Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[fightingclam]

Someone plz pm me when someone proves the origin of our existence on this star wars forum. I tried to read, but my ADD said "no"...

+1

[Bryant]

So if you believe in Creationism then you believe that...

1. Someone called "God" popped out of thin air
2. He just happened to have holy, godlike powers (he is God after all) and shaped the Earth with nothing but his hands and imagination
3. He used his holy godlike powers to create JUST 2 people (Adam and Eve), not a whole civilization of people.
4. All of the above seems entirely IMPOSSIBlE and entirely IMPROBABLE that those events could happen.
As a true Christian you're taught to believe all the Bible says and if anyone denies it then you go all rage mode on them saying "you're gonna go to Hell if you don't believe what the Bible says, now convert!"

Sorry if I make a generalization here but that's all I'm getting from the people who believe in Creationism.

So If you believe in the big bang/evolution then you believe that...

1. Something called "matter and energy" popped out of thin air
2. It just happened to follow special laws allowing it to shape the Earth with nothing but its mere existence.
3. It uses these special laws to create all er, life, the universe and everything, from only 3 particles.
4. All of the above seems entirely IMPOSSIBLE and entirely IMPROBABLE that those events could happen.
As a true Secular, you're taught to believe all the World says and if anyone denies it then you go all rage mode on them saying "religion is a disease to the earth, God is not real, now convert!"

Sorry if I make a generalization here but that's all I'm getting from the people who believe in the Big bang and Evolution.

This is precisely why I don't like these conversations. People believe what they believe. Each thinks the other's point is less likely to occur. I honestly cannot see why the existence of a God is anymore difficult to believe then the existence of an event capable of creating the universe. Neither can truely have a beginning. So one has consciousness and the other doesn't. But if we assume the other is true, then it has the capability of evolving consciousness. So one starts with consciousness and make er, and the other starts with er and evolves consciousness. In the massive scale and complexity of the Universe (both in shear size and complexity on levels so small we can't even see), I think this is a minor detail. We're talking about 2 impossible things, so the argument that one is a little more impossible then the other doesn't hold up.

I've had these conversations a couple times, and no one ever changes what they believe because of them. As humans we are stubborn things, and we are only willing to change when profound events occur in our lives.

@THEWULFMAN

If you don't believe the Bible is factual, then what is there to base your Christian belief on. I believe that God inspired the writing of the Bible through people, and that he has protected it or made it possible to be protected.

Adam and Eve could be the parents of the entire human race. I quickly looked up the population growth over the past 50 years. If the data is right then the current population could have come from 2 people in 1350 years. Even if we assume that growth is high now, we'd easily have over twice that time to the Great Flood. Which is were the entire population would have come from - Noah's Family.

I do agree that God left creation simple in its explanation, as that's not the point of Christianity or Judaism. So there is some room where you could believe in creation through big bang or evolution. However it's not explicit, and I choose to believe 'pure' creationism (I guess you'd call it that)

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

@Wulf

1- Slightly more intelligent....hmmm humans can split atoms but we are only slightly more intelligent, cool theory
2- Animals have a brain and can think, but hardly in the way humans do, they cannot reason, some are smarter then others, but a human mind isn't even slightly comparable with a animals mind.
3- I'm sorry to dissapoint you on the wide hips and breast thinking, but not all the humans think this way, and ever tought about the fact that in nature all the males are the beautiful ones? it's alwayes the male trying to get a female with his beauty, while with humans this isn't the case
4- Fear is only in the mind, you can say fear of hight because we can die from falling, yet some humans jump off cliffs for adrenaline, while other humans have strange fears, i mean humans afraid of clowns? even tough it could be a phobia still it is in the mind.
5- oh yes i know dophines( i think it's wroten wrong but meh) are very inteligent, yet they didn't grow arms and legs did they?
6- Yes ant do wage war that is correct, yet i don't see them droping an atomic bomb somewhere on the globe, nor (besides natural elements, sticks and such) they do not massivly produce weapons, nor do they sell things...humans can be very cruel...
7- Since you like wiki answers http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_can_a_human_body_live

Sorry i didn't adress that earlier, i failed to do quadruple quotes.

@EV Theory

Even tough very renown cientists are for and against it i can only agree with logic.
Is it logical that something unknown exploded whatever it was and suddenly created millions of galaxies.
Is it logical that one planet(you can say what you want but the same cientists think earth is probably the only hospitable planet in the universe) just happens to be at the right place, at the right distance from the sun, in the right orbit, with the right gravity from the moon keeping it in it's orbit, with the right vilocity around the sun, with the right size of the earth, with a magnetic field, and mars great gravity to pull all the big asteroids away from destroying the earth just by a BOOM?
Is it logical that suddenly the earth out of nothing got an atmosphere and a ozone layer
Is it logical that suddenly the explosions stopped, the earth became vertile, had water on it and even tough it's 1/billion was able to create a protein whithin something smaller then 1 square inch of wich in that same square inch of our 40.075KM earth happens to be some RNA and they happen to work together and create a simple cell that is able to stand life and reproduce.
Is it logical that said cell evolved with no evidence of any expiriment into a complex cell wich happens to create the first life form wich evolved from a animal to a human with no link between it?
It's even more logical that from evolution we have a mind that isn't being ussed fully.

