Originally posted by outfctrl The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang. That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion? Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself. How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with? The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, then the universe would have been a colossal waste of space-time. So are we the lucky benefactors of blind chance? or Was life was planned all along by God I guess we will never know, but for now, God seems the most logical.
Anyone with a brain should be able to see that a big magic man in the sky cannot, and should not exist. It just amazes me how someone can so crazy.
In other words, you consider the vast majority of humanity to be crazy, to not have a brain, and yourself among the tiny elite who have brains and are sane?
how did YOU and your tiny group get to be so sane and so smart?
The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang. That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion? Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself. How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with? The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, then the universe would have been a colossal waste of space-time. So are we the lucky benefactors of blind chance? or Was life was planned all along by God I guess we will never know, but for now, God seems the most logical.
I want to clear something up. The Big Bang was not an explosion. The Big Bang refers to the state of the Universe when it was very young, very small, and very dense. In other words The Big Bang occurred everywhere, at every time. There is no "center" of the Universe. I want to further comment by saying when we say the Universe is expanding we mean that the spacetime is actually expanding (re: Hubble's Law). Because of our understanding of light and the age of the Universe we can determine that what happened, or what was before the Big Bang is unobservable, so as far as we are concerned time = 0 at the Big Bang, even if that isn't really true.
Second: I've already addressed the "fine tuned for life" but I'll say it again. If the Universe is fine tuned for life, the probability of it in the Universe should approach 1. In other words: life should be abundent in the Universe. What we find though is in the vast of the Universe we are the only planet known so far to harbor life and thus we're beginning to find that the probability of life in the Universe is actually approaching 0. If it wasn't fine tuned, there was no fine tuner. In other words, we are the "benefactors of blind chance."
Third: Even if we place a god before the Big Bang. What did we learn? That doesn't explain the conditions, it doesn't explain the physics, it doesn't explain anything. In fact, it simply replaces one unknown with an even larger unknown. And it actually stops us from finding anymore knowledge. It other words it doesn't constitute a growth in the knowledge for mankind; it's not science.
And like I said before, everything thus far in the Universe can be explained by the interactions of natural forces. If that is the case, the reallogical conclusion is that the start of the Universe didn't need it either.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
A good question. I suppose one with many probable answere's, depending on a host of things.
Having read many different Bible's, and not being a well educated person, my answere will probably make some or many, on both sides of the, evo vs creation, coin, flat enraged, maybe not, as many here can speak of things, hypithetically, without getting bent.
Here goes, and as a disclaner, Im getting older, I dont remember everything correctly, and I dont provide, documentation, to anyone for, virtually, anything, and I quit reading dictionary's. They can do that themselves, and more than likely be beter off than listening to me.
Early on in Genesis One, it speaks of God creating man, creating male and female, creating he them. This he did simultaneously on the same day , before resting on the seventh. Or that is my recollection, and impression, of the reading(s).
Then in the opening few paragraphs of Genesis Two, after he had rested, he saw all that he had done and it was good, but, there was not a man to till the soil. I have read one very old translation, from the Greek, or some such, that stated , "he had not yet created man, with a soul," at the same point of the reading.( this is where he creates Adam and then Eve from a Rib) after he had rested on the seventh day. I really wonder how many ribs male and female, prehistoric homosapheons had? and odd number like us?
Now then, later in Genesis Cain kills Abel, and is sent to dwell with the people in the land of Nod.
Adam and Eve have other children, on and on things happen, the great flood, Neflum, etc etc etc.
So all this had me very confused for a long time, until, I heard about that common (here spelling gets even more creative) Chromizone, being very very old, and traced to a female in Africa, or what is now Africa.
So I think, Perhaps, and it works for me, the people in the land of Nod, were the people, created in Genesis one, A hunter gatherer, in tune with nature as the animal kingdom is, but very smart, large brains, very hardy. I think they exsisted a long lon time, which clarify's the part late in Gen.1 were it says , these are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth. They evolved, even the universe moved a tick. They were free from the trappings of greed, etc. to a great degree.
I think Cain, a product of this New man, a man who did till the soil, and was smaller, with a smaller brain, but very shrewed, (as well as greedy), etc, did breed with the people in the land of Nod, and thus began a line of an even,newer man, than Adam.
To me this reconcilled, a host of arguements, between science and religeon, to the point where I could sleep, a little beter, in those very few moments, that I actually do ponder the meaning of life, the Universe, and everything.
