes. But then again, what if God created time?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on December 03, 2009, 09:10:45 AM
*shivers* I'm sorry.


Anyways, Kevin, you are right. And the whole thing is I'm not allowed (by my own parents) to call myself an athiest. I don't know why, they just get really mad when I say that. But I do believe in the big bang and I am completely outspoken about that. I am actually so outspoken about it my family threatens to send me to a catholic school. But I think you are totally right.
You do? Oh. Where's the fun in that then?   :)
I want to reiterate that despite being an athiest I think religion is mostly a good, positive thing. My girlfriend prays to an elephant and a blue dude for God's sake. I'm quite sure she doesn't really think they're there (this is what she tells me) but she likes the comfort and sense of well being it brings her and her family. (we're not mentioning the truckloads of guilt here.) So fair enough. gathering with your neighbours, having a prayer and maybe a good sing along, sounds like a good thing to me, which I'd happliy do.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 08, 2010, 01:32:38 PM
Interesting documentary on TV other night about dogs (stay with me on this.)

For the last 50 years the Russians have been conducting an experiment with foxes. Despite taking them from fur farms and raising them in cages most of the foxes remain extremely wild and aggressive towards humans. But every now and then one is born that is friendly and more dog-like towards humans. These friendly foxes are removed and bred with each other. Some of their young (but never all) are also friendly, and so the breeding continues with two populations (agressive v friendly.)

But the amazing thing is that the friendly foxes, despite being selected by behaviour and not appearance, are developing the dog like features that humans find endearing - bushy, wagging tails;floppy ears; big eyes and softer features. How do the foxes' genes know to do this? There has been no selection pressure on looks. It's as if the genes are manipulating us to care for the hosts (the foxes) that will ensure their (the genes) survival.

Some believe that the history of all living things in the world is really no more than genes struggling with each other for dominance and survival, and we and all other living things are merely vehicles with which they  employ their stategies.
Blows my mind.

Richard Attenborough recently did a show in "Life" that included coral - that pretty stuff on reefs. It is actually a family of  hyper-aggressive species that are constantly at war with each other in an effort to achieve dominance, one neighbour eating the other alive, to ensure that they can reproduce and survive.

Despite the almost unfathomably huge difference between coral and humans it is a story we are all too familiar with.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on January 08, 2010, 09:47:40 PM
Something to think about, Kevin.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 14, 2010, 09:24:09 AM
A new book has just come out called Them And Us, a new theory that modern humans evolved in the middle east from the pressures of near extinction by smart, predatory, aggressive neandertals (more clever-apes than dumb humans.) My avatar is a reconstructed "new" neandertal.
The guy who wrote it is riding high on a wave of publicity. And wouldn't you believe it, just as his book comes out a new find has been announced of pigment (paint) found in shells in a neandertal site in Gibralta. Prior to this it was thought body ardornment was unique to our species. If neandertals were painting thenmselves then it's unlikely they were hairy and the Them And Us book goes down the can.
So either:
1. The neandertal predator theory is wrong
2. The Gibralta findings have been misread or
3. Our ancestors were hunted nearly to extinction by clever, transvestite gorilla's.

1 is most likely, but 3 would make one hell of a movie.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 14, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
haha, quality. I did hear about these make-up wearing ape/neanderthols recently, aswell as a new tourist destination pyramid in Egypt. Information.....dis-information. lol
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on January 14, 2010, 09:52:24 PM
Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: I_Will on January 14, 2010, 10:10:48 PM
For some reason every culture of the world believed in the concept of a Higher Being, since it explains everything science is not able to. You got nothing from nothing, so there must have been Someone or Something before everything. So I understand that mind is before matter. It doesn't matter what logic you use, you'll always fall in a big hole if you want to explain the existence without God.


And that right there, is why the human brain creates a 'god' in the first place. Same reason we hear monsters in the dark as young children, our minds look to fill gaps which we cannot we logic and information. Just because there is a gap which we currently cannot fill does not mean that 'goddit', it just means that as of now we do not have the technology/ability to figure out the answers to these gaps.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on January 14, 2010, 10:24:11 PM
Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.


So are you saying you don't believe in Evolution, Jane? Because I strongly believe in it. The whole Adam and Eve theory doesn't make sense to me. Because if you bring science into it, a woman can not come from a man's rib. For one, you can't get DNA from a rib very easily, if not at all. And you wouldn't be able to get a woman from a man's DNA, you just can't do it. And where did the man come from at all? Yes, you could say God put him there, but how? And if we haven't had anything of that sort happen by now, it's very unlikely it did happen. It just makes more sense that we came from another animal. Since for one we are animals ourselves, and you see animals and organisms evolving all the time, you don't see God changing our world very often, do you? And not to rain on anyone's belifs parade but....
They Might Be Giants - Science is Real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw#normal)

;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: breedofrandy on January 14, 2010, 10:44:41 PM
^nice video Emmi!  ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 15, 2010, 09:12:57 AM
Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.

Jane - that's absolute ruibbish. Fossils of over 400 individual neandertals have been found. One being wrong (if that's the case, for which I can find no proof. I'd like to see yours) ) doesn't discount the rest. Plus there is the DNA record which confirms them as a seperate species.
Do some research Jane. Evolution is a fact.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 15, 2010, 11:09:08 AM
Jane, this is what I think you're referring to:
"In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual."

This was over 100 years ago. Since then massive amounts of evidence has been amassed - in the fossil, genetic and geological records which proves beyond doubt the existance of neandertals. 
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on January 15, 2010, 05:27:19 PM
I know I believe in Neanderthals. I saw evidence of them every day in high school.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: AngeloMysterioso on January 15, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
 ha2ha

Well put, Mairi !


