God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[Zook]

I haven't seen a good creationism vs. evolutionism debate in a while, so here you go!

Just a few rules, though...

1. NO direct attacks on religions or beliefs. No 'athiests are stupid,' 'christians are stupid,' 'jews are stupid,' ect. I will make sure that you will be warned if I see this.

2. NO one-liners, such as 'god just doesn't exist' or 'god just exists.'

3. You CAN post the places you get your ideas from. This is NOT a rule, just some people want to know where you're getting your info. EDIT: Also, if people ask you for your sorce of information, there are two answers...

A. Tell them the sight or book.

B. Tell them you made it up.

Pesonally, I believe in evolution and the big bang. We just have too much in common with modern-day apes to say that we are not connected in some way.

 

[Lanowen]

There were two similar threads if I am not mistaken, and they both rean their course, began to have stupid posts and were closed.

Neither side would give in to the other, so it is pointless. If someone wants to be ignorant, it's not my problem.

I also believe in Evolution and the BigBang, it is all very logical. We will have to see what Eric says when sees this thread.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, I'll leave it to you guys. It's been argued to death already, but we get new faces periodically. Basically the same rules apply as with other topics.

 

[awesomestnerd]

"Pesonally, I believe in evolution and the big bang. We just have too much in common with modern-day apes to say that we are not connected in some way."

It is true, we have 3% of the same genetic structure as apes. But, there are many species out there that have major differences with each other and are of a completely different species. There are millions of insects in the world and counting, and it is ridiculous to say that because they have a small percentage of the same DNA that they are of the same genetic line and evolved from each other.

You say tomato, I say potato
You say logic, I say stupidity

 

[Lanowen]

"Pesonally, I believe in evolution and the big bang. We just have too much in common with modern-day apes to say that we are not connected in some way."

It is true, we have 3% of the same genetic structure as apes. But, there are many species out there that have major differences with each other and are of a completely different species. There are millions of insects in the world and counting, and it is ridiculous to say that because they have a small percentage of the same DNA that they are of the same genetic line and evolved from each other.

You say tomato, I say potato
You say logic, I say stupidity

Isn't it actually "You say tomato [toh-may-toh], I say tomato [tomahto]"?

Also, you should work on your pronunciation of "logic", what you're trying to say is way off.

But, there are many species out there that have major differences with each other and are of a completely different species.

Please explain what you mean by this, I don't know where you are going with it.

There are millions of insects in the world and counting, and it is ridiculous to say that because they have a small percentage of the same DNA that they are of the same genetic line and evolved from each other.

Why is it ridiculous to say something like that? Since you put "in the world and counting" I assume that you know that new species are being discovered all the time. It almost makes you think that they some species are evolving into others. I bet that if you go far enough in the evolution history off all the species of insects that they will all merge into one single species.


Anyway, blah blah blah, long story short; you and I and others will argue their point, and no one will sway. Put in a lot of stupid people making stupid posts, and you have a copy of the last threads. This is useless, and should be ended now, save some people some time.

awesomestnerd, you are a strange person. I have been wondering why you are on SWF, you have such a small amount of posts, and 90% of all your posts are in religious debates. I either think you have a complex, weird life; searching out for places to debate in, about religion no doubt. Or, you have a second account on SWF where you do any other smash related posting with, which I am pretty sure is against the rules, which also makes me think you are what I explained in the first part of this idea. This place doesn't seem like the right place for you.


Conclusion of everything here: Zuh, it all annoys me.

 

[Crimson King]

awesomestnerd, you are a strange person. I have been wondering why you are on SWF, you have such a small amount of posts, and 90% of all your posts are in religious debates. I either think you have a complex, weird life; searching out for places to debate in, about religion no doubt. Or, you have a second account on SWF where you do any other smash related posting with, which I am pretty sure is against the rules, which also makes me think you are what I explained in the first part of this idea. This place doesn't seem like the right place for you.

So, because he doesn't post smash stuff at all he is weird? I never made a single post regarding smash. He is gladly free to post any religious topics if he wants to.