I dont want to get into the Flood, the many Virgin births through history, A Roman Ceasar actually compilling the first Bible, etc etc. These and others I have also reconcilled, for me. Being a broken down, ex construction worker, and Oilfield Trash, I'd rather spend my time, driving down the road, screaming like a Banshi at the windsheild, wondering why I cant get Social Security, to help me.
In the end it has been a couple very good friends, with kind hearts, doing something, they felt . Inspite, of Texts, Quantum Physics, The Universe, and Everything.
I think they found the meaning of life and passed it on to me.
Lets take it a step further. Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative. All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
So the OP is saying Adam and Eve were mutants or aliens with crazy genes? That means God is either the head of the X-men, or an alien I guess.
And the science in the OP is just plain retarded. "Microevolution" is the only thing possible? yea, in a human lifetime, but no over a billion years. But oh, that's right the OP probably thinks the earth is 6K years old and man ran with the Dinosaurs or something like that.
Lets take it a step further. Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative. All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Lets take it a step further. Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative. All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
I'm just making an example. They gave it a "smarter" sounding name to make their "experiments" sound creditable as if it were real science.
I was just trying to relate it in a way so liberals understand what I meant.
How they change words to be "less offensive" and "intelligent"
For example, the military was told that "cock pit" was offensive to women (silly), and is referred to as "flight station".
Or how a few years ago, liberals tried to push for being called "progressive" instead of liberal, because it sounded like they were leading and superior. It didn't catch on very well, as we now know.
Um, no. Liberals pushed to be called "progressive" because conservatives (quite successfully, I might add) managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in the public discourse.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Lets take it a step further. Lacking a direct experience of a transcendent presence such as experienced by Plato and some others of us, we begin the proof with the observation that all cultures known to history had at core a set of beliefs they held to be absolute. The obvious examples are Egypt under the Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of Europe during the Medieval Period, and the United States. The Pharaohs, Alexander the Great, and the Emperors of Rome were gods to those bonded to the respective culture. Medieval Europe was order by the "divine right of kings," and the authority of the king was accepted as absolute. The American was the end point of cultural development wherein the "divine right of the individual" supplanted the "divine right of the king." The conclusion from this (inductive logic) is that humans need an absolute (God) upon which to construct identity, meaning, and the prescriptive behavior essential to the expansive forward development of the culture.
We can extend the concept of a need for God to the individual through the work of Joseph Campbell and Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim. Those two show that humans everywhere, at all stages of history, strive to imagine a heroic existence. From the outside we dismiss it as myth or personal delusion. From the inside it is an expression of need . . . our myths and delusions are really saying "this is the person . . . this is the people . . . we need to be in order to be loved, admired, respected as we need to be." The myth and/or delusion is the most fantastic imaginable because the underlying need is a need for God. Fulfillment of this need is not optional. As Conrad showed us the failure to succeed in our opportunity to be a god marks the end of life. So it has been with all of the cultures of the past who once imagined they were the carriers of absolute truth. From this we can set down the following logical propositions:
If I have a need for an absolute and did not know it, I was created with a need for an absolute and did not understand it.
If I was created with a need for an absolute there had to be in creation an absolute that would fill that need.
To know of the need for an absolute and then being totally unable to discover such an absolute would result in mental illness and/or social dysfunction and then death.
The true absolute would know of our propensity to self-destruct due to our ignorance and so would take the initiative in revelation in the hope of saving us.
The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taken the initiative. All of the above is inductive reasoning. Though often presented by science as capable in itself of being judged absolute, most of us would stop short of such an extreme conclusion. Experimentation, such as conducted by science, to achieve a stronger degree of proof is also possible in the effort to prove the existence of God. Religious experimentation, however, requires the individual embark on individually designed experiments based upon Holy Scripture. Many of us alive today, and many others through out history have conducted many well designed experiments and know conclusively there is a God.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
I'm just making an example. They gave it a "smarter" sounding name to make their "experiments" sound creditable as if it were real science.
I was just trying to relate it in a way so liberals understand what I meant.
How they change words to be "less offensive" and "intelligent"
For example, the military was told that "cock pit" was offensive to women (silly), and is referred to as "flight station".
Or how a few years ago, liberals tried to push for being called "progressive" instead of liberal, because it sounded like they were leading and superior. It didn't catch on very well, as we now know.