Doing my own research over that topic, I read somewhere, something interesting about a book done by Steven Mithen (some College professor teaching at Reading U). THE SINGING NEANDERTHALS The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Seems that the scholar suggests that the neanderthalians, because of their specific facial and throat bone and muscle configuration, might have had more technical skill to sing than to talk. Accordingly, Mithen goes a step further suggesting that Neanderthals might have learned to speak from Homo Sapiens, and reversely, Homo Sapiens may have learned to sing from these guys.

However, it must be underlined here that professor Mithen never, ever suggested that The Beatles derived from Neanderthalians.
  ;sorry
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on January 15, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
A new book has just come out called Them And Us, a new theory that modern humans evolved in the middle east from the pressures of near extinction by smart, predatory, aggressive neandertals (more clever-apes than dumb humans.)
 a new find has been announced of pigment (paint) found in shells in a neandertal site in Gibralta. Prior to this it was thought body ardornment was unique to our species. If neandertals were painting thenmselves then it's unlikely they were hairy and the Them And Us book goes down the can.
So either:
1. The neandertal predator theory is wrong
2. The Gibralta findings have been misread or
3. Our ancestors were hunted nearly to extinction by clever, transvestite gorilla's.

1 is most likely, but 3 would make one hell of a movie.

Dear Kevin! But you also write about some doubts concerning Neandertals.  ;)
In fact, I am not trying to change anybody`s views, cause this is 100% impossible, I am just conveying something I heard, BTW these were Americans speaking at an interview. Maybe you are right, it might have been just one Neandertal removed cause found fake.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on January 15, 2010, 09:37:54 PM
So are you saying you don't believe in Evolution, Jane? Because I strongly believe in it. The whole Adam and Eve theory doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, emmi, please, do not try to make sense of something you (we all) can`t understand. Neither you nor anybody else. This "theory", as you call it, is not to be taken literally, it is a GREAT CODE which a human is incapable of deciphering. Our brains are weak, and the brains of the greatest scientists are too weak to understand it even a bit. Certainly something else is meant but the ultimate truth maybe so overwhelming that we are spared its burden and given this simple explanation.
Frankly, I don`t believe much in evolution. To me a human has always been a human. I don`t know what he looked like time ago, but not as the evolution theory tells us.
I want to tell you a paradoxical thing about Russia. In 1917 religion was killed in the country by bolsheviks. All the churches were forcefully closed or made into something else like stores to keep goods. For 70 years there was no religion, new generations were born without being baptised, without knowing much, I would say even anything, about the whole thing, without reading the bible and so on. People didn`t go to church. 70 years is long! After 1987 freedom of expression and religion was restored. And what do we see? Most people get baptised and go to church. I don`t know anybody who believes in evolution. Even those people who are sceptical about religion do not believe in evolution. The majority say, Well, I don`t know about the Adam-Eve but certainly not Darvin`s evolution theory.
I don`t know, nobody knows. There`s a theory that we were brought to the Earth by extraterrestrials. The experiment failed about twice, with dinozaurs and these neandertals or the like but in the end succeeded with humans. And I would believe in it more than in the evolution theory.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: The Swine on January 15, 2010, 09:45:35 PM
a new wayne has finally come to us!
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 18, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
ha2ha

Well put, Mairi !


Doing my own research over that topic, I read somewhere, something interesting about a book done by Steven Mithen (some College professor teaching at Reading U). THE SINGING NEANDERTHALS The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Seems that the scholar suggests that the neanderthalians, because of their specific facial and throat bone and muscle configuration, might have had more technical skill to sing than to talk. Accordingly, Mithen goes a step further suggesting that Neanderthals might have learned to speak from Homo Sapiens, and reversely, Homo Sapiens may have learned to sing from these guys.

However, it must be underlined here that professor Mithen never, ever suggested that The Beatles derived from Neanderthalians.
 ;sorry


I have this book, and it's not quite how I remember it. He thinks singing (as in the melodious (sp) noises made by most primates) preceeded speech ie language is an off shoot of music. No one knows for sure if neandertals could talk, but you're right in that the structure of their throat makes it unlikely. Also, as it unclear whether they had capacity for imagination or forethought (still hotly debated) so what would they talk about?
But they weren't silent (as no primate is). I don't recall the angle of neandertals teaching us to sing, more that "singing" is inherent in all primates, and was the basis for modern language (most people dismissed singing as a pretty nbut useless offshoot of language.)
And Jane, I debate neandertal behaviour, not their existance. And Jane, people do know about evolution. Religion and Religious people "believe"  in things (ie accept things as true despite a complete lack of evidence, like fairies or loch ness monsters, witches and vampires - in which millions of people still believe.) Religion and evolution aren't competing theories. I don't "believe" in evolution anymore than I "believe" in gravity, tectonic plates or lightening being caused by electricity in the atmosphere. These things, like evolution, are observable, measurable facts.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: AngeloMysterioso on January 18, 2010, 03:57:31 PM
(…) And Jane, I debate neandertal behaviour, not their existance. And Jane, people do know about evolution. Religion and Religious people "believe"  in things (ie accept things as true despite a complete lack of evidence, like fairies or loch ness monsters, witches and vampires - in which millions of people still believe.) Religion and evolution aren't competing theories. I don't "believe" in evolution anymore than I "believe" in gravity, tectonic plates or lightening being caused by electricity in the atmosphere. These things, like evolution, are observable, measurable facts.
I was going to add my little pinch, in the same perspective.