Secondly, I do see your point about this topic, but there could be some arguement if people would open mindedly discuss this.

 

[Lanowen]

So, because he doesn't post smash stuff at all he is weird? I never made a single post regarding smash. He is gladly free to post any religious topics if he wants to.

Secondly, I do see your point about this topic, but there could be some arguement if people would open mindedly discuss this.

It's not only that, it's just that he has made so little posts in the time that he has been here too, and he still continues to come on a regualr bases. It is strange for someone to come to a place multiple times a week, and post hardly anything, and when he does, in a sub discussion of a message board.

You don't count, your a mod and have done some good things to become one.


Also, yeah. This has happened many times is my life, a debate on religion. Not one has enden any diferently then I explained in my last post, and I will doubt that this one will end differently, or discuss anything that hasn't already been discussed. But I do agree with you, hopfully it may have some worthy argument, I will try to think of one later.

 

[GoldShadow]

As for the debate, I believe in all the things in the topic.
To those people who believe in God but not in the big bang or evolution (or both), well...
look at the world. Everything you see around you is vibrating. Tiny molecules the eye can't even see are made up of even smaller things called protons, neutrons and electrons, and there are even tinier particles like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Billions and billions of stars dot the sky, burning for billions of years with complex hydrogen fusion reactions. Tiny molecules make up cell organelles, which make up cells, which make up tissues, which make up organs, which make up organ systems, which make up organisms, who make up communities, which make up ecosystems, which make up the biosphere. Each cell has a very specific, complex role. Study some biology and chemistry and you'll get the idea. And yet, the body's cells and organs work together perfectly.
In the creation of a human being, there is a 9-month complex process in which the mother and baby's blood do not even mix.

What I'm trying to say is... how can one believe that God created a world with such complex workings, a universe we're still trying to understand, but then believe that he wouldn't use complex and drawn out methods like the Big Bang and evolution to get us where we are today?

That's my view on things anyway.

 

[Crimson King]

Just to point something out. Creation states that God said "Let there be light" and there was light. Implying God created everything from nothing. The Big Bang states that a densely packed ball of energy exploded unleashing the power to create the universe. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just exchanged and traded. Therefore, Creation is scientifically impossible. So, there is no way the Big Bang can be pinned upon God if you are trying to prove it.

 

[Malice]

Actually a person that comes to a message board regularly is not weird if they don't post. A person that does not post but reads is called a "lurker", and there are plenty of them on every board. In fact they are some of the smartest people, who choose to gather knowledge rather than post away babble like some noobs do. If everyone that went to a message board posted a LOT, there would be MUCH more SPAM than there is already.

BTW I don't really agree with either God or the Big Bang.... I don't know enough about either to have an informed opinion. Both are pretty hard to believe actually. I'm not a scientist, I'm more of a philosopher, so if anyone could explain to me what evolution and the Big Bang are, please do. I have never had a detailed definition of either one.

 

[Master Fox]

Just to point something out. Creation states that God said "Let there be light" and there was light. Implying God created everything from nothing. The Big Bang states that a densely packed ball of energy exploded unleashing the power to create the universe. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just exchanged and traded. Therefore, Creation is scientifically impossible. So, there is no way the Big Bang can be pinned upon God if you are trying to prove it.

Just to point out: Not everyone believes that science is fact but is a bunch of "who-ha" and believe that God controls everything and that the science of chemistry and physics is nothing but a hoax. I've actually gotten into debates with people that are way too religious and think that atoms and molecules don't exist and that the scientist who came up with these ideas are just looking for money with their "illogical" ideas.

