Understand this....
The fact that mankind is only such a mere presence in the vast and spacious universe is something no man or picture could EVER capture. We use the beauty of our surroundings of everyday life. However, possibly the most beautiful of all creations is mankind. Insects outnumber humans 100,000,000 to one yet we take NUMEROUS pictures of insects and landscape is unmeasureable however almost all of these portraits of these surroundings are focused on these two items.
WHY?
Because how are we supposed to think about thinking if we never thought about thinking in the first place if thinking was never thought of.

tb: You mean an impact large enough to have create the moon couldn't have transfered angular momentum to the earth as well? Just read the abstract of this paper:

[Origin and Evolution of Terrestrial Planet Rotation]

Pigeon, Caedes and Xentric; I agree with you. However I tend to follow the saying, "never get involved in the discussion of politics or religion".

caedes: are telling me that you thinnk a metoer (or whatever) hit the earth and the moon came out?? Well if hit a lot of things in my life, but never was the debris a perfect sphere...and also there would have tp be a perfect sphered crater on the earth.

Ok... I didn't want to have to play the "Physics degree" card, but now i have no choice. have you ever heard of 'erosion'?

Tbhockey... All the planets were formed by gathering of matter and the spherical form is due to erosion and meteoric activity during millions (billions) of years. Meteor have no spherical form becaus they are little and young.
After an meteor's impact on the earth, the remains which turned around the earth gathered and gave the moon. This is not a theory but a reality accepted by all (the analysis of the moon's pieces brought back by Apollo show that the earth and the moon have the same origin).

well u can use that to argue the "crater" (although i still disagree) but erosion has nothing to do with "Well if hit a lot of things in my life, but never was the debris a perfect sphere"

The earth isn't a perfect sphere.

i mean the moon, and its very close (-er than a chip of wood comming off a tree when hacking at it)

The moon is larger than a chip of wood. And it's not made of wood. If there's one thing we've learned in the last century from Phyiscs, it's that things are not very intuitive if they are:

Really small,
Really fast,
Really Big,
Really cold, etc....

hmm wow this thread is very alluminating <sp?> allright will i looked some info up and got text however i didnt save the site so im not sure as to where i got it from... every period in history, and all over the world, there are religions that vast numberse of people accept as "correct" - 500 years ago, the aztecs' religion was thought to be "correct" by much of central america/mexico; today, people think it's proposterous. Who's to say christianity, islam, etc. won't suffer the same fate? What makes one right, and the others incorrect?

my view as an agnostic =)

Every period in history, and all over the world, there are religions that vast numbers of people accept as "correct" - 500 years ago, the aztecs' religion was thought to be "correct" by much of central america/mexico; today, people think it's proposterous. Who's to say christianity, islam, etc. won't suffer the same fate? What makes one right, and the others incorrect?

Every religion has it's creation stories. Many are wildly different. They are ways of explaining the origins of people. Religions are, in essence, collections of stories explaining things that people do not understand. Note that I'm not athiest (I'm agnostic) - I'm not saying that one of these religions didn't figure out the "correct" story. What I'm say is, how can we as humans claim to know which one got it right? Perhaps none have, and a new religion will develop in the future, and it's got the right idea. There is no definative proof either way.

There IS, however, definative proof of evolution. Look at the clouded leopard. With each successive generation, it's canines are growing longer. Natural selection, the essence of evolution, is even easier to demonstrate. Look at Mendel's work with pea plants. If you don't believe him, you could repeat his experiments in your own home if you wanted to. If you want to believe religion is the source of creation, why is it unreasonable that whatever higher power exists in the religion to which you subscribe was the driving force behind evolution?

I know pretty much about religion in general. I've studied christianity, islam, buddism, judism, and a number of "primitive" or "dead", often concidered rediculous religions to varying degrees. Moreover, I've studied the history behind and surrounding them. I've seen nothing that clearly proves or disproves any of them; any historical "evidence" is largely hearsay, interpretation, etc.

EDIT: Note that I cannot spell to save my life.

encore jordan encore! hehe man i wish i was genious...

and yeah he said the first thing first... i didnt know you got that from your own mind... i thought from a magazine... incredible! lol

lol that is very well thought out KUDOS!

i have a theoy of my own thats just as outragous yet beilevable as anthing....you can read it on the offtopic board "the space project"

Damnit ashley lol - you quoted me from the AIM conversation, and having not read the rest of the thread, I quoted myself... bleh, haha.

OK, there are some facts missing from this, but Caedes has done a pretty damn good job from the scientific point of view.

How did life start in order for it to evolve? Back when the earth was new, the oceans were essencially a cesspool of raw hereditary material. Over time, by matter of chance, clumps of nucleotides combined to form basic RNA and DNA strands. These have the basic properties of genetics, and as such, are able to evolve. Over time, they came to group together, and evolved from colonies into basic, ukaryotic cells. These ukaryotic cells in time developed into prokaryotic cells (endosymbiosis between two ukaryots led to one developing into what is known as an organelle in a prokaryotic cell).

That's simplified a fair bit, but it should convey the idea without being too confusing.

Also worth noting, aside from the obvious explination of erosion, is that a mass of liquid in a vaccume tends to form a spherical shape. Get some footage of people shooting water at eachother on the shuttle. Note the drops are almost perfect spheres.

The orbits of the planets having been altered by meteor impacts does not mean that one gigantic meteor smashed into a planet and notably altered it's orbit. Planets are hit by meteors, comets, and asteroids fairly frequently speaking in terms of geological time. The cumulative effect of these impacts is much more noticable than the effect of any one of them.