Now of couse it is, the explination a complex being that we call god created us by thinking it over where the earth sould be and how life came to be with it's stucture is just complete and utter maddness, it's radical, of course it's loggical we believe in something that high in odds they don't have a numeric number for it yet, why and it has to be the evolution theory not another theory that hasn't been found yet, it's quite imposible that humans are wrong, have we ever been?

@Yanoda

Nice video about why we laugh at creationism.
Compare these texts please:

“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

With

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"

And please don't google the answer to this, i'd like you to find something interesting between these texts.
PS. FYI to all, this is just as useless as that vid in my eyes.

MT

[Bryant]

It is ridiculous. Evolution is only a theory, with no proof. And gravity is a law which can actually be tested and observed without fail. Evolution is only a valid theory because it is needed to get from what would have been a simple world to the complex one we are in now. Amino acids formation is a good step, but it is not life. It still doesn't answer my chicken and the egg problem in my first post. Now I'll use your own "2000 years is short in cosmological time" against you. Evolution is a long process so it cannot be proven in the short period that we've had in recorded history.

The bible doesn't even attempt to explain phenenom and is not flawed. By the way, people believed the world was round before they thought it was flat.

And you're right: God is beyond science. But that doesn't mean his existence is not evident.

Please re-read my previous posts giving the scientific definition of Evolution, Hypothesis, Theory and Law, then refute.

'Evolution of Life through Natural Selection' is what you're trying to refute.
Ever heard of the Peppered Moth in Britain? This is a simple example of the concept of 'Evolution of Life through Natural Selection' at a reasonable time frame (for Humans). Do read about it, then refute.

I did read your post on hypothesis, Theory and Law, and not that it ers since I'm already well aware of such simple things. Like I said in a previous post. I believe in natural selection. But I don't see any proof for how it leads to evolution. I quickly read about the Peppered Moth, and it is not an example of evolution, but only of natural selection. The darker colored Moth did not come into being, but was already there. It simply became more prevalent. Evolution requires changing into something new, but natural selection chooses from what is already there.

Now don't get me wrong. I can see how natural selection could seem to give rise to evolution, but the evidence is not there.

And yet again, I'll say that Evolution, can not be equated to the Law of Gravity. With the same tired fact: gravity can and has been tested time and again, and evolution has not. Unless of course, you mean evolution=any productive change, in which case I'm sorry, but I take it to mean things on much larger scale - like the biological theory of evolution, or the evolution of the universe... And thus a different topic: why the English language fails me.

[Bryant]

Someone plz pm me when someone proves the origin of our existence on this star wars forum. I tried to read, but my ADD said "no"...

I tend to waste too much time on topics like these, so I think I'll follow hass's example...

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Someone plz pm me when someone proves the origin of our existence on this star wars forum. I tried to read, but my ADD said "no"...

I tend to waste too much time on topics like these, so I think I'll follow hass's example...

Maybe, but debate is one of my hobbies, so also even tough this thread my result into being pointless, i do think many here "may" have leared something.

[Yanoda]

I did read your post on hypothesis, Theory and Law, and not that it ers since I'm already well aware of such simple things. Like I said in a previous post. I believe in natural selection. But I don't see any proof for how it leads to evolution. I quickly read about the Peppered Moth, and it is not an example of evolution, but only of natural selection. The darker colored Moth did not come into being, but was already there. It simply became more prevalent. Evolution requires changing into something new, but natural selection chooses from what is already there.

Now don't get me wrong. I can see how natural selection could seem to give rise to evolution, but the evidence is not there.

And yet again, I'll say that Evolution, can not be equated to the Law of Gravity. With the same tired fact: gravity can and has been tested time and again, and evolution has not. Unless of course, you mean evolution=any productive change, in which case I'm sorry, but I take it to mean things on much larger scale - like the biological theory of evolution, or the evolution of the universe... And thus a different topic: why the English language fails me.

Evolution is just change through time, like I stated in my previous posts. What you say has no evidence is Evolution of Life through Natural Selection and/or Evolution of Life through Mutation.
Evolution of the Earth = Change of Earth through its lifetime.
Evolution of Dance = How dance has changed over human history.
Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere = Change of Earth's Atmosphere through Earth's lifetime.
Evolution of Life = Change of Organisms over time.
Etc.