I, myself, am on the side of Science but I do vaguely believe in a God but I believe that he is mortal...just with an exceptionally long lifespan but the big band happened first.
You tell humans that the Big Bang was the beginning of the new universe and they say "but it had to have been created first" but...how about this...the universe was always there. Just like everything else, the universe has a lifespan. The Big Band shows the birth of the Universe and something called the "Big Implode" is the end of the universe's life and another Big Bang accurs to start a new universe, possibly and exact universe as the previous universe, which means we had lived before and talked about this but that question will never be answered. No one will live to see this Big Implode.
My theory of the lifespan of the Universe is first...the Big Band ofcourse. Then everything will start to form and some of these formations of countless atoms will stretch out across the infinite cold black space until gravity catches every last atom and sucks it all up in a Giant formation (mostlikely a Giant Black hole...tons of Gravity) in an explosive force. With all the matter in this Black Hole (too much matter for a black hole), every bit of matter stresses and a Big Band occurs and the process starts over again.
Another question to ask those "Creation believers"...If everything must have a beginning and God Created the Universe and nothing was before the universe, Who or what created God when nothing was there to created the almighty? He couldn't of created himself for you need matter to create something and there was no matter. "He's God! He can do anything!" Not only is that scientificly impossible, its just plain impossible! If there is no matter at the time, that would mean no universe, no God, NO Us, No Super Smash Bros., No Nintendo, ETC. There would be nothing but the color black cause black is a lack of light. (I'd like to see any person trying to disprove this last statement or any of it as a matter of fact...!)

 

[pureone01]

[/QUOTE] Pesonally, I believe in evolution and the big bang. We just have too much in common with modern-day apes to say that we are not connected in some way.[/QUOTE]


Now we are fairly close to apes but not as close as u may think. On the discovery channel they say all the time that we are 1 chromosone different, if that is true then mabey big foot is the link between that one chromosone. People say they see this ape like creature, what if it really is the missing link, i believe that the big bang created us not god(which i do not believe in, I hav been shown no proof showing that he is real) One person couldnt make the whole earth and the universe it is vast. Even if he was godly!

 

[ValiantDeftone]

First off, let me just say this. Master Fox, that is by far the best explanation on this subject that I have ever heard, and probably will ever hear.

My theory of the lifespan of the Universe is first...the Big Band ofcourse. Then everything will start to form and some of these formations of countless atoms will stretch out across the infinite cold black space until gravity catches every last atom and sucks it all up in a Giant formation (mostlikely a Giant Black hole...tons of Gravity) in an explosive force. With all the matter in this Black Hole (too much matter for a black hole), every bit of matter stresses and a Big Band occurs and the process starts over again.

Your theory seems to be the most logical, mainly due to the fact that it doesn't contradict the Law of Conservation of Matter/Mass.

The only thing that supports the idea of God creating the universe and all of life is a book which has been rewritten countless amounts of times. The Bible gives no reason, no explanation as to why or how we were created. It's just magic, POOF! There's the universe. POOF! There's the sun. POOF! There are the planets. POOF! There are the oceans/plants/animals/etc...

Another question to ask those "Creation believers"...If everything must have a beginning and God Created the Universe and nothing was before the universe, Who or what created God when nothing was there to created the almighty?

I couldn't have put it any better than that.

Yet, having religion and believing that there is something out there watching out for you, does sound comforting compared to the cold and harsh explanation of the Big Bang. Hey, whatever helps you sleep right?

I don't think there will ever be a real answer. It will always be up to debate.

 

[null]

Master Fox and ValiantDeftone have said all I would be able to say, with these rules.

and yes, Master Fox has the best explanation so far.

 

[Lanowen]

Yet, having religion and believing that there is something out there watching out for you, does sound comforting compared to the cold and harsh explanation of the Big Bang. Hey, whatever helps you sleep right?

It depends.

For example sake, lets say that there actually IS an allpowerful being watching out for you. Now, you need to ask yourself. Does that "God" do anything for you? Does "God" help you when you need help in any direct way?

Now, if you are religous, you no doubt believe that some people do go to "Hell". Why do they go to "Hell"? If "God" is watching over you, "God" surely will do something to help you and keep you from going to "Hell", and since "God" can do anything by your standards "God" should beable to save this person.

This, now brings the point of "God" being an all loving being. If "God" is all loving,"God" would do anything within the power "God" has to save the people who are going to "Hell", which would mean "God" would have to have people stop sining, and since people are still sinning, it means they are probably going to "Hell", which means "God" didn't do anything in the power "God" has, and since the power "God" has is limitless by your standards, he is not all loving, which contradicts his existance.