I don't have a physics degree or anything, but I'm an avid information seeker - I'm constantly doing what I can to learn about things I find interesting, and I have a good conceptual memory. My short-term rote memory or w/e you want to call it sucks ass though, so if I failed to respond to something, point it out and I'll be sure to throw in my two cents heh.

Life is a mystery; everyone must stand alone.

Definative proof for evolution?? I thought I would finally get to set back and enjoy reading for a change. :-\ . . . I guess this is a never ending battle to which there is no victor.
Caedes: What have I used that refuts my claims? Second you said that the impact from the meteor transferred it's angular momentum to the earth. The earth is not in defiance to the conservation of angular momentum, only the outer three planets are - the earth is actually rotating in concordance with the law. (just an observation that deals nothing with the topic at hand ;-) ) I still ask the question: where did the original particles come from? and where did the initial life come from? Abiogenesis??? we have the same chemicals today that were present then, but still biochemists stutter through arguments trying to explain why they can't duplicate the process; when in all actuality, they can't create life from non-living material.
ppigeon: This claim is hardly accepted by all and is by no means fact (or at least not provable at any rate since fact and fiction in this case are mere points of view); it is actually debated among evolutionists. Due to a lack of extensive study of the elements of the moon in corelation to the earth, I will refrain from this argument. The argument that evolutionists can't agree on deals with iron. There is not a good reason that there is a lack of iron present on the moon if the moon did indeed come from the earth. (The oldest moon rocks supposedly date older than the iron at the core of the earth, indicating that there should have been iron present in the crust at the time of impact)

I said that many of the science related things that you mention refute your claims because most of what you've said is in fact not true or misunderstood (by you). If you want to use something to support your view you have to make sure that you REALLY understand it. Otherwise it has just as much of a chance of turning against you. For instance: If you think that *anything* violates the conservation of angular momentum then methinks you should brush up on your Physics.

Crazy Ivan - They have nearly created life from non-living material; they've managed to synthesize the conditions from the young earth in which the first life developed, and cause the (in effect, "spontaneous generation") of the raw structures of life. It is thought that within a relatively few years, we will be able to generate complete cells in this manner.

I have not shown difinitive proof that humans developed as a result of evolution, but I have shown you the basic proof that things evolve (you can proove it to yourself with experiments in your own home).

Off to the dentist (seriously).

Be back soon.

i don't have a degree in physics or religion or anything for that matter. but here's what i see when i look at the world around me; when i study the sciences of the planets and of the species of this earth and of the shere (sp?) complexity of the world that we live in: how else but by the hand of an almighty GOD could it all fall into place so perfectly. i'm not talking about the state of humanity or anything like that right now, but the fact that the earth, the sun, the planets and the stars are arranged so intricatly as to sustain life on this planet dismisses all doubt in my mind of a wonderful Creator. God designed the world and this universe to be a great mystery that, if we wish, we can unravel. we can also just stare up at the stars and marvel at His awesome power. when we unpack the mysteries of the universe by science, thats wonderful and part of what i think God intended for us (to a point), but when we attribute the wonderful complexity of the cosmos to chance, or science alone and belittle God or worse yet, to take God entirely out of the picture, that is what i don't understand. God created this world immensly complex and intended for us to enjoy it. thats what i try and capture when i take pictures. i'm wrapped up in the goodness of God that He shows me in His creation. take a look at your hands, or look out the window at the trees, or take a look at the stars tonight, or take a look at most of the photos on this site and you'll see the glory of God's creation. and we're the capstone of His creation. we're what He intended this world to be for and He wants to take part in this world with Him. we're created for fellowship with God and fellowship with others. behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. God as creator enjoys our creating. as i've said before, "the glory of God is the heart of man fully alive." -(i forget who said it, but i'll get it later) i've gotten a little off topic again, i think, but this is what i believe and know to be true.
enjoy the day outside. its part of God's plan of blessing in your life.
-jim

there is no need to preach. we are basing this discussion on scientific fact from what i can see. And i know that there are experiments done that have favored the idea of creationism. but please dont preach. one experiment was done at a church near where i live; they put the pieces of a watch into a box, shook the box, opened it and stated that it was conspicuous that if you had the pieces it wouldnt create a whole... now there is of course obvious faults in this experiment. firstly if you go by the cess pool in the ocean idea that humans were created from atoms and chemical reactions the pieces werent premade takin apart and then attempted again, secondly there would be no chemical reaction envolving the replacement of the watch pieces which is how the theory goes with the creation of humans from a scientific point of view.

now i know that that might not have made sense but i dont wish to explain anything that i cant put to the proper words so ill go no further on that...

then there is the fossils that were found, with dinosaur tracks next to human footprints. an obvious delay to this observation is that rocks move and could be meshed together to create a fossil such as that. and then the dating was found to be the same in both areas of the fossil; a solid composite dating test <okay now there is a proper name for it but im not sure what it is...> was takin on an alive snails shell and told that it was 2million years old....

now if that doesnt make anysense please ignore me =)

Caedes: My arguments on the conservation of angular momentum and other aspects in physics are not my own, they are from a group of creationists all with PhD's in physics and all former evolutionists. I said it (evolution) violates the conservation of angular momentum in concordance with popular evolutionistic teachings. My arguments concerning the moon don't even apply to my personal beliefs; I simply used the thoughts of current evolutionists to show fallacies with the teaching. I also find it humorous that you refuse to answer my questions concerning the origins...
JWebster: How does one go about almost creating life? Either they have or they haven't.

To create life, you must first create the subcomponents thereof. The most basic such component being raw nucleotides (atoms, elements, compounds, etc. not withstanding). These then form RNA and DNA, the "blueprints" of life. These blueprints, in conjunction with other organic compounds (coumpounds containing carbon), can form life.