Here's the thing what many scientists say that Natural Selection is the driving force of Evolution of Life (change of organisms). Using the Peppered Moth as an example.
Before Industrial Revolution, we had normal light colored tree trunks. Light moths were able to camouflage better than dark moths. Dark moths stood out more and were more likely eaten. Total population had more light colored moths than dark colored moths, say 10 to 1 respectively, through natural selection.
Now we have Industrial Revolution, pollution from soot and ash cause the tree trunks to darken. Now light colored moths are at a disadvantage, they cannot camouflage as well as the darker ones now. With natural selection, dark colored moths are more prevalent than light colored moths. Total population had more dark colored moths than white, 10 to 1 respectively.

Do you see now the connection? The moths' population has changed (evolved) from being predominately light colored to being predominately dark colored.

The same applies with mutations with natural selection. Don't forget that the environment also evolves (changes). Dry (low amount to no water) landscape makes it difficult for organisms to survive that are not adapted to the environment . Those that are adapted, have it easier. Natural Selection prefers Organisms adapted for dry climates.
Climate changes (Evolution of Earth and/or Atmosphere), making the same landscape wetter (more water available). Same Organism population has to adapt to the change (evolution) of the environment. Since the environment is wetter, it puts the population (which is adapted to dry environments) at a disadvantage.
A small part of the population have a mutation (inherent change) that makes them more adaptive to wetter climates than what the entire population was normally used to. Before (when it was dry) they were left out through natural selection. Now they have a chance of becoming more adaptive than the rest of their population. Natural selection preferred those more adapted to wetter climates and population becomes mostly wet adapted population.

The process continues with further changes in climate/surroundings etc. Invoking (forcing) the population to adapt (change) through natural selection and/or mutation to survive.

Adam and Eve could be the parents of the entire human race. I quickly looked up the population growth over the past 50 years. If the data is right then the current population could have come from 2 people in 1350 years. Even if we assume that growth is high now, we'd easily have over twice that time to the Great Flood. Which is were the entire population would have come from - Noah's Family.

That seriously made me You have just lighten up my day a bit more.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/583414 amusing and relevant to the topic.

Cheers

Yanoda

[THEWULFMAN]

@Wulf

1- Slightly more intelligent....hmmm humans can split atoms but we are only slightly more intelligent, cool theory
Just because we are able to do amazing things with science, doesn't make us intelligent. There's a difference between being intelligent and being smart (in my book anyway). Being smart just means you know a lot of stuff(i.e. Book smart), being intelligent depends on how you go about doing things.
2- Animals have a brain and can think, but hardly in the way humans do, they cannot reason, some are smarter then others, but a human mind isn't even slightly comparable with a animals mind.
You originally said animals can not think, now your story is changing. The ability to reason is subjective, we can't know how much an animal reasons. Although there are a few animals that seem to show reason. Like some monkeys use leaves from a plant in the rain forest, they rub it in the wounds of other monkeys. Somehow they know that the leaves contain anti-bacterial chemicals which can be used to clean wounds.
3- I'm sorry to dissapoint you on the wide hips and breast thinking, but not all the humans think this way, and ever tought about the fact that in nature all the males are the beautiful ones? it's alwayes the male trying to get a female with his beauty, while with humans this isn't the case
Did I say "all"? Of course there are people who don't think that way. Doesn't mean the basic instinct isn't there. Who says men aren't beautiful and attractive? I bet you'll find a bunch of straight women and gay men who say otherwise. I am only speaking for myself, a straight male. I didn't think it was proper for me to speak for others. Anyway, Men are always competing for women, getting into fights, trying to show off, etc.
4- Fear is only in the mind, you can say fear of hight because we can die from falling, yet some humans jump off cliffs for adrenaline, while other humans have strange fears, i mean humans afraid of clowns? even tough it could be a phobia still it is in the mind.
Well no duh. Of course fear is all in the mind, where would it be, in the feet? We get adrenaline in times of fear, and pain. Adrenaline gives us a rush, to get us though tough times. Adrenaline seekers want the rush, so they do dangerous things like cliff jumping to satisfy their needs.
5- oh yes i know dophines( i think it's wroten wrong but meh) are very inteligent, yet they didn't grow arms and legs did they?
That makes no sense, at all. You grow what you need at the time to survive, not what's convenient. Just because something is intelligent, it doesn't mean they are going to evolve arms and legs.
6- Yes ant do wage war that is correct, yet i don't see them droping an atomic bomb somewhere on the globe, nor (besides natural elements, sticks and such) they do not massivly produce weapons, nor do they sell things...humans can be very cruel...
You missed the point. You don't have to be intelligent to wage war. The only reason why we have weapons is because of our intelligence. Take that away, and we'd be using our bare hands, teeth, and clubs to kill eachother, like our ancestors did.
7- Since you like wiki answers http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_can_a_human_body_live
I see I misunderstood exactly what you meant. Thanks for clarifying, however just because it could have the ability to last that long, doesn't mean it ever could. I think 200 years would be our limit, at least in the next hundred years or so.