Actually people on the left in the US called themselves progressives FIRST, but then, by the twenties or thirties, "progressives" became rightly identified with marxists. This led them to steal the name "liberal" from people who now are called "libertarians" and "classical liberals." Then, after time, "liberal" got identified by the same thing as "progressive" did in the twenties, so they have tried to shift it back toward "progressive."
I feel they do it to evade what they mean and confuse people more than they do it to sound intelligent.
Actually people on the left in the US called themselves progressives FIRST, but then, by the twenties or thirties, "progressives" became rightly identified with marxists. This led them to steal the name "liberal" from people who now are called "libertarians" and "classical liberals." Then, after time, "liberal" got identified by the same thing as "progressive" did in the twenties, so they have tried to shift it back toward "progressive." I feel they do it to evade what they mean and confuse people more than they do it to sound intelligent.
So by this rationale, the "left" = Marxists, correct?
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Actually people on the left in the US called themselves progressives FIRST, but then, by the twenties or thirties, "progressives" became rightly identified with marxists. This led them to steal the name "liberal" from people who now are called "libertarians" and "classical liberals." Then, after time, "liberal" got identified by the same thing as "progressive" did in the twenties, so they have tried to shift it back toward "progressive." I feel they do it to evade what they mean and confuse people more than they do it to sound intelligent.
So by this rationale, the "left" = Marxists, correct?
The "left" in this country, at least in terms of economics, means "towards" pure communism, so yes, the further left you go, the more marxist you are. I didn't set up the right/left thing, it was borrowed from the old French parlaiment and never fit well in our politics, but it is what it is. Left = marxism and communism, Right = fascism and nazism. Tyranny on both left and right, like coke or pepsi.
So yes, the left = marxists of one manner or another.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
1. An advanced alien collective intelligence found earth and decided it would be a good place to spawn a child.
2. They had to get rid of some of the dangers though so they brought about massive destruction killing off the dinosaurs. All that was left of the dinosaurs are what we call birds today. Without this pressure mammal evolution took off.
3. Through tinkering, different models of the homo genus were set loose upon the earth. Ultimately, the aliens settled on one design even mixing some of their own DNA in to create humans. The first two were called Adam and Eve.
4. They stayed in contact with humanity for a period of time establishing all the major religions (memes) to keep humanity on course and from destroying itself but also to keep it divided enough to progress as progress only comes about due to competition.
5. They now await the time when all of humanity will unite in a collective intelligence and transcend the planet earth.
6. At that time we will join the creators and they will make their pressence known.
7. Some will resist the joining to the collective and they will be left on earth to be destroyed forever when earth meets it's final destruction.
Someone told you that load of crap and actually believe it.
My sister in law takes my 2 year old neice to church every weekend. My brother is an athiest, like me, but he doesn't mind.
It's very interesting watching the development of my neices faith. I mean right now all she knows is that she goes to Jesus' house, but we can see were things are going.
WTF! does a child know about the world or science?
You are programmed from birth.
It's unfortunate that some are so deeply programmed with such complete BS.
Edit:
I'm completely blown away by this.
We are what we are based upon were our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years ago.
The color of your skin, hair, eyes.
The width of your nose, structure of muscle. It's all based on enviroment.
Comments
cool, so you agree that ID is unscientific, yes?
Anyone with a brain should be able to see that a big magic man in the sky cannot, and should not exist. It just amazes me how someone can so crazy.
In other words, you consider the vast majority of humanity to be crazy, to not have a brain, and yourself among the tiny elite who have brains and are sane?
how did YOU and your tiny group get to be so sane and so smart?
fishermage.blogspot.com
I want to clear something up. The Big Bang was not an explosion. The Big Bang refers to the state of the Universe when it was very young, very small, and very dense. In other words The Big Bang occurred everywhere, at every time. There is no "center" of the Universe. I want to further comment by saying when we say the Universe is expanding we mean that the spacetime is actually expanding (re: Hubble's Law). Because of our understanding of light and the age of the Universe we can determine that what happened, or what was before the Big Bang is unobservable, so as far as we are concerned time = 0 at the Big Bang, even if that isn't really true.
Second: I've already addressed the "fine tuned for life" but I'll say it again. If the Universe is fine tuned for life, the probability of it in the Universe should approach 1. In other words: life should be abundent in the Universe. What we find though is in the vast of the Universe we are the only planet known so far to harbor life and thus we're beginning to find that the probability of life in the Universe is actually approaching 0. If it wasn't fine tuned, there was no fine tuner. In other words, we are the "benefactors of blind chance."