In saying that, this brings me to my third point. "God" is said to have limitless power. This has been said once before. If "God" is all powerful, can "God" create something heavy enough that "God" cannot even lift? If "God" is all powerful "God" should beable to create something impossibly heavy even "God" cannot lift, but also, "God" should beable to lift anything, since he is all powerful. In that small paradox, the existance of "God" is contridicted yet again.

Just give these thoughts a ponder.

 

[Master Fox]

Who said God is really all powerful and all loving other than an old rusty book? Who knows...He could be an average joe or someone with great power, kindness and wisdom but nothing is either perfect, all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. I also believe that he was born like everyone else but from a mother and father angel but angels have rediculously long life-spans and he did not create anything but maybe some laws. No one controls fate and since he's not all powerful, he can't help anyone on Earth.
I do not deny his existence but him creating himeslf, the universe, and everything alive is not possible and is very much impossible.


And thank you for your comments on my theory! They made me smile and happy!

 

[Mew2Mad]

Another question to ask those "Creation believers"...If everything must have a beginning and God Created the Universe and nothing was before the universe, Who or what created God when nothing was there to created the almighty? He couldn't of created himself for you need matter to create something and there was no matter. "He's God! He can do anything!" Not only is that scientificly impossible, its just plain impossible! If there is no matter at the time, that would mean no universe, no God, NO Us, No Super Smash Bros., No Nintendo, ETC. There would be nothing but the color black cause black is a lack of light. (I'd like to see any person trying to disprove this last statement or any of it as a matter of fact...!)

Well how about this, since matter cannot be made or destroyed but its form can be changed we can say that matter has always existed in some form or another and will carry on doing so as well e.g of infinite (continued-1, 0, 1 continued) there is no end or beginng and impossible to see it in its whole. In other words existence is infinite and because our minds are relatively limited with regards the secrets of the universe, the concept and understanding of infinite existence i.e no beginning no end will never be understood or that we would know anything for sure. Also, the non existence of things wouldn't be black, it would literally be nothing, imagine nothingness and its not black or any other colours. But I also believe that there is a paradox, bewtween existence and non-existence.

In saying that, this brings me to my third point. "God" is said to have limitless power. This has been said once before. If "God" is all powerful, can "God" create something heavy enough that "God" cannot even lift? If "God" is all powerful "God" should beable to create something impossibly heavy even "God" cannot lift, but also, "God" should beable to lift anything, since he is all powerful. In that small paradox, the existance of "God" is contridicted yet again.

Einsteinn or somebody scientifically famous hawking maybe said that it is possible for multiple realities to exist where one thing may happen and another may not but are all in one similar catergory that they are an existence. What if God in one reality could lift the metal and another could not. I mean god isn't limited to one reality, so he can make anything true in a sense.

 

[Crimson King]

Einstein split the atom, Hawking was a physicist. I doubt either would talk lengths about alternate realities.

 

[Ryuujiin]

One thing to remember though is that the Big Bang is still merely a theory. There really is no way of proving it. About as much of a chance as proving there is a god.

One thing that bothers me is that there are so many forms of a "god" and yet people believe that not only is there belief in a higher being correct, that all other ways of thinking are merely hoaxes. If you look at mythology, you'll see so many other beliefs in a higher being and how people believed the universe came to being. From the story of Sogbata and Sogbo in Africa, to the Good and Evil Twins in North America (native americans). If you think about it, the Bible is merely a collection of myths from that area. So why is it that this specific higher being is the one who truely created the universe? I just wished people were a little more open minded. But i digress (always wanted to say that ).

 

[8000]

There have been many debates about this topic all around the globe. There will always be debate over this subject as long as man is unknowing of the answer.

Faith is required to believe in the bible and religion.
Faith is also required in logic. You believe that there is a logical answer out there so you look for it trying to prove this "theory" of god wrong.