The young earth was covered by a vast ocean - essencially a "soup" of raw nucleotides. Triggered by heat, electricity, etc., these nucleotides combined to form RNA and DNA.

The first steps of this (and it is, in a certain sense, spontaneous generation, though not entirely - it was not entirely spontaneous, having resulted from specific reactions) have been succesfully recreated in a lab setting. It is expected that we will be able to create cells from non-living materials in the near future. (I could probably find the write-up of the experiment that was recently done on this and get more specific information...)

To be frank with you, scientists don't claim to know the whole picture yet. There are certainly still things that we do not understand. If you want to look at things from a strictly logical and historical point of view, that would be the reason we have religions that give explinations for such things. Past religious ideas, such as Zeus hurling lightning bolts from the heavens, have faded as the scientific ideas behind them have been uncovered. I am not against religion, I do not deny the existance of (a) god(s), I do not deny the validity of any religion. I also do not find it unlikely that in the span of a number of generations (be it a few or a relatively large number), science will be able to concretely and completely explain the origins of man, and some of the other ideas explained by modern religion. The religious ideas explaining them would then cease to be necessary; historicly, religions tend to develop to explain things people do not understand. Christianity, Judism, Islam, etc. may well fade from existance - I personally will likely never know.

The ONLY plausable explination, which defends creationism in its entire most literal sense, is that which has been proposed in this thread, stating that a higher power planted all of the evidence of evolution for one reason or another. If you choose to believe that (a) god(s) created evolution, there is currently little evidence on the contrary. If you believe that humanity was created by God in the span of seven days, then the only way to explain what is otherwise virtually indisputable scientific fact is to say that all of this scientific fact was planted by God for whatever reason.

Ash, to expand on your argument: you can't expect a reaction (chemical or physical) to reverse itself spontaneously. A simple experiment you could do to counter the watch experiment would be to disolve some salt in water, then boil the water off, leaving salt in the pan (collecting & condensing it if the party your demonstrating this to requires proof that steam condenses into water). You are, in the above experiment, reversing a simple physical reaction. This doesn't exactly proove much with regards to evolution in either case, though; the experiment I described involving the raw nucleotides is much more effective.

And yes, please don't preach, nobody is here to be converted, and simply telling us your ideas are right wouldn't be the best way to do it anyway. This is an exchange of information and ideas; contribute all you want, but this isn't the place to do missionary work.

Grr... damn thing won't let me put returns in my sig.

i'm not preaching at all. and you're stating your views as adamently as mine. i'm simply putting forth my own beliefs and ideas, just as you are. in some respects, i don't believe that you are right, as i'm sure you don't think i'm right in all i say. but your arguments try and boil everything down to some salt in a pan or some watch in a box and prove your ideas are correct. i simply put forth that the God of the universe is in control and my belief is that He created it all and that it is a blessing for us to try and understand it.
again, not preaching, but putting in my two cents, just as you are.
i hope you have a great day.

The difference between preaching and my contributions to the thread is the fact that I've based my information on facts, and if you read carefully, I have not taken a clear side - I've not expressly denied the validity of any line of thought. Preaching requires no basis in fact, and is put forth with the preceived (note that, in speech, perception is everything) intent to sway others' opinions toward your own.

One can certainly put forth ideas having no factual basis without preaching, but tone plays a big role in that. Read the tone of your post: from an objective point of view, can you honestly say that it doesn't sound like preaching? The following certainly does:

"how else but by the hand of an almighty GOD could it all fall into place so perfectly."

"you'll see the glory of God's creation. and we're the capstone of His creation. we're what He intended this world to be for and He wants to take part in this world with Him. we're created for fellowship with God and fellowship with others."

You also made it a habbit to state as fact, things that have no basis in fact, and/or are your own opinions - certainly in line with the whole preaching/conversion concept. Again, see the following:

"God designed the world and this universe to be a great mystery that, if we wish, we can unravel. "

"God created this world immensly complex and intended for us to enjoy it. "

" we're created for fellowship with God and fellowship with others. "

"i've gotten a little off topic again, i think, but this is what i believe and know to be true. " - yes you did, but there are elements of preaching or whatnot even in this excerpt. If you want to put forth your ideas, do just that - put them forth *as* ideas; not as facts that the rest of us should just accept because you do, especially when you provide no basis for this assertation. Contributing thoughts and ideas is welcomed so long as they are put forward as such, rather than as facts.

I recently went through the death of an aunt to which I was closer than any other relative - parents included in alot of ways. When she died and was dieing, I had alot of people telling me different things based on different religions intended to provide me comfort/closure (and that's just fine and even appreciated - it's certainly well meaning and did not come off with the tone of attempting to convert me to their religion or anything, it was simply what they knew), and I had alot of people trying to preach their religions to me, and the latter certainly was not appreciated. Ok, I have completely lost track of where I was going with that, but I'm not going to delete it because it'll make it easier to edit/expand on if I should remember... bleh.

Oh, one more thing: use paragraphs - it makes reading what you post about 50x easier, seriously.

everything usernameid10 said is exatcly right...and nothing u said either was facts. Its called faith. And why does it matter if he is "preaching" anyway...so were you.

maybe i am preaching in a certain aspect, but i'm only relaying what has been revealed to me as fact through both study and prayer.

you also state opinion as fact, if in your own subtle way: "These blueprints, in conjunction with other organic compounds (coumpounds containing carbon), can form life."
here you're saying that instead of God creating life, organic compounds following a pattern created life. its just as bold a statement as me saying God created life.