I personally believe in some higher being, beyond the grasp of my own mind; although, I have stopped, long ago, trying to conceptualize what it could be. Perhaps the Bible, maybe Veda or Qur’an, gives me clue about it. Perhaps not: I simply can’t say. But these are all in the field of belief. They have nothing to do in the field of theory, in the scientific acceptation of that word.

We have no direct proof of evolution; nor have we straightforward evidence of neutrons, protons, electrons or quarks. DNA replication is something that’s far from being totally understood. We are not even 100% sure that global warming is caused by fossil fuel burning. However, we can infer, from scientific method, what is the simplest, most probable explanation. Or theory. Let’s take the aforementioned example of earth being fertilized by extraterrestrial beings. Sure, it can have happened, no doubt about it. But if we simply create, inside an airtight jar, the conditions that existed on our primitive planet, we repeatedly notice basic organic molecules arising. And if we wait long enough, these end up combining together to form complex hydrocarbons: the building blocs of life. So long little peculiar green guys, rogue comets, spectacular flying saucers or black monoliths: all the ingredients of primitive life were, boringly, already around. And this little experiment has been done repeatedly thousand of times. With the same predictable, boring results.

This has nothing to do with faith. Or public opinion polls.

Roughly 50% of Americans are convinced that alien have visited earth in the past. Two-thirds of U.S. adults think that human beings were directly created by God. A little percentage still believe that Elvis is alive. And I am sure that – provided we dig a little – a chunk of people are sure that earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it (a chunk significantly lower than a few centuries ago, I reckon).

Do any of these assertions make good candidates for scientific theory?

Please.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Jane on January 18, 2010, 09:53:49 PM
Kevin, maybe you are right.  :)
But I can`t get convinced that we have evolved from a creature in your avatar. I just think those species became extinct or evolved into monkeys. Still it is very interesting to read your posts.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Kevin on January 19, 2010, 12:48:41 PM

Do any of these assertions make good candidates for scientific theory?

Please.
Hi Angelo. Nice post.

edit: I made a rather lengthy post which I deleted. I don't want to come across all preachy. Respect to you and your views and I have nothing to say that I haven't said earlier.
But please don't read my silence as either acceptance or surrender.  :)
I shall continue to post the odd evoltionary story I find interesting, but won't get involved in the God thing. My views are here for all to read should they wish.
Use the forks Homer, use the forks.

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Mairi on January 19, 2010, 10:21:52 PM
Yo. I believe in evolution and God. How wacky is that? Sorta like liking both the Beatles and Gwen Stefani. Crazy.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 25, 2010, 11:54:37 PM
Ardi is the Cover Girl for the 18 December 2009 issue of Science

(http://www.sciencevisualization.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Ardi.lr.jpg)

She might have been a knock-out in her day, 4.4 million years ago.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Bobber on December 23, 2010, 01:03:14 PM
Hi Kev. Don't know if you're still around?

Thought this might be of interest:

Fossil genome reveals ancestral link

A distant cousin raises questions about human origins.

Ewen Callaway

The ice-age world is starting to look cosmopolitan. While Neanderthals held sway in Europe and modern humans were beginning to populate the globe, another ancient human relative lived in Asia, according to a genome sequence recovered from a finger bone in a cave in southern Siberia. A comparative analysis of the genome with those of modern humans suggests that a trace of this poorly understood strand of hominin lineage survives today, but only in the genes of some Papuans and Pacific islanders.

Named after the cave that yielded the 30,000–50,000-year-old bone, the Denisova nuclear genome follows publication of the same individual's mitochondrial genome in March1. From that sequence, Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues could tell little, except that the individual, now known to be female, was part of a population long diverged from humans and Neanderthals.

Her approximately 3-billion-letter nuclear genome, reported in this issue of Nature2, now provides a more telling glimpse into this mysterious group. It also raises previously unimagined questions about its history and relationship to Neanderthals and humans. "The whole story is incredible. It's like a surprising Christmas present," says Carles Lalueza Fox, a palaeogeneticist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in the research.

When the ancient genome was compared to a spectrum of modern human populations, a striking relationship emerged. Unlike most groups, Melanesians — inhabitants of Papua New Guinea and islands northeast of Australia — seem to have inherited as much as one-twentieth of their DNA from Denisovan roots. This suggests that after the ancestors of today's Papuans split from other human populations and migrated east, they interbred with Denisovans, but precisely when, where and to what extent is unclear.

More answers could come from a closer look at Denisovan, human and even Neanderthal DNA. So far, conclusions about interbreeding have been drawn from a relatively small number of human genomes using conservative DNA-analysis methods, says David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who led the Denisova analysis. "There may have been many more interactions," he says. Pääbo says it may be possible to determine roughly when humans interbred with Denisovans by examining the length of DNA segments lurking in various human genomes, with shorter segments corresponding to more shuffling of genes and a longer elapsed time.

A molar discovered in the same cave also yielded mitochondrial DNA resembling that of the finger bone. But the Denisovans were probably more widespread, says Pääbo. Some fossils from China, for example, resemble neither Neanderthals nor modern humans — nor Homo erectus, an earlier human ancestor. Pääbo wonders whether they could be more closely related to Denisovans. His Russian collaborators plan to search for more complete Denisovan fossils that could be matched to others from China.

Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at London's Natural History Museum, agrees that Asian fossils, such as the 200,000-year-old Dali skull from central China, could have links to the Denisovans. But he says that firm conclusions about such relationships will have to await the discovery of more complete Denisovan fossils.