The thing is that both religion and science require faith and cannot function with either. You must have faith to believe in god and the bible because really, what has he done for you? You also need faith in a logical answer. So you see, both require faith, wether one is right or not, both rely on the basic principles of religion.

I don't know how to explain this properly because i have a problem forming the right words. (no jokes disability)

But what i'm trying to say is that religion and evolution cannot be argued, there is no way to know the truth until you're really dead.

Lastly i would like to ask you this; If you weren't told since birth that god existed, what would you believe in? You would want to find the answer out for yourself right? That is why i personally do not believe in god. There may be some higher power in the universe but i do not believe it is god. If you were told nothing about religion when you were raised you would want to find a logical answer as well. I believe that is where the side of science originates from.

 

[awesomestnerd]

First off, thank you Lanowen, for pointing out my "wierdness". That contributed a lot to this debate, and I am now forever in debt to you. To clear things up, debating is one of my favorite hobbies and religion is my strongest researched focus so I just love putting the two together. I don't play smash competitevly, so I just like reading things and understanding them. ANYWAY

I believe in biology and chemistry and all that good stuff, except for the points that argue against creation. Scientists have thought it all out, and after studying it, I think it is acceptable.

Earlier, someone said that everything is so complex and how can we NOT believe in evolution. That's the point! Everything is so complex and hints some sort of intelligent design.

The Big Bang is a theory. But a theory explains past events and future events and evidence. Some dude didn't think it up while taking a crap, it is mans' best attempt at explaining why we are here. But over decades and centuries it has been proven wrong repeatedly; most people just choose to ignore the evidences.

Could God create something so heavy that he cannot lift it?
God doesnt have to, it is just another one of mans' futile attempts to disprove him. God could just move the stupid object millions of miles away by just speaking. I suppose he wouldn't be physically lifting it....but it would still be moving.

 

[Crimson King]

The Big Bang is a theory. But a theory explains past events and future events and evidence. Some dude didn't think it up while taking a crap, it is mans' best attempt at explaining why we are here. But over decades and centuries it has been proven wrong repeatedly; most people just choose to ignore the evidences.

The Big Bang hasn't been disproven anymore than God has. I just don't see how's it more logical that a carpenter could walk on water, heal people, raise from the dead, and go to a magical place called heaven where we never die than to believe earth and life as we know it was started from the repetition of common biological reactions.

 

[Master Fox]

Also, the non existence of things wouldn't be black, it would literally be nothing, imagine nothingness and its not black or any other colours.

Your right, nothingness has no color...but black ISN'T a color. Black is actually the lack of color. ok, go outside one night (clear night sky) and look past the Stars. That blackness is nothingness and the reason its black is because there is no objects out there that light can reflect off of. There is my proof that nothingness is black. Its actually one of the things I learned in physics class. Its black because there is nothing...
...White is another story. White is the mixture of the colors Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, and Violet. White isn't a color either...its technically a mixture of all the colors at full brightness and strength (no darkening influence).

One thing to remember though is that the Big Bang is still merely a theory. There really is no way of proving it. About as much of a chance as proving there is a god.

The Big Band is a theory but there actually is evidence. The universe is currently growing, which means, every bit of matter is moving way from the center of the universe. "An object at rest, stayss at rest and an object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." This is only some evidence out of much more. . .

 

[ValiantDeftone]

This may seem a bit off topic, but the principles are the same.

Today, we watched a movie called "Secrets of the Psychics" in my AP Psychology class. This movie was basically scientists and psychologists experimenting the abilities of so called psychics. After each experiment, the psychics were only able to correctly prove their abilities once in awhile. Which, with the law of averages/odds, is guaranteed to them.

Well, in the end, a question was asked that I believe can be put into consideration to this debate as well.

"Why do people continue to believe in these psychics after we've explained all the evidence and facts which prove that they are using mere tricks and generalizations?"

Well, one psychologist gave a some what solid answer. "People continue to believe, because when you disprove them, you take something away from the believers and not give anything in return" Where as, if you believe in these "psychics", you are amazed and comforted by their results. Whether it be a palm reading, a fortune telling or contact with the deceased.