Sorry i didn't adress that earlier, i failed to do quadruple quotes.

Answers are in bold.


Now, I shall add something new to my arguement.

People say that humans are terrible, we do all these horrible things and such. Well guess what? It's far from a human trait to be terrible, it's an animal instinct. Monkeys murder(killing for non-food reasons) and steal, dolphins and cats rape(I had a cat, which raped another cat I had, so I'm pretty familiar with this).

Of course another thing could be said, that the reason humans rage war and it is so terrible is because of basic instincts (usually territory).

Now, just because we're nothing more than animals, doesn't mean we are any less special. Remember that.

[THEWULFMAN]

As a side note: Hebrew isn't a dead language, not even close.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Just because we are able to do amazing things with science, doesn't make us intelligent. There's a difference between being intelligent and being smart (in my book anyway). Being smart just means you know a lot of stuff(i.e. Book smart), being intelligent depends on how you go about doing things.

Well from the "normal" books being smart is knowing stuff while inteligence is the lvl of your understanding, as in learning new things, i cannot reply on other people having a diffrent interpretacion basic, (not not really basic but you get the point) words

You originally said animals can not think, now your story is changing. The ability to reason is subjective, we can't know how much an animal reasons. Although there are a few animals that seem to show reason. Like some monkeys use leaves from a plant in the rain forest, they rub it in the wounds of other monkeys. Somehow they know that the leaves contain anti-bacterial chemicals which can be used to clean wounds.
Just like an animal liking his wound? who tought him that? how does an animal know this will help heal this wound? did you ever lick a open wound of yours? i do think the answer is no, why? well figuere that part out yourself

Did I say "all"? Of course there are people who don't think that way. Doesn't mean the basic instinct isn't there. Who says men aren't beautiful and attractive? I bet you'll find a bunch of straight women and gay men who say otherwise. I am only speaking for myself, a straight male. I didn't think it was proper for me to speak for others. Anyway, Men are always competing for women, getting into fights, trying to show off, etc.

This is the picture of a "i'm sry i forgot the name in english again" female http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Pauw_vrouwtje.jpg/250px-Pauw_vrouwtje.jpg this is the male http://www.overloonzoo.nl/Image/getImage.aspx?id=314 it doesn't take a gay person to tell you wich one is more attractive/beautifil.
Now lets go to humans, i can't post a picture of a woman vs a man, because finding an average man is difficult for me, you could look up a pic of me and a friend of mine just to proove what i mean...how you or men have an instinct for bigger breasts and hips, so this means that this woman is more attractive http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GkuQDScRKGc/SL6ubINOKaI/AAAAAAAADog/JO4Z05xzuvc/s400/Worlds-Fat-Woman-Wallpaper.jpg then this one? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mS1oAw0eOcE/TWvkmRB0FUI/AAAAAAAAA5A/RVZGZ5BLGys/s400/Tori_Praver_beautiful_body_paint_1.jpg all i'm saying here i find this statement rediculous


Well no duh. Of course fear is all in the mind, where would it be, in the feet? We get adrenaline in times of fear, and pain. Adrenaline gives us a rush, to get us though tough times. Adrenaline seekers want the rush, so they do dangerous things like cliff jumping to satisfy their needs.
Fear about something is your perception about something, one human does not fear the same thing as the other, yet all horses go crazy when they hear a snake rattle

That makes no sense, at all. You grow what you need at the time to survive, not what's convenient. Just because something is intelligent, it doesn't mean they are going to evolve arms and legs.
Why doesn't it make sence? i mean if you believe in the evolution theory tell me why humans did evolve and other animals didn't? i m

You missed the point. You don't have to be intelligent to wage war. The only reason why we have weapons is because of our intelligence. Take that away, and we'd be using our bare hands, teeth, and clubs to kill eachother, like our ancestors did.
true but the aggresion shown in man is far worse then just terrible, monkeys can kill monkey's i'd say territorial instinct, however humans seem to kill each other more and more for no good reason at all...

Now, I shall add something new to my arguement.

People say that humans are terrible, we do all these horrible things and such. Well guess what? It's far from a human trait to be terrible, it's an animal instinct. Monkeys murder(killing for non-food reasons) and steal, dolphins and cats rape(I had a cat, which raped another cat I had, so I'm pretty familiar with this).

Now, just because we're nothing more than animals, doesn't mean we are any less special.
The main diffrence is that humans are well at least nowadays civilised, call this evolution if you will but i don't believe that animals have changed that much in behavior then they did 7000 years ago.
i'm sorry but stating your cat raped another cat? idk....

Answers are in bold