Preserved DNA from other Asian fossils would also provide a clearer picture of the Denisovans, which Pääbo, to sidestep controversy, has opted not to call a new species or subspecies of hominin. The challenge will be to make sense of such discoveries and put them in the context of ancient human history, says Lalueza Fox. Palaeoanthropologists are just beginning to scrutinize the Neanderthal genome published earlier this year3 for clues to ancient human history. With the Denisova genome, "they will need to deal with another surprise", he says.

From Nature Magazine
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 29, 2010, 02:33:21 AM
Thanks, Bobber.  I always liked this thread.


(http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/8-smashing-bones1.png)

(http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/10-bone1.png)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7T9xWTmNPhI/Sd5617uYGWI/AAAAAAAABZg/03onhkhVius/s1600/vlcsnap-195938.png)

(http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/11-space-station1.png)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 06, 2011, 11:58:06 PM
Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.
wrong. there is hard science and the fossil record to back up evolutionary theory.

Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html)
Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)
The DNA of Human Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dna-human-evolution.html)

2001 Space Odyssey theme - Monkey and Bone. Dawn of Man. HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOuQPZqcEbk#)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Joost on March 07, 2011, 12:41:38 AM
Yo. I believe in evolution and God. How wacky is that? Sorta like liking both the Beatles and Gwen Stefani. Crazy.

That's not wacky at all, that's called inteligent design. And it makes a whole lot more sense to me than religion or atheism.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
... that's called inteligent design.
i do hope you're kidding there joost. intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  roll:)

Quote
from : What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism? ([url]http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism?gclid=CI-pyLr8vKcCFRtqgwodcn5L-w[/url])
"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a successor to the "creation science" movement, which dates back to the 1960s. The IDC movement began in the middle 1980s as an antievolution movement which could include young earth, old earth, and progressive creationists; theistic evolutionists, however, were not welcome. The movement increased in popularity in the 1990s with the publication of books by law professor Phillip Johnson and the founding in 1996 of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (now the Center for Science and Culture.) The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief in the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987...


Quote
intelligent design ([url]http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html[/url])
Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief asserting that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes....


Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zohMSNpW91k#)

HAL 9000 Apple ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJkAYdT7qo#)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 07, 2011, 08:33:35 PM
intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  roll:)

I've always felt that cogent arguments are more convincing than disparaging remarks.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: HeyJude18 on March 07, 2011, 08:58:16 PM
I've stayed rather mute in this topic, but with the new discussion of evolution and religion I find intriguing.  One of my focuses in school is in evolutionary studies and I was a cradle Catholic.  Since I was about 16 I refuted all religion and came to the conclusion that if there's a god, it would want humans to live loving one another, nature, and the planet.  A little while around that I had lost a couple of close friends and couldn't find a good reason for an "all loving god" to do this.

So where does the evolution aspect come into this?  Evolution happens, there is as Darwin and Wallace put it a "struggle for existence" where only the "fit" survive.  Fit meaning those best adapted to their environment, and survive meaning survival to reproduction to pass on their genes to the next generation (although both Darwin and Wallace only had parts of what was/is going on).  Sure, this might all be part of my education talking but I am a firm believer that everything on this earth has evolved (there is evidence to support this through phylogenetic evidence, etc.), and evolution continues to happen (why do you think that there's a new flu virus every year - it's mutated and evolved from the previous strain).

A topic we discussed in my philosophy of biology class earlier this term was if there was creationism, where does god come into the picture.  There was one theory that suggested that god set up everything at the beginning and has to interject every time there's a slight variation in the animal, plant, bacteria, what-have-you.  The other theory that we suggested was that god set up the system knowing that there was an evolution to take place and just sat back and let nature take its course (this one more of the intelligent design theory).  The intelligent design makes a little more sense when you're comparing the two, but when looking at fossil evidence one sees that things just happened to pop in and out of existence at whatever time.  The problem with these theories however comes in the extinction aspect - neither of them account for it and cannot find a good reason why god would let an entire species die.

Also on the topic of creationism, we discussed in my philosophy of science class (off topic: yeah, I'm doing a philosophy minor with my biology major) about what could be considered science, and it has been discussed by philosophers of science, theologists and scientists alike that creationism or "creation science" is not actually a science and couldn't be discussed along with evolutionary theories because it's as much of a pseudo-science as is astrology or numerology.

Just as an FYI - many of these things are just what has been presented to me through my education and through some conclusions (at the beginning there) that I have come to myself.  I actually encourage everyone to do their own research on it and not to take my word for things, I'm just an undergrad, I don't have everything figured out for myself yet.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Joost on March 08, 2011, 12:55:07 AM
i do hope you're kidding there joost. intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  roll:)

I accept evolution as fact, I just don't think it's proof of there not being a god. That's all I'm saying. Nothing "religious right" about that.

Not caring for your tone at all, by the way.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 02:22:56 AM
four or five years ago i was converted from evolution to intelligent design
-
the problem is that many -- i guess religious right bible literalists have adopted it as their 'proof'
-
i saw a pbs documentary on it though- it made me realize people were throwing out the baby with the bathwater re. intelligent design . .

