A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11

Author Topic: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)  (Read 12189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #40 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.

Logged
GEMM is your best source for impossible-to-find !

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #41 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.
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #43 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.
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #44 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.
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #45 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #48 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?
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #49 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #50 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.

Logged

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #51 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.
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #52 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #53 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. :)
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2009, 04:57:56 PM »

Everybody is right in this argument. And that is true.  :)
Logged

fendertele

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1960
  • "Confusion will be my epitaph"
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2009, 08:00:19 PM »

we'll nobody is wrong thats for sure ;)
Logged

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7882
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #56 on: June 17, 2009, 12:38:35 AM »

In before someone starts quoting Christopher Hutchens.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13485
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #57 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."
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #58 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.


Logged
don't follow leaders

DaveRam

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2894
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #59 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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
 

Page created in 0.572 seconds with 26 queries.