Third: Even if we place a god before the Big Bang. What did we learn? That doesn't explain the conditions, it doesn't explain the physics, it doesn't explain anything. In fact, it simply replaces one unknown with an even larger unknown. And it actually stops us from finding anymore knowledge. It other words it doesn't constitute a growth in the knowledge for mankind; it's not science.
And like I said before, everything thus far in the Universe can be explained by the interactions of natural forces. If that is the case, the real logical conclusion is that the start of the Universe didn't need it either.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
A good question. I suppose one with many probable answere's, depending on a host of things.
Having read many different Bible's, and not being a well educated person, my answere will probably make some or many, on both sides of the, evo vs creation, coin, flat enraged, maybe not, as many here can speak of things, hypithetically, without getting bent.
Here goes, and as a disclaner, Im getting older, I dont remember everything correctly, and I dont provide, documentation, to anyone for, virtually, anything, and I quit reading dictionary's. They can do that themselves, and more than likely be beter off than listening to me.
Early on in Genesis One, it speaks of God creating man, creating male and female, creating he them. This he did simultaneously on the same day , before resting on the seventh. Or that is my recollection, and impression, of the reading(s).
Then in the opening few paragraphs of Genesis Two, after he had rested, he saw all that he had done and it was good, but, there was not a man to till the soil. I have read one very old translation, from the Greek, or some such, that stated , "he had not yet created man, with a soul," at the same point of the reading.( this is where he creates Adam and then Eve from a Rib) after he had rested on the seventh day. I really wonder how many ribs male and female, prehistoric homosapheons had? and odd number like us?
Now then, later in Genesis Cain kills Abel, and is sent to dwell with the people in the land of Nod.
Adam and Eve have other children, on and on things happen, the great flood, Neflum, etc etc etc.
So all this had me very confused for a long time, until, I heard about that common (here spelling gets even more creative) Chromizone, being very very old, and traced to a female in Africa, or what is now Africa.
So I think, Perhaps, and it works for me, the people in the land of Nod, were the people, created in Genesis one, A hunter gatherer, in tune with nature as the animal kingdom is, but very smart, large brains, very hardy. I think they exsisted a long lon time, which clarify's the part late in Gen.1 were it says , these are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth. They evolved, even the universe moved a tick. They were free from the trappings of greed, etc. to a great degree.
I think Cain, a product of this New man, a man who did till the soil, and was smaller, with a smaller brain, but very shrewed, (as well as greedy), etc, did breed with the people in the land of Nod, and thus began a line of an even,newer man, than Adam.
To me this reconcilled, a host of arguements, between science and religeon, to the point where I could sleep, a little beter, in those very few moments, that I actually do ponder the meaning of life, the Universe, and everything.
I dont want to get into the Flood, the many Virgin births through history, A Roman Ceasar actually compilling the first Bible, etc etc. These and others I have also reconcilled, for me. Being a broken down, ex construction worker, and Oilfield Trash, I'd rather spend my time, driving down the road, screaming like a Banshi at the windsheild, wondering why I cant get Social Security, to help me.
In the end it has been a couple very good friends, with kind hearts, doing something, they felt . Inspite, of Texts, Quantum Physics, The Universe, and Everything.
I think they found the meaning of life and passed it on to me.
It's love
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
So the OP is saying Adam and Eve were mutants or aliens with crazy genes? That means God is either the head of the X-men, or an alien I guess.
And the science in the OP is just plain retarded. "Microevolution" is the only thing possible? yea, in a human lifetime, but no over a billion years. But oh, that's right the OP probably thinks the earth is 6K years old and man ran with the Dinosaurs or something like that.
God is the Silver Surfer? I kind of doubt it OP.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
I'm just making an example. They gave it a "smarter" sounding name to make their "experiments" sound creditable as if it were real science.
I was just trying to relate it in a way so liberals understand what I meant.
How they change words to be "less offensive" and "intelligent"
For example, the military was told that "cock pit" was offensive to women (silly), and is referred to as "flight station".
Or how a few years ago, liberals tried to push for being called "progressive" instead of liberal, because it sounded like they were leading and superior. It didn't catch on very well, as we now know.
Um, no. Liberals pushed to be called "progressive" because conservatives (quite successfully, I might add) managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in the public discourse.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
This makes absolutely no sense.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "experiment" in which the end result can allow you to "know conclusively" there is a God.
The reason you "know conclusively" there is a God is FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with "well-designed experiments."