-
what really convinced me to question 'evolution' (defined as one string on life that mutated from species to more complex species by means of natural selection i.e. less favorable survival triats not procreating and being weeded out of the gene pool...) was:

the bacterial flagellum
(http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/images/wiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flagellum_base_diagram.svg/350px-Flagellum_base_diagram.svg.png)(http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/fdsmall.gif)
it's an incredibly complex geared motor/sensor computer.... attached to the simplest form of life
in other words- > what did it evolve FROM
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE#)
and the bacterial flagellum doesnt just "run" like a windup toy..... those bacteria start, stop, change direction speed up, slow down etc
-
 . . in addtion, the other documentary i saw went on to propose that there really isn't TIME for a fish to change into a monkey . .  by process of generational dna adaptation . . .
it would take impossibley longer than you can imagine - if it's even possible . .
(and please no one tell me how old the earth is.... this documentary broke it down - and it wasnt the religious right speaking)
-
darwin formed his theory when?.... and he really hit the nail on the head? - microscopes just weren't strong enough in the 1800's

now a days -> professional scientists and their community have an agenda like anyone. it involves grants .... and hubris !
-
we're from the generation where if you didn't believe in evolution= that meant you were 'dumb' and believed in adam and eve . .
so now, i guess i believe in adaptation within a species..... i think !?!? - i don't know
but the bacterial flagellum makes me wonder about all the ufo stories - more than it does the bible
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

(just my one opinion - here's a rebuttal video on the bacterial flagellum concept - didn't really do much for me  :-\)
Ken Miller on Bacterial Flagellum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko#)

Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 02:43:30 AM
 ;D instant fail  ;D

errr....that's nonsense nyfan(41). surely you must realize that you are rejecting evolutionary theory, for which exists a mountain of proof, because biologists don't understand every step of how the Evolution of flagella occurred.

from : The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)
There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms.

The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement...

scientists also use supercomputers to crack the human genome.

intelligent design is a fashionable pseudo-science, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 02:45:55 AM
I've always felt that cogent arguments are more convincing than disparaging remarks.
that was a cogent argument, intelligent design is a ridiculous scam, usually pushed by religious right types, whom seek to "debunk" evolutionary theory.  irreducible complexity is an incredibly odd buzzword/term and is borrowed from mathematics, computational theory and game theory, and "intelligent design" is just a cheap substitute for Young Earth Creationism. ??? roll:)

Quote
from : irreducible complexity ([url]http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/tag/irreducible-complexity/[/url])
The entire ID argument boils in large part down to an argument from incredulity – “I cannot conceive that God didn’t do it, therefore evolution is wrong & God did it!”  
When presented with explanations via evolution for what we observe, they essentially deny the evidence & rationalize it away.

Quote
from : Irreducible Complexity ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity[/url])
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]


The Bacterial Flagellum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlOfMifowP4#)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 02:49:47 AM
I accept evolution as fact, I just don't think it's proof of there not being a god. That's all I'm saying. Nothing "religious right" about that.

Not caring for your tone at all, by the way.
i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism.  ???
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 03:15:24 AM
7/13
i'm not  (to quote your posted quote) - 'incredulous'  . . . . . . .  i'm open minded
-
and as far as 'it' being nonsense- which it? because i posted a video from each side of the argument
-
-
-
see, i believe in ufo's and more and more people have reported experiencing them - from all backgrounds and going back in history -
-
and what many with retrieved memories report is all the same similar story,,,,
-
people being abducted.... 'tagged' for repeat abduction if u will . . having the memory often blocked.... ( like the book communion )
--
and aliens that look like versions of us who do experiments with an emphasis on reproduction - where egg and sperm samples are taken
-
so that implies to me we may be some kind of an alien ant farm = = . . . .  or the aliens are us in the future . .

because i can't explain away the volume of abduction stories that are out there.... for that matter -nor the volume of paranormal stories i.e. spirits and souls and energies that basically time travel . .
-
i'm very happy in my concrete belief that i have no idea what the true answer is
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
by the way, if you read the quote you posted it's just alot of self righteous high handed namecalling and doesn't even give an argument for the flagellum having evolved....... unlike the ken miller rebuttal video i posted
;D instant fail  ;D

errr....that's nonsense nyfan(41). surely you must realize that you are rejecting evolutionary theory, for which exists a mountain of proof, because biologists don't understand every step of how the Evolution of flagella occurred.

from : The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" ([url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html[/url])
There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms.

The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement...

scientists also use supercomputers to crack the human genome.

intelligent design is a fashionable pseudo-science, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 03:22:07 AM
one more time... "intelligent design" theory implies an intelligent designer, which is just another name/codeword for god and creationism. really unbelievable.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Joost on March 08, 2011, 03:22:48 AM
i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism.  ???

Jeez... What exactly is so hard to understand? I accept evolution as fact and I'm not an atheist. That's all.

Religious nuts and convinced atheists, they're the exact same thing to me. They both think they have ultimate wisdom about something that we really are not able to understand, and if you're not with them they'll consider you a fool.  roll:)

But if not being an atheist means that I "cannot do the math" and believe in a "warped fairytale" (which is odd, since I don't believe in anything, I just don't exclude anything either), then I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. I'm not into this offensive type of discussion anymore.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 08, 2011, 03:27:28 AM
one more time... "intelligent design" theroy implies an intelligent designer, which is just another name/codeword for god and creationism. really unbelievable.

Fine.  Say it just like that and spare us the deprecating and condescending remarks.  
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: HeyJude18 on March 08, 2011, 03:33:55 AM
(I meant for this to be three posts above...  if it doesn't make sense in what's gone on now)

Can I propose a simple answer for the movement of the bacteria flagella (and it's not just flagella, it's cilia and limeopedia (I think that's how you spell it)): signaling pathways and cytoskelleton.  It's basic cell biology now-a-days.  For that matter, do we want to discuss how there are now protoza and bacteria that are found with ancient characteristics but have adapted to living in extreme (high acidity, extreme hot or cold) environments?  It's the accumulation of positive genetic variances that are heritable.