The same can be said for God/Religion. Why do people continue to believe if we can provide a more logical/probable answer?

But like 8000 put it...

there is no way to know the truth until you're really dead.

There are so many different angles to look at this debate from, so many different perspectives to look through, that we cannot possibly come to a definite conclusion.

 

[awesomestnerd]

The laws of science — simple as well as complicated — could not have been in place, in the first instance, without there being somebody to put them together, for order could not have come out of disorder without an intervention. The follows from the second law of thermodynamics (heat), universally valid and accepted, which unequivocally declares that the entropy which is a measure of disorderliness in the universe, always increases. Thus, the broken legs of a chair would not jump back to attach to the chair unless a carpenter mends and fixes them.

This leads to a dilemma if the universe is a place that is like a watch slowly running down, how, in the face of this natural tendency, did it get wound up in the first place? In defiance of the law of increasing entropy, order has risen out of chaos, be it the orbital movement of electrons round the nucleus in an atom or of planets round the sun, or the complex structure of a DNA double helix.

Chance is also excluded in the formation of living cells. It is well known that proteins are essential constituents of such cells. Proteins consist of five elements namely carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulpher, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the monstruous molecules. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, had computed (1948) the probability of 40,000 atoms of the five elements out of 92 occurring naturally in nature to form a molecule of protein, by chance, as 10160 to 1, a far too small probability, almost negligible. For such a protein-molecule to form on earth, it would require billions (10243) of years!


In science, if the odds of our results occuring by chance is as little as 1/100, then we reject chance as an explanation of our results. Guye also calculated that the odds of getting a pre-created amino acid to a protein molecule by pure chance is
1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,. That is quite a bit over 1/100.

Most of that information was written by P. Lal for the Tribune, except for the last paragraph which was given to me by my youth pastor a few years ago. You see, creation isn't just full of daydreaming morons.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

The whole discussion really boils down to whether or not you believe in some arbitrary infallible being, that capriciously decided to create this absurd concept of life and the universe or the universe and its respective components were built upon each other and that each and everything is here for a reason based upon the chronological reasoning. Because there is a complete and utter lack of epistemic evidence for both sides of Big Bang vs. Creationism, it's all up to speculation. Believe in God, it's romantic and emotional appeal; be an agnostic, it's a classicist and rationalist appeal. The only reason people believe there is a higher power is because it's instinctual. I recall reading a Time article regarding an experiment discovering a certain # of alleles directly correlating with the disposition of religious-ness which then implicitly states that animals evolved to believe in God. Faith builds organization and renders the organism better equipped to survive because of the morale boost, sounds like an environmental adaptation to me. It's a touchy subject because ideological conflict always is, just there are arguments that are more esthetically sound, discrediting the Creationist side. I'd rather not want to get into the discrediting of radiometric data; I've already established the condition that regardless of lack of epistemic on our side, Big Bang sounds more theoretically probable. True, the pre-creation of an amino acid is some extremely large ratio probably up there with Plank's constant, but there are so many trials for that amino acid creation to occur that its mathematically probable. Everybody can agree that the universe is quite large, incomprehensibly large, so don’t put daunting probability ratios in a system we cannot fathom the volume of. Just to top it all off, there is some tangible support for the Big Bang Theorists, actually 2 pieces of support. Stars is the former of the selection in that Stars are exemplifying that intense heat and pressure has the capacity to take the most abundant element in the universe and form more elements, consolidating the fact that in order for a variety of matter or even the creation of matter to have occurred, it would've taken a massive amount of energy, cohering with the Big Bang theory. Heavenly body movements have been charted to further support the Big Bang theory and the universe’s expansion and contraction, which in turn, ties nicely into Einstein’s explanation of Time (defined by the relationship between mass bodies) resets via the extremely contraction of the universe and a succeeding Big Bang.