"The young earth was covered by a vast ocean - essencially a "soup" of raw nucleotides. Triggered by heat, electricity, etc., these nucleotides combined to form RNA and DNA."

i don't believe 'the young earth' was covered by a 'vast ocean' or that it was 'essencially a "soup" of raw nucleotides.' those are your opinions.

i believe something quite different than you, yet you are presenting them as facts, just as i have done. i don't see anything wrong with sharing these ideas as they are presented above. you have "taken sides," too. if you could 'sum-up' your point of view, it would clearly not be creationist, where as my view is.
if my tone is preaching, then i percieve your tone as trying to slip in your beliefs under a scientific pretense, while denying mine simply because it involves a belief in a higher power. there is nothing weak about a theological pretense; in my opinion, there is nothing stronger.
there is definatly room for science, and some (if not most) of the ideas you are presenting have their place. i'm not denying the existance of DNA or metors hitting planets and moons to change angles and orbits. how could i? i'm simply stating my belief that all things begin and end with an almighty God.

"...that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel... Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should." ephesians 6:19-20

i'm not going to withhold my ideas and/or beliefs simply because you say this is not the place for them. i see this as exactly the place for them. this is an open discussion on something that i feel rather strongly about and i think its the same for you. you are putting forth your ideas, just as i am.

i've also tried to put this in paragraph. it is easier to read. i hope this page doesn't get too heated, and we may never fully agree on things. we can just try and keep things on a civil level, maybe (not that it hasn't been). i just don't want to see an explosive argument break out (and neither does caedes. i think....) anywho. i'm sure i'll talk to you later. have a good one.

(thanks for your comments tb.)

A bold statement yes, but I also provided the loophole for it's apparent concreteness. Note: "If you believe that humanity was created by God in the span of seven days, then the only way to explain what is otherwise virtually indisputable scientific fact is to say that all of this scientific fact was planted by God for whatever reason." -Me.

I put forth concepts that have been "proven" fact, at least from a scientific standpoint, and did so from an objective standpoint, offering both sides, including the possible refutation to the facts that I presented. A far cry from putting forth opinions as facts.

"i don't believe 'the young earth' was covered by a 'vast ocean' or that it was 'essencially a "soup" of raw nucleotides.' those are your opinions. "
This has also been proven as fact in a scientific sense; it is not my opinion. See above for the possible 7-day creationist loophole.

"i believe something quite different than you, yet you are presenting them as facts, just as i have done. i don't see anything wrong with sharing these ideas as they are presented above. you have "taken sides," too. if you could 'sum-up' your point of view, it would clearly not be creationist, where as my view is."

I have not even stated my beliefes, beyond saying that I am agnostic. The rest has been exclusively pointing out facts and possible experiments; I have proposed everything from an objective point of view.

"if my tone is preaching, then i percieve your tone as trying to slip in your beliefs under a scientific pretense, while denying mine simply because it involves a belief in a higher power. there is nothing weak about a theological pretense; in my opinion, there is nothing stronger."

Again, I have not stated my beliefs (and I don't have concrete beliefs... open-mindedness on such things is part of the concept of being agnostic). I'm simply providing the readers with the information that is available.

"i'm not going to withhold my ideas and/or beliefs simply because you say this is not the place for them. i see this as exactly the place for them. this is an open discussion on something that i feel rather strongly about and i think its the same for you. you are putting forth your ideas, just as i am."

The difference is you, at least in the posts to which i was referring, were putting forth your opinions as facts and speaking from a highly subjective point of view, where I avoidied using opinions, backed up my information with facts for both sides, and posted objectively.

"i've also tried to put this in paragraph. it is easier to read. i hope this page doesn't get too heated, and we may never fully agree on things. we can just try and keep things on a civil level, maybe (not that it hasn't been). i just don't want to see an explosive argument break out (and neither does caedes. i think....) anywho. i'm sure i'll talk to you later. have a good one."

Good job, paragraphs are wonderfulness.

Regardless, we've digressed quite far from the original topic of the thread, and thread derailment is rarely a good thing.

alright. the 7-day plan. this is what i believe: the seven days, as laid out in Genesis, could be much longer than 7 24-hour periods. each 'day' could have been a representation of thousands or even millions of years. we don't know.
"with the LORD, a thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years." (from both psalm 90:3 and 2 peter 3:8

thats what i believe about God creating the universe in 6 days (resting on the 7th). He could have set into motion the thing that we now call evolution. still i believe that humans are separate from this all. it is my belief that we did not evolve.

how could you possible prove that everything started from "a vast ocean - essencially a "soup" of raw nucleotides"? and even if you could prove it, how would you know that God didn't make that soup?

i have stated my beliefs, yes. i believe certain things about God and creation and evolution and so do you. they may be different from my views, but i think you've stated them either on your own, or through refuting what i've been saying. maybe not so much on the subject of God, but on evolution and creation, i think your beliefs and ideas are pretty clear, thus far.

i'm open-minded, too. i'll take any idea you give to me and think about it seriously. i value your opinion just as much as i do my own. i know i don't have all the answers. but this is what i do:
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corintians 10:5
i also am providing the readers information.

everything is subjective. you have a motive in posting, and so do i. my motive is to make know the truth that i own in Christ.
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." 1 Peter 3:15

i know we've sort of digressed from the original subject, but some of what we've been talking about has been in here already (in small doses, maybe). i think this is getting down to the meat and bones of this subject. lets keep it going. hope you have a great day. talk to you later.

um.... where'd everyone go? we were going back and forth pretty quickly until now....
just wondering.

wow..