Plus, Darwin didn't propose ANYTHING requiring microscopes.  Both him and Wallace and every evolutionary scientist before relied on the MORPHOLOGICAL characteristics, NOT genetic.  Genes weren't really proposed until Mendel, and at that what is now considered Mendellian genetics was NOT what he proposed.  Not saying that morphology was the right way, there have been many things that we have seen since the advent of genetic sequencing that are not now considered to be true.  Not even to mention that the double-helix that we know and love today wasn't discovered until the 1960s (while Watson and Crick were high on LSD - allegedly - but that's a different story).

I'm sorry if this response offends people, but this is what I study, this is what I love, some people take what they see on tv or youtube or read on the internet as what "biology" is and do not go any further, do not do any research other than what fits their specific needs.  If anyone wanted, I would be MORE THAN WILLING to send people lecture notes, journal articles - from peer reviewed sources, whatever supporting my claims.  Biology has come a long way in the past 60 years, unfortunately, some people still seem to live in the ... what I lovingly term... the dark ages.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 08, 2011, 03:46:41 AM
Not even to mention that the double-helix that we know and love today wasn't discovered until the 1960s (while Watson and Crick were high on LSD - allegedly - but that's a different story).

1953 to be precise.  And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: HeyJude18 on March 08, 2011, 03:54:10 AM
1953 to be precise.  And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?

Shoot, I knew it was the 50s!  Why'd I say the 60s lol.  Actually my second year biochem prof... actually both of them said that.  Apparently it was only mentioned in like one book/article.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 08, 2011, 03:58:15 AM
Do a little research on the subject, then, and correct your biochemistry professor.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 04:04:11 AM
i would love to hear your worldview about how the pseudo-science known as "intelligent design" makes more sense that atheism.  ???
just to qualify my statements . .
you have put "intelligent design" as the opposite of atheism - - which i understand.
you are talking about the intelligent design 'movement' . .
which is part of a war between 'bible people' and the 'scientific community'
-
i don't point to the flagellum as an argument for 'god' ---> traditional mythology version or otherwise
but it does make me believe that evolution doesn't know it all  - - as i mentioned another documentary (on pbs) convinced me that the years required for the darwin answer dont add up  . . or at least made me question it as 100 percent fact beyond scrutiny!
ergo my post first statement about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and god creationists clinging to the flagellum
-
also, 7/13, ur arguments in reply seem to just quote what the 'scientific community' accepts or rejects .. as a form of proof
ergo - my next post's mention of ufos and spirits both of which the scientific community presently reject - -  so that argument doesn't mean much to me personally
..
......
what does make sense to me is that a scientist from 150 years ago may not have solved the mystery of life on earth down to a 't'
-
he was the first to observe what he observed . . similarities and adaptations (or was he? i don't know)
but his explanation is now in doubt to me for various reasons and i'm ok with that
-
i believe in parts of evolution... within a species  . .  or certain species being linked . .  or we're a ufo alien experiment that evolved but had guidance steering things that we don't know about . .
 what about that phrase missing link . . because all while evolution was being touted as 100 percent fact -  i kept hearing about an unfound puzzle piece.
-
i believe no one living has the answer - just bits and pieces of it  :D
-
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I meant for this to be three posts above...  if it doesn't make sense in what's gone on now)

Can I propose a simple answer for the movement of the bacteria flagella (and it's not just flagella, it's cilia and limeopedia (I think that's how you spell it)): signaling pathways and cytoskelleton.  It's basic cell biology now-a-days.  For that matter, do we want to discuss how there are now protoza and bacteria that are found with ancient characteristics but have adapted to living in extreme (high acidity, extreme hot or cold) environments?  It's the accumulation of positive genetic variances that are heritable.

Plus, Darwin didn't propose ANYTHING requiring microscopes.  Both him and Wallace and every evolutionary scientist before relied on the MORPHOLOGICAL characteristics, NOT genetic.  Genes weren't really proposed until Mendel, and at that what is now considered Mendellian genetics was NOT what he proposed.  Not saying that morphology was the right way, there have been many things that we have seen since the advent of genetic sequencing that are not now considered to be true.  Not even to mention that the double-helix that we know and love today wasn't discovered until the 1960s (while Watson and Crick were high on LSD - allegedly - but that's a different story).

I'm sorry if this response offends people, but this is what I study, this is what I love, some people take what they see on tv or youtube or read on the internet as what "biology" is and do not go any further, do not do any research other than what fits their specific needs.  If anyone wanted, I would be MORE THAN WILLING to send people lecture notes, journal articles - from peer reviewed sources, whatever supporting my claims.  Biology has come a long way in the past 60 years, unfortunately, some people still seem to live in the ... what I lovingly term... the dark ages.
update - thanks hey jude, that was awesome! at last, something i can sink my teeth into  ;D
THANKS FOR THE KNOWINGS!
but i like how you say you propose an answer... because if even one small part can't be explained it still falls under the catagory of 'most plausible theory' as of now  .... (?)
-
i'm admitedly not studied in these fields - although i find it kind of arrogant -> any scientist or otherwise who claims to know all the answers of the universe
-
anyway, just out of curiosity - not trying to bait - where (if anywhere) do you factor ufos into evolution, god, et al
,,,,,
also - sorry to hear you lost people - i know the feeling
you go on to say that led you from catholicism
just wondering (non religiously) - do you ever think their spirits still exist somewhere?
thanks