Organized faith serves as a mythos (Greek for prior knowledge, or pre-fabricated bodies of knowledge such as theories and laws) to substitute a real answer for unexplained and/or seemingly supernatural accounts. "Why is there a sun? Because Rah created it." Not only does this quote put things into perspective, but really brings modern day religion to question. What is the difference between Greek Mythology and Egyptian Mythology to that of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism? All I can think is more popular appeal because more people are involved, but I don't think conformity justifies it. Religions served its purpose as a limited tool to discovering the world around us, but science, as a general entity, seems to be much more sufficient at discovering the nature of the world around us. But for some reason people still feel the need to have their intuitive and irrational feelings take precedent over what is logical. Don't get me wrong, that part of the mind comprises our humanity but some parts of it are equivocal. It is rather a disconcerting prospect to have nothing to live for post mortem, but that’s not a good reason to believe in something. Also, don't stereotypically label science as based only upon guys in lab coats with their flasks; it is the manifestation of the continual drive towards the disestablishment of ignorance about the world around us. Don't think this debate is unarguable, it's probably one of the most argued subjects ever, therefore, there must be some sort of ambivalence going on here. For clarification, I cannot say there is no God or there is a God, and whether or not he even interacts with us, but I can tell you which is more feasible for me.

God did not create humanity. Humanity created God.

 

[Crimson King]

Also, the bible never mentions God creating ANY other planets or life on there. Now, we have no proof of life, but imagine how many stars we have (equivilent of our sun) and say each star has 2 planets, even though we have 10. To say that at least ONE planet wouldn't have life is not only arrogant, but stupid. In religion there are seven deadly sins with one being pride. To say, we are the only life EVER that's intelligent and we were hand-crafted by our creator sounds pretty proud to me.

 

[Ghettobarney]

Editted for being ********.

 

[Master Fox]

Where did we come from you ask? Uranus

I would of thought Mars and...very funny, very funny...!
Edit: What?! No delete button! I'd like this post of mine to be deleted!

 

[Crimson King]

Don't reply to stupid comments. It'll just make the topic get more likely to be closed.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I'd also like to add that organized faith has laid the foundation for our ethical values today. So what can be extracted from religion are the fundamental moral principles stressed in the majority of ideological entities. I sort of view the irrational belief in a higher power to be somewhat of a crutch to keep peace of mind and establish the aforementioned morale. (previous post of mine) So I consider it a transcendence when I can be content and satisfied with life, in addition to the acceptance of my mortification, and still make ethical choices just as good as the next person not based upon authoritarian law, but natural principles established by my Ego and Super-Ego. I won't delve into Freud too much, but I'm just angered that there are so many stereotypes revolving around Creationists and Evolutionists that ominous auras develop that seems almost overbearing and insufferable. So I try not to label Creationists as hillbilly crusaders wishing to retake Constantinople and finish what the Crusades started, or Evolutionists as Satan loving nerds trying to lead everyone to sin, but rather a realization that we are striving to attain the same goal of ultimate truth in the universe, or more practically, a better and more accurate understanding of our reality. Take what is solid and morally right from religion, but make sure to show discretion between valid arguments and the hypocrisy.

I believe this sort of ideological schism can be remedied if this is given a concerted effort towards it.

 

[Mew2Mad]

I find the bible overly convinient, because jesus said to st peter the first pope, that what ever is held true on earth is held true in heaven. Which conveniently says that what ever we think of or more precisely the church thinks is always right. Whiich gives church all the power to see who deserves to go to heaven or not. But its a good thing that isn't the case.

I always thought that God was wise and generally good but to moses he said that he is a jealous God and didn't like idol worship ( failed miserable pop idol for one) That in my mind makes God very petty. Whcih comes to my belief that the bible written by humans for human to control humans, is nothing more than a creation by humans to justify control and obedience of other people. And the concept of free will is convenient because it means God isn't held accountable for other people misery and wouldn't be expected to reveal him self to justify the misfortune of a good person. Teh same for all other cliches gods plans, god is strange and mysterious. I believe in a superior being becsue there always is but I doubt that the bible represents their true intentions.

 

[awesomestnerd]

I have been thinking of something lately and I wonder if you can answer it.