I would like to interject. In some ways I will dispute evolution, in others I will not. There is such a thing as micro evolution, the process of extremely small changes in the body; however, there can scientificaly be no macro evolution. If macro evolution were to exist it would take quadrillions, not billions, to do. Even physically today there are suggestion that macro evolution can not exist. The shale mines in california are proof enough of that. There was a sperm whale found in one of the shale mines in california very near to the remains of a dinosaur. The reason such a discovery is reported to the media is that such descoverys are made every day in the mines and the report would send millions of scientists to the mines and shut down the mines indeffinently. For the records I am a protestant.

lol i think i was lost 40 - some posts ago...^^;;

« So let us then try to climb the mountain, not by stepping on what is below us, but to pull us up at what is above us, for my part at the stars; amen »

lol agreed =)

i just wanna know where JWebster went to. we can still talk.... can't we?
you guys want me to try and explain some of my views better? i can and will if you want me to. ask away! ok. i've got class. i'll talk to you later!
-jim

I don't really want to get into all this, but I will say that I hold to a creationist belief based on the White Hole Cosmology Theory of a Dr. Humphreys. I highly recommend his book "Starlight and Time."
Other than that you all have fun with your circular arguments. It's quite entertaining.

yes, it is entertaining.

now, for my point of view........
I myself, like a fine recipe, believe in 3 cups evolution with a teaspoon of zesty religion. I believe very stongly in evolution (as an answer to the: why dont chimps get smarter every day? the answer is because evolution takes millions upon millions of year, its not as if one day, two chimps mated and out came a human.) i beleive that there is very substantial evidence supporting the subject (i really dont care who disagrees, i beleive that anyone can have their own opinion within the law) but at the same time i also know that there are a few gaps in the the theory of evolutionism and the big bang that can only, as of now, be filled with...of course...religion, but i am also held to the belief that it is not healthy to look at ones opinion and not consider it as having a sliver of a chance of being right. yes i belive in god, yes i belive in christ, no i don't beleive that everything in the bible is concrete law, yes i belive in evolution, yes i believe that we evolved from simpl(er) primates, and yes i think that the moon was part of the earth (while im on a rant here, i might as well go into the whole "round moon" thing here. ONE reason that the moon and all planetoids are round is because a sphere is the most stable objet while spinning at high speeds, as far as axied object are concerned. therefore, as an object spins at a high rate, it will try to become circlular in order to acheive better aerodynamics) okay, im tired now, that took a lot outta me!

lol. ok, but dont you find it WAY simpler just to believe that God just created it in 6 simple days like it says in the first few versus in Genisis??

well, simple isnt always right, who knows, maybe he did, maybe he didnt, everyone is entitled to their own opnions

i don't believe that religion fills the holes in evolution or anything like that. i also don't believe that we evolved from simpler primates. how can you believe in God and Christ and hold to these beliefs of evolution? i agree with you in that simpler is not always right, but to me, God doesn't have to be simple to be great and good. God made the world wonderfully complex and its all good.
religion does not fill the gaps in evolution or big bang, but evolution and big bang are methods to explain and understand the glory of the creation of the universe by God. i don't hold to the theories of evolution or the big bang or the sort because i see them as un-biblical and totally dismissive of God and Christ. i don't study into many of these theories because they seem to totally dismiss God as a factor and even try and disprove the existence of God. the fact that understanding the intricate workings of God's creation is not essential to my faith or salavation keeps me from investigating the different claims further, but the beliefs that God is Creator can be essential (in a way) to my faith. He is sovereign, which means God is all-powerful, and that is the God that I worship and serve.

"test everything. hold to what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

sorry for the delay in posting. :) i hope you have a great day.

I believe in both Evolution and Creation, and in fact to me they are one and the same. The Bible was written by humans (inspired by God) and it would have been impossible for God to precisely convey the concept of time to people. He thus used things that were already known to them e.g. a normal day.

As stated earlier. To God time is of no importance, a million years could be like one day to Him. To me it seems that evolution was the tool of creation. That's just my opinion though.

I'm not sure what I believe. I believe in evolution because it's impossible not to happen. Everything evolves. Who will ever know if there IS a God that created the earth? Will we ever know for certain? The bible was written (physically written) by humans. Who will know if they ever heard God himself, or if they think they did?

Scientists are figuring out how to structure DNA from scratch. Is this not playing God? Maybe one day we'll find out that we've always been God? Maybe not? Who's to say for sure.

All we know is that we believe different things, different gods, and a whole lot of discussion.

(That was my sad attempt at adding into a religious discussion, enjoy)

I like how you bring up the point of playing god. Stem Cells: on one hand, it is playing god, and undoing his doing by healing the sick, but isn't that why medicine was created? so why should stem cell research be an issue if its just another form of medine which is (typically) praised on its creation

careful about saying evolution and creation are the same thing. if you made something and put a lot of thought and care into it's creation and someone else said, 'its good, but those tools over there did the same amount of work you did.' if we believe God used evolution as a tool, thats all well and good, but when we take the two and say God is evolution, that a little dangerous.
i don't think that time is unimportant to God. God certaintly transcends time, but when Christ came to earth (being wholly God) he inhabited time. Jesus' actions on earth were timely; in sync with the Father.a lot of what God does is mysterious to us. you're right that we'll never fully know all the details of the universe. think about how intricate it all is.

the point about the bible being written by a whole lot of different people at different points in time and whether or not the scripture actually came from God: the fact that it's still around is testament to validity. i also feel that this testifies to God's protection over His Word to His people (us).

about playing God: people are getting closer and closer to the inner-workings of the human body; all the way down to tiny little dna stuff. we can clone stuff and make organs and do crazy things with the human body. we are most definatly not God though. He knits together our soul. can you create that? can humans even come close? no. Jesus and his disciples healed the sick and even raised the dead. they showed love to the people in need. God doesn't want people to be sick and hurting. why would He? we are His people. bad things happen to all of us (the good and the bad) and that includes sickness. i don't think healing and helping and the like are playing God or wrong at all. i take ibuprofin when i have a headache. i'm not saying i agree on the ethics of test tube babies and such or even stem-cell stuff; thats too close for me to call, so i'd rather just steer clear of it. i've gotten a little long-winded here so i'm going to head off to bed. i don't even know why i'm still up. i've got class tomorrow (on a saturday!).