 :)
-
-
1953 to be precise.  And where did you hear that bit of nonsense about LSD?
-
so wait, when she mentioned those letters - then you choose to show some expertise  ha2ha ha2ha ;sorry - just playing  ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 04:09:02 AM
Jeez... What exactly is so hard to understand? I accept evolution as fact and I'm not an atheist. That's all.
hi joost... errr, nothing, you said that "intelligent design" pseudo-science made more sense than atheism, which implies a rejection of a divine supernatural omnipotent being aka god, and accepting evolutionary theory at face value. you appear unable to defend these rather outrageous statements, and in fact, instead seem to prefer to hide behind ridiculous strawmen and the twisting of simple statements.

intelligent design is a heap of rubbish, i don't see how anyone could want to add to this.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: HeyJude18 on March 08, 2011, 04:13:47 AM
anyway, just out of curiosity - not trying to bait - where (if anywhere) do you factor ufos into evolution, god, et al
,,,,,
also - sorry to hear you lost people - i know the feeling
you go on to say that led you from catholicism
just wondering (non religiously) - do you ever think their spirits still exist somewhere?

As for my opinions:
UFOs in evolution - I kinda doubt that they have anything to do with evolution.  I think there might be some out there, just don't know where.
god - don't believe in any sort of god deity anymore, for reasons above with the friends.  Therefore, I don't think that there's any chance that any sort of deity could have been involved in evolution...
Spirits - um, well, I don't think others would share my opinions, but the way I see it, humans are just balls of energy (spiritual and the fact that we're made up of sugars, yady yada), and there's a law of energies that says basically: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Because of that and that alone I think that there's still an afterlife, I'm not sure if it's a sort of heaven or if it's a reincarnation type deal.
Just my opinions.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 04:15:53 AM
you have put "intelligent design" as the opposite of atheism...
uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.  roll:) intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 08, 2011, 04:20:44 AM
7 0f 13, I'll leave you to proselytize to yourself.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: Joost on March 08, 2011, 04:24:19 AM
7 0f 13, I'll leave you to proselytize to yourself.

Seconded.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 04:30:30 AM
As for my opinions:
UFOs in evolution - I kinda doubt that they have anything to do with evolution.  I think there might be some out there, just don't know where.
god - don't believe in any sort of god deity anymore, for reasons above with the friends.  Therefore, I don't think that there's any chance that any sort of deity could have been involved in evolution...
Spirits - um, well, I don't think others would share my opinions, but the way I see it, humans are just balls of energy (spiritual and the fact that we're made up of sugars, yady yada), and there's a law of energies that says basically: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Because of that and that alone I think that there's still an afterlife, I'm not sure if it's a sort of heaven or if it's a reincarnation type deal.
Just my opinions.
-
those are kind of my beliefs too
i.e. i don't believe in diety either - more like how depak chopra explains things re energy and the other part of your post . . but i guess i'm a mild ufo semi crackpot compared to you. lol - ur cool jude
-
uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.  roll:) intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.
-
uhhmmm. excuse me.. i have done no such thing, stop making things up and distorting simple statements.  roll:) intelligent design is garbarge, plain and simple. natural selection is itself a very complex process and in fact is observable in the laboratory.
ok, then i guess i don't read well
anyway -
i don't think i understood what "intelligent design" refers to as a phrase . . because i do not believe in bible, diety etc.
basically - i saw a documentary with 'intelligent design' in the title on pbs that made me doubt the party line re evolution and i've yet to be 100 percent de-skepticized
also - the evolution of life on earth was never observed a to z in a laboratory.
just 'survival of the fittest' type selection in instances - which i do ackwledge and believe in
...
it's just that none of this explains the ufos to me..... and why everyone says they look like a version of us !
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 04:32:02 AM
lol - drats, it's late !  ha2ha
take care guys
 :)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 04:34:45 AM
In the Big Cluedo Game that is life I don't think you can say God did it just because some of the other answers don't add up. I think to say "hmm - not enough matter in the universe to support The Big Bang (for which their is some compelling evidence) therefore it can't be true - therefore it must have been made by a supernatural being (for which the evidence is zilch) is a bit silly.
One thing I want to push - whether or not The Big Bang or any other scientific answer about the universe's origins can be proven correct DOES NOT alter the fact that evolution proves beyond doubt that man is descended from a common ancestor of the ape.
And is it not a basic tenant of the bible that god created man in his own image? If it is so wrong on this one basic issue, how can you so unquestionably accept the rest of it? Don't you EVER go "hang on a bit...made woman out of a rib? That don't seem right????"
i agree totally with these statements. the bible is just too thick with contradictions.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 04:46:24 AM
also - the evolution of life on earth was never observed a to z in a laboratory.
just 'survival of the fittest' type selection in instances
perhaps i was unclear here, google "darwin machines" and "darwinian machines".. i can't find any references for the laboratory thing right now, but consider the Galápagos Islands as a makeshift science laboratory in the meantime.
Quote
from : Darwin Machine ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_machine[/url])

In its original connotation, a Darwin machine is any process that bootstraps quality by utilizing all of the six essential features of a Darwinian process:
A pattern is copied with variations,
where populations of one variant pattern compete with another population, (competition)
their relative success biased by a multifaceted environment (natural selection)
so that winners predominate in producing the further variants of the next generation (Darwin's inheritance principle).
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 08, 2011, 11:58:10 AM
perhaps i was unclear here, google "darwin machines" and "darwinian machines".. i can't find any references for the laboratory thing right now, but consider the Galápagos Islands as a makeshift science laboratory in the meantime.


yes, i know what that is. it's in the first paragraph of my first post
. . . . . . convinced me to question 'evolution' (defined as one string on life that mutated from species to more complex species by means of natural selection i.e. less favorable survival triats not procreating and being weeded out of the gene pool...) . . . .