In evolution, the environment changes and the organisms best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce. If we came from monkeys, how is it beneficiary to have morals so we will hesitate to kill for food, or reproduce, or take territory?

Also, if we all came from the ocean, why would we leave the ocean. Picture the ocean: it is massive, has an abundance of food, and the creatures living in it won't freeze because they are ectotherms and ice is less dense than water and floats, meaning the top of the water is warm when it is cold out. The ocean also has millions of different species of different sizes, so there is no absence of food.

If anyone could answer that then that would be great.

 

[8000]

#1. Because humans have evolved into emotionally attached *******. All of the conciousness BS is why some of us will hesitate to kill. Taking territory is something that wars are sometimes started over and still happens today but not as much today for reasons i don't know. What's wrong with not reproducing? It is a personal choice made by others. I believe that we were created/evolved (however you look at it) for the sole purpose of experiencing unimaginable things and reproducing to keep our race from becoming extinct.

#2. We left because we could not breathe water. We may have evolved physically but leaving the ocean was not a choice but more of an exploration of new experiences/food. I'm not sure how you want to look at this but before we are born we have gills in order to survive inside our mother's wombs. When we exit the area of nursing we lose these gills. I do not personally know why but we do and i guess we must have started to lose our gills which is why we had to leave the ocean. This was a stupid answer but this is the only one i can think of. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can answer this better.

 

[Crimson King]

It's situational. Monkeys began to walk on two legs because the climate changes caused the rainforests of Africa to become a savannah. They adapted to the situation by standing upright to see over the plants for predators and food. As they taught their young to do this, they, too, began to walk upright.

Likewise, as amoeba, we adapted to land because the environment forced it.


Now, since we can pretty much all agree that our basis for Creation is the bible, then how is it possible that the bible says man began the same time as animals when we have evidence of dinosaurs? That's such a vital flaw that points out the bible isn't completely accurate.

 

[8000]

Isn't completely acurate?

The problem with the bible is that it was written by men of a very old time period. In this period something like the northern lights would be considered to be a miracle. What they understood as compared to now is little.

I also find it hard to believe something that was written by a bunch of people. What if it was all just a lie. Again this brings us to faith, you have to believe something a complete stranger wrote in a book. Although i am not critisizing, that is why i am not faithful to the bible.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Mr. 8000, that is a very nice comment about morals, but you didn't answer the question! How does an organism evolve emotions anyway? All it has are instincts. And what I was saying is how morals effect us mainly. Such as someone might hesitate to reproduce with someone they aren't married to or not kill for food because of a flood of emotions.

You didn't answer either Eric, you just said it is situational. What situation would bring about a change for emotions and unneccesary feelings?

What do you mean we couldn't breathe water!? That is what aquatic animals do! Why would we change from being able to breathe to not being able to breathe? How would we be forced to land?

There are dinosaurs in the Bible! Have you ever heard of a Leviathon? It is/was a large dinosaur that lived in the ocean. The Bible describes it somewhere in Isiah I believe.

My beliefs are mostly based on the world around me, the Bible is just a huge bonus.

 

[8000]

If we came from monkeys, how is it beneficiary to have morals so we will hesitate to kill for food, or reproduce, or take territory?

You did not ask about how we evolve into having emotions.

i do not personally know why

What i do know is that for some reason our organisms left the water and eventually it did not become necessary to breathe water. The body gets rid of what it does not need, ie. Waste. This is exactly what happens to astronaughts when they go into space. There is no gravity so they do not need as much energy or muscle mass to carry them around. They lose muscle from the time they spend with low gravity. I believe the same was true for organisms that left the water. Again, i do not know why they left.

 

[Crimson King]

It was amplified when we developed the ability to speak and such. Animals show emotion, but they aren't shown in the same way as we are capable. I have seen animals near others, get hit, and the other animal would appear to mourn. They just don't understand the same things we do because our brains evolved.

 

[Mew2Mad]

Since we aren't animals like dog and cats its hard to actuaully know what animals think, feel and know for sure that they don't have emotions.