''the way through this life is more difficult than the way beyond it.''

Ok...I'm reviving this thread...

First of all...here here for the fact that the earth wasn't created in six of our human days (24 hours). However, Genesis has the same frightening truth that scientists are finding. I don't remember exactly the order of what God is said to create in the six days...but he created time and air before he created plants. And he created plants before he created reptiles...and he created reptiles before he created us. This science has already proven to be true...with the carbon testing or whatever it is called...

Second, I like the term agnostic very much. I find it hard to believe in Christianity, first of all because the Bible is just a bunch of stories...but I don't want to say that it is wrong, or that some of it might not be right...I guess I just don't have enough faith...

Please don't take what I say personally, and please don't try to persuade me either way...I will find a religion or a belief someday but I don't feel like deciding now...I am like modeling clay, and can be molded into any belief...but they don't last, so for now I just want to observe...

Third, all of the parts of the Bible I have read has said nothing about outerspace...all of the other planets out there. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't cover that at all...but I firmly believe in other life out there...there has to be...let's all pray to whoever is up there that we are not alone...But seriously, I have not seen anything to say that the Bible agrees with the fact that there is other life out there...It only covers life here on planet Earth...It never even mentions the other planets and stars and such out there.

In the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams proves that we don't even exist! :P I don't remember exactly how he did it, but i'll look it up and tell you guys.

Lastly, (and my appologies that my high school education is failing me...) ages ago, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe...was it Gallileo that was almost killed for stating that the Sun was actually the center of the universe? Seriously, I don't remember...the fact is...there is much we still do not know...we may never have all of the answers...science will keep striving to find them, and religions will try to explain it until science can. That's my two cents...sorry if I have offended anyone...

[Jessiac_3:First of all...here here for the fact that the earth wasn't created in six of our human days (24 hours)] it was seven days...

i have read this thread and have yet to find the answer "what matter or whatever came together to cause the Big Bang?? (which i do not beleive)...you cant make something out of nothing. something had to react to make the big bang right?? or your just telling me that everything was just black...and then something exploded and now we have the universe...sounds pretty silly to me. scientists always have to have a logical reason for everything. they have to have an explanation because not knowing doesnt explain anything about our world..

im starting to confuse myself so ill just wait till someone else posts...

actually god rested on the seventh day...thereby creating the sabbath...a day where we are supposed to stop everything and worship god (this is sunday in christianity)

also, scientists still aren't absolutely sure what caused the big bang or for life to begin...they're still trying to crack that one...

I have read this whole post...wow, that's a lot of reading!....and we're just going around in circles and nobody is going to be swayed from their beliefs, so we'll continue to go around in circles until we have a thousand posts.....anyways.....I believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe, but I've always wondered how God came into being. Christians can prove the Big Bang theory wrong by asking "how did those particles come into being, then?" yet non-Christians can prove Christians wrong by asking "how did God come into being, then?" We'll never know the answer to either of these questions, except by faith. There are flaws in both religion and theory. I personally am a Catholic and I'm very religous, but I still wish I knew how God came into being and whenever I ask myself that question, I quickly push it out of my mind because I'm terrified of doubting my religion- without religion I'd be crushed, I would be in total despair, it would be so sad....so I try not to think about it. Well, I just rattled on and didn't accomplish anything so I think I'll go now... see ya!

If only we could find a babelfish...

Whenever you ask yourself a question you will probably never know, it frustrates the hell out of you and then your brain decides that the answer is the only logical thing you can think of...The Big Bang. Humans have to have an answer for everything. Some things are best left unanswered...

It is an interesting topic...to say the least. I haven't attempted to read all of this, just the first few posts and the last few. What stands out to me is that very few people believe in the rediculous evolutionary theories such as the big bang theory. This is encouraging seeing as the universe is more complicated than a million swiss watches, and to say that it was thrown together by a cosmic explosion is foolishness.

There are also many other things that caught my attention...here are a few:
1. Tracy said that dinosaurs were never mentioned in the Bible. Read Job 41. Job describes a creature called "leviathan" as a fire-breathing dragon. Sounds like a dino to me. Job also says that he's seen it. That would mean dinos and humans lived at the same time (and I doubt it was millions of years ago either since Job was written only thousands of years ago).
2. Caedes said the moon theory made sense. Maybe so, but what about these:
A. When NASA was planning the first moon landing, they placed large flat feet on the lander to prevent it from sinking in the dust they thought would be there. If the moon was as old as they thought, this would have been necessary; but when they landed, there was only 1/2 inch of dust. At the rate dust is hitting the moon, this places the moon's age around 10,000 years ago.
B. At the rate the earth is slowing down (rotating on its axis), life could not have existed millions of years ago, simply because the earth's gravity would not have been enough to keep the inertia from flinging things into space. funny picture...no?
C. Why is there a great flood story in every civilization, and why do the dates of the flood coincide with the age of the grand canyon, niagra falls, and other such natural phenomena?

I could go on but I won't. In short, the Bible can be used to explain everything about creation/evolution. I wont argue the facts, but I dare you to look for yourself. How could something so accurate not be inspired by God? I am a Christian, and I can't prove anything to you. I take it by faith, and that's all God expects. He is infinite and my finite mind can't begin to explain His origins, so I don't try.