The reason why they talk like that is to come off as intelligent. Note "Intelligent Design", which is suppose to make people believe that if you do not believe in "Intelligent Design", then you are not smart. They are just using fancy words to sound scientific so they can be in the same league as science itself.
The problem is, nobody is falling for it. They didn't gain any numbers in support when they changed the verbage.
Liberals do the same thing by making words and terms politically correct. It just sounds "smart" and "impressive".
EX.
Liberal language: I prefer not to operate motor vehicles in inclimate weather conditions.
Everybody else: I don't like driving in the rain.
See what I mean? Both mean the same, but one sounds smarter and more attractive.
"Intelligent Design" sounds like a scientific theory.
It really means in a smart way, "a space wizard used magic" as a scientific answer. One just sounds more important and believable than the other but means the same exact thing.
A suction operated beverage extractor.
A drinking straw.
Get it?
While I have no idea what you're talking about with "liberal language" (I have never heard one person ever describe driving in the rain like that), I see what you're saying regarding the nature of the term "intelligent design."
That wasn't the issue I took with outofctrl's post, though. The idea that there are experiments that allow people to know conclusively there is a God is utterly absurd. There is not a single experiment that one can draw that conclusion from without taking a remarkable leap in logic -- a leap that can be only be based on faith. Period, end of discussion.
I'm just making an example. They gave it a "smarter" sounding name to make their "experiments" sound creditable as if it were real science.
I was just trying to relate it in a way so liberals understand what I meant.
How they change words to be "less offensive" and "intelligent"
For example, the military was told that "cock pit" was offensive to women (silly), and is referred to as "flight station".
Or how a few years ago, liberals tried to push for being called "progressive" instead of liberal, because it sounded like they were leading and superior. It didn't catch on very well, as we now know.
Actually people on the left in the US called themselves progressives FIRST, but then, by the twenties or thirties, "progressives" became rightly identified with marxists. This led them to steal the name "liberal" from people who now are called "libertarians" and "classical liberals." Then, after time, "liberal" got identified by the same thing as "progressive" did in the twenties, so they have tried to shift it back toward "progressive."
I feel they do it to evade what they mean and confuse people more than they do it to sound intelligent.
fishermage.blogspot.com
So by this rationale, the "left" = Marxists, correct?
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
So by this rationale, the "left" = Marxists, correct?
The "left" in this country, at least in terms of economics, means "towards" pure communism, so yes, the further left you go, the more marxist you are. I didn't set up the right/left thing, it was borrowed from the old French parlaiment and never fit well in our politics, but it is what it is. Left = marxism and communism, Right = fascism and nazism. Tyranny on both left and right, like coke or pepsi.
So yes, the left = marxists of one manner or another.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Holy crap. Stop derailing every thread towards politics. There's threads just dedicated to that, and this is not one of them.
From theism v atheism to linguistics.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
1. An advanced alien collective intelligence found earth and decided it would be a good place to spawn a child.
2. They had to get rid of some of the dangers though so they brought about massive destruction killing off the dinosaurs. All that was left of the dinosaurs are what we call birds today. Without this pressure mammal evolution took off.
3. Through tinkering, different models of the homo genus were set loose upon the earth. Ultimately, the aliens settled on one design even mixing some of their own DNA in to create humans. The first two were called Adam and Eve.
4. They stayed in contact with humanity for a period of time establishing all the major religions (memes) to keep humanity on course and from destroying itself but also to keep it divided enough to progress as progress only comes about due to competition.
5. They now await the time when all of humanity will unite in a collective intelligence and transcend the planet earth.
6. At that time we will join the creators and they will make their pressence known.
7. Some will resist the joining to the collective and they will be left on earth to be destroyed forever when earth meets it's final destruction.
I'm just saying.
Wow.
umm....
Just wow..
You're so brainwashed it's not even funny.
No really,
I feel bad for you.
Someone told you that load of crap and actually believe it.
My sister in law takes my 2 year old neice to church every weekend. My brother is an athiest, like me, but he doesn't mind.
It's very interesting watching the development of my neices faith. I mean right now all she knows is that she goes to Jesus' house, but we can see were things are going.
WTF! does a child know about the world or science?
You are programmed from birth.
It's unfortunate that some are so deeply programmed with such complete BS.
Edit:
I'm completely blown away by this.
We are what we are based upon were our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years ago.
The color of your skin, hair, eyes.
The width of your nose, structure of muscle. It's all based on enviroment.