and unless there's been a bank security camera filming the earth since the beginning of the planet - then life on earth has never been observed from starting point of chemicals all the way evolving and morphing to the modern human being (A to Z)
what's been observed is more like..... all within a species of insects that aren't green being selected out of a gene pool because they don't camouflage with plants in their habitat so they get eaten and don't pass on traits . .
that's why no matter how you huff and puff, evolution is a theory . . . a theory that makes alot of sense and has supporting evidence suggesting its veracity
 . . but none the less -> a theory

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again, the part that has yet to be explained to me is ufo aliens .... and why are they supposedly taking sperm and egg samples .... why do the reported aliens look like a version of humans .... why have multiple abductees reported being shown alien/human hybrids ?
-
my beliefs don't rule out that they are us! and our entire 'evolution' has been guided like an ant farm
-
by the way, a nasa scientist named richard hoover claims to have found evidence of alien life this week
he found some kind of bacterial fossil in a meteorite . .  it resembled life as we know it on earth....
it was in the news
(again, more theory)


i believe no one living has the answer - just bits and pieces of it


this is a cave painting that some people believe depicts aliens or time traveling astronauts (http://www.in5d.com/images/11-ancient-astronauts.jpg)
there are others
-
and this is from wikepedia...
Proponents of ancient astronaut theories often maintain that humans are either descendants or creations of beings who landed on Earth thousands of years ago. An associated idea is that much of human knowledge, religion, and culture came from extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times, in that ancient astronauts acted as a “mother culture”. Other proposals include the idea that civilization may have evolved on Earth twice, and that the visitation of ancient astronauts may reflect the return of descendants of ancient humans whose population was separated from earthbound humans. These ideas are generally discounted if not ridiculed by the academic and skeptical communities.

Proponents argue that the evidence for ancient astronauts comes from supposed gaps in historical and archaeological records, and they also maintain that absent or incomplete explanations of historical or archaeological data point to the existence of ancient astronauts. The evidence is said to include archaeological artifacts that they argue are anachronistic or beyond the presumed technical capabilities of the historical cultures with which they are associated (sometimes referred to as "Out-of-place artifacts"); and artwork and legends which are interpreted as depicting extraterrestrial contact or technologies.

Mainstream academics, when they comment at all on such proposals, have responded that gaps in contemporary knowledge of the past need not demonstrate that such speculative ancient astronaut ideas are a necessary, or even plausible, conclusion to draw. Academic researchers in related disciplines generally maintain that there is no evidence to support the proposals of ancient astronauts or paleocontact. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, however strongly believed in what he called panspermia, the concept that earth was 'seeded' with life, probably in the form of bluegreen algae, by intelligent extraterrestrial species, for the purpose of ensuring life's continuity. He believed that this could have been done on any number of planets of this class, possibly using unmanned shuttles. He talks at length about this theory in his book Life Itself.

In their 1966 book Intelligent Life in the Universe astrophysicists I.S. Shklovski and Carl Sagan devote a chapter to arguments that scientists and historians should seriously consider the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred during recorded history. However, Shklovski and Sagan stressed that these ideas were speculative and unproven.

Shklovski and Sagan argued that sub-lightspeed interstellar travel by extraterrestrial life was a certainty when considering technologies that were established or feasible in the late '60s; that repeated instances of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth were plausible; and that pre-scientific narratives can offer a potentially reliable means of describing contact with outsiders. Additionally, Shklovski and Sagan cited tales of Oannes, a fishlike being attributed with teaching agriculture, mathematics, and the arts to early Sumerians, as deserving closer scrutiny as a possible instance of paleocontact due to its consistency and detail.
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 06:22:38 PM
the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good example of evolution in action.
Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html)

From the book Evolution for Dummies :

amazing adaptations

different kind of teeth

the evolution of the eye

cave blindness

photosynthesis

deep sea thermal vent organisms

endosymbiosis

vertebrate flight

trap jaw ants

the book faults plain vanilla "intelligent design" theory on the grounds of the confusion concerning the random aspects of DNA replication and mutation - where the stumblingblock of a  buzzword irreducible complexity is usually used as a foolproof foundation for the theory. ???  this is just scientific jargon, no more no less, the theory is not scientific, no hypotheses is offered, in fact intelligent design is just creationism poorly disguised.

"(ID proponents)...are confusing the fact that some of the evolutionary process of natural selection involves random events with the idea that the whole idea is random."

source:
Evolution for Dummies
p. 337
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 08, 2011, 08:09:28 PM
disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM#)
Title: Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on March 12, 2011, 09:51:16 PM
Dunno why I'm going to get myself into this, but here I go anyways.

I am an Agnostic. (I'm going to count on the fact that you all know what that means.) I believe in Evolution, and I believe that there is some kind of life after death, I'm just not going to put my stake into one religion. Because so many religions out there believe that there is something that happens after we die, how could so many different people and ideas be wrong? I also believe that the Bible is a good source of teaching (Not that we should stone our wives or anything.) As in do onto others as they do onto you, and love thy neighbor. But these people who take the bible literally, (I knew someone who said to me: If it isn't in the bible, don't do it.) are very mis-guided.

I am growing up in a small town where there's 7 churches on one street. (Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, and Assembly of God to name a few.) And I've been called every name in the book at school. (They're also all Republican, and I'm Democratic. But that's another story.) So if someone's going to argue the religious side against me, save yourself, I've heard it all.

Some words of wisdom from Philip DeFranco: Religion is like a penis; You can enjoy it in your own home, but don't take it out in public or shove it down my throat.