I'm just here to put in my two cents. I read the posts and there are some troubling things. I don’t have a clear understanding of religion and science nor do I pretend to. It seems too late to address several subjects but I will try anyways.
Evolution does exist but not to the scale that many seem to try to apply it to. Macro evolution, the belief of large deviations in evolutionary structure, is guess work at best and to me seems to be folly. However there IS irrefutable proof of micro evolution, the belief of subtle deviations in various organisms. The proofs are thus: take a single species of frog. Subject it to extreme deviations of natural surroundings. eventually the physical makeup of the frog will change. Note that the deviation created are frogs and shall always remain frogs. In this way I believe different races of humans are created.
In the subject matter of the "Big Bang" there is no real deffenant proof or disproof. For now it is all a matter of speculation. Oh, and carbon dating isn't the most reliable thing on the planet. Accelerated carbon aging is practiced everywhere.
About aliens, I don't think that any, if they do exist, will ever contact us. They all probably are laughing at us right now saying, "Don't stop to get gas there. They all give you the strangest looks and call the FBI who abduct them and perform experiments on us."
I tried to leave this post devoid of any religious references. I challenge somebody to a rebuttal.

-The mark of an educated man is the ability to merely entertain an idea without accepting it. :Aristotle
-Only the blind reject the improbability without first entertaing the impossibility.
-The word "impossible" is thrown around too much. Many thought it impossible to land on the moon. Many thought it impossible for women to be considered equal. Though faced with these events many still think it to be impossible and they may be right.

If humans evolved from apes...how come apes are still around? You watch the discovery channel about the Rhinos with 7 horns are whatever that our rhinos today evolved from (so the scientists say)..but how come those rhinos with 7 horns aren't around today but apes are?

Regarding rotation and wobble are now thought to be the reaction of a presents of a second star or in term a binary system. In our solar systems a second star that crosses paths with our known star every 22 to 25 thousand years. Now people will say why isn’t there any record of it? This would explain some comet paths and the possible answer to the amount of debris in the asteroid belt. Now I'm not as up on things as some of you, but I've heard this is theory.

Deuteronomy was given to Moses on Mount Sinai (when he recieved the law). Before Deuteronomy, the Jews didn't have any of their laws concerning clean and unclean, sacrifices, etc. To say that it is a forgery is to say that the entire Jewish religion is false.

As far as Christ having an older brother, its not in the Bible, and honestly, I've never heard it before. Jesus was the first child of Mary (she was a virgin at the time, making Jesus the Son of God). Mary and Joseph had more kids including James and Jude. So Jesus had at least 2 younger half brothers.

And regarding all these extra stars that we can't prove and amino acids that randomly formed human life: It's a whole lot easier for me to believe that an omnipotent God created the universe.

"Easy" doesn't mean "right"...

that's why religion is created...at times it's outragious stories make more sence than science...but that is where faith comes into play.

Yes Jesus had an older half-brother. This name was James. He is referred to briefly in Romans or Corinthians. Originally James was an unbeliever mostly because of the unbelieveability of it but went on to found Christian churches in the lower Roman Empire. He was later stoned to death because of his beliefs.
As for the story with the catholic that is an overgeneralization of the christian religion. The entire protestant branch is based upon a personal savior.

But how could Jesus have an Older half brother? He was the first born to Joseph and Mary...his other brothers are half brothers because the Holy Spirit didn't help Mary conceive them...

Sorry my mistake. He was the younger brother.

well said

Now to get to the original question. Humans take photographs for documentation and self-awareness. As in the same way they wrote on cave walls to express what they see and couldn’t say. And as far as what we capture, it is our own view of the world around us. If there is beauty and joy captured in it, the better off we are for it.

I concur...the world is a beautiful place...but it is also filled with nasty things...it is all the great balance that is the circle of life...

I still think it is much better to believe we are not alone in the universe...it is a very big place and it is sad to think we would be the only ones in it...and that we don't make more of the short time we have here...

its a documented fact that the jews were slaves to the egyptians when the pyramids were built. it's also in the Bible.

also, ever hear of the "epic of gilgamesh"? its an ancient account of a great flood (parallel to the Bible's account) that originated in the east. research it.

When I saw the question. I saw no mystery of life or God, just life and how wonderful it could be. And why do we capture it the way we do.

I think we are kind of mixing discussion threads...which is ok...but we have about three that are almost on this topic...but I think you are right prisim, it seems we have gotten away from the original idea.

Humans have been given a huge gift...whether by God or by alien beings or by chance or by evolution...other species communicate with each other...other species plan...other species learn...but we create...we transform our environments...we adapt quickly...not many other species can do what we can do...

welp...im a good arguer (sp), but i'm not lookin to make enemies just cause i'm stubborn. I'm out of this discussion.

have fun :)

We're not trying to make enemies...we're just stating our opinions...hopefully no one will take anything personally...I certainately don't mean to offend anyone.

no prob - im just sayin that my opinion is stated and i wont argue it further :)

I can respect that...I hope that you will still check in once and a while to see what's going on in here...even if you don't want to discuss things further.

I wiil be glad to research it, Like I've said most of the documentation has been founded in the last seven years.

until i can see a common thread, i'm not even going to touch this conversation. somebody tell me (in one sentance) what the topic of this thread is and then give an explaination of your view on it. there's a lot of important stuff here it seems, but it's going to get lost if there isn't any order.
a couple things: don't say you're good at arguing; show it by articulating your beliefs well.

religion wasn't created. if anything was created it was the ritualism and religiosity that surronds the truth of real religion. my religion isn't a church or an act, but it's a relationship with a loving and holy God.

now. where were we going with this? blessings-
-jim

Well at least it isn't an unholy god... :-)

Well, Jim...

This discussion seemed to get off track from the beginning...the best way to know where it's going is to have read it...but for the most part we have discussed evolution / how we first got here / whether or not it was by the hand of some almighty being...but I think the original question was why we perceive our environment the way that we do.

As for my beliefs...I believe in evolution, it is kind of hard not to...all of the proof is there...I also believe in a higher power...but whether or not that was an almighty being or an alien being or whatever I am unsure...something put us here...but it is unclear why...we should just enjoy it as is.

Hope this helps...

wellput usernameid10

I respect your views. I Research it. For the sake of no more arguments I will leave at that. Have a great day.

This post is almost at an end then? That makes me sad...

It's unfortunate but sadly inevitable. Unless somebody goads the conversation it will end. That person isn't going to be me this time though. I do that enough in my own threads. It's too bad to see that so many people are unwilling or are to afraid of ridicule to make their opinion known. (Yes that was a shameless attemp at causing people to respond)

It wasn’t a shameless effort to make some body to respond I was acknowledging that I did research regarding the flood issue and that I didn’t want to cause any more turmoil and insult the beliefs of any one on the sight. Religion is a sensitive subject. And came up completely out of context of the original question. All I did was responding with my opinion regarding some resent archeological studies and digs involving the latest research in to the biblical text. Which can be found on PBS, the books of Joseph Campbell and on the web under the great flood. I’m not edging any one on to respond. Religion is a matter of faith. And I will not condemn people for there beliefs. It’s just a matter of opinion.

So what you're saying is that I should not have said anything and let this post die?

NO every one has an opinion. That is the root basics of democracy, and the basics for progression in the human spices. With out a point of view and a basic theory along with cognitive thinking and research to express your views there would be no reason for thought at all. Again I think there fore I am. And apparently I’m not the one egging.

Then who is? Raptor? I guess this post is almost to an end though...it is unfortunate.

Prismmagic I think you misunderstood; Raptorfalcon wasn't saying that YOU were egging people on, he was saying that his own post was a shameless attempt to get people to respond...

I'm confused as to why prismmagic thought I was talking about his posts.

Oh I get it Thanks for clarifying. that. My apologies. I took as a stab to get me back in to it. Oh it’s not all about me. Darn Ha” Ha”

No Prismmagic its not always about you!! You have reasons for your views and so do others. That's what makes America great ..a little something for everyone.....there is room for all of us.........

are you sure?

**magically we are all dumped into an Old West scene...it is high noon...**

This discussion thread ain't big enough for the both of us!

Draw!!

lol...j/k

*tumble weed rolls by*

religion is a touchy subject because to some people it's just a crutch; a way to make a person feel better. to some people it's just another theory like evolution or something. to others it's just one way to the idea of god, as in you can choose whatever way makes you happy. there are other things that people can think religion is, too.
what i think true religion is isn't any of these. true religion is that which makes the individual a part of the body of Christ Jesus. this is where i come from when i present my arguments. each of us comes from a different view just like this and it runs deeper than the words of our arguments. this is why we have discord in our discussions. we need to stop arguing with our words and start sharing in community our beliefs and our selfs. words will come and examples and analogies are windows into our lives, but the baseness of proof-texting and singular examples isn't sufficient.
tell me of your lives. blessings-
-jim

Very eloquently put uernameid10.

Ha"Ha" Jessiac_3

Very eloquently put usernameid10

Ha” Ha” Jessiac_3

Religion is said to be the psychiatry for all mankind. we feel a need to explain everything instead of letting some things remain a mystery....we want to black and white it..one explanation for one thing and then thats it..end of discussion....we don't like to think too long about the possiblity of there being more than one way...not just one " correct" way......while we sit and contemplate our navels even...life passes us by

this just proves my point. if you believe what you just wrote, then religion to you is a way of explaining things. religion to me is a way of life. you see religion, according to your post, as a treatment for the human condition while i see religion (true religion being in Christ Jesus) as the fulfillment of the human condition. being made new in the body of Christ is the reason for living.
therefore you argue religion as a way to get fulfillment out of life while i see religion as a fulfillment of life. this is why it's difficult for us to have discussion because the idea of religion is fundamentally different for each of us. lets talk about relgion and beliefs and stuff, but we're only going to stop at words if we don't get into the reality of who we are and what religion can and should mean in our lives.
blessings-
-jim

Again another example of havung faith in ones ideals. very well put again Jim.

You are TELLING me how I think and what my words mean to me? You don't even know me to make those assumptions. I believe in the balance of body mind and spirit. I am not saying that I believe that Christ Jesus is the " true religion" as there were so many religions before Christ like Buddhism and the Islam faith. What matters is that you acknowledge a higher power than yourself..whether that be God, Buddhah or a multitude of Gods. If your religion works for you than I am happy for you. But there are way routes to the finish line and as long as they all lead to the same end.....

i'm not telling you what to believe. i'm telling you what i believe, but i'm also telling you how we're arguing in this thread. your post only proves my point. you said that all religions are good and that it only matters to put faith in a higher power. i don't believe that, but i'm not going to tell you what to believe. i can only show you what i believe and why i believe it. what i was trying to get at in the last few posts is how our preconceptions shape our argumentation and word choice. example: i don't think i'll ever use the phrase "your religion works for you" because i don't believe that religion works for anyone. i believe that if you believe in Jesus Christ the practices and action of belief is religion. it doesn't work for me, but i work for my God.
i was pointing out that the disjuncture between our termonology makes it hard for us to discuss and argue. i'm not saying we shouldn't present it, but it's good to point out. lets instead share our lives and our experiences along with our beliefs because i believe community is important. if we know eachother it will ultimatly lead us towards truth (not saying that all of us are right all the time, as in there are absolutes). sharing of ourselves will be more beneficial to all of us than swapping bits of hollow ideas and theology on a computer screen.
tell me of your life. what makes you come to your conclusions?
blessings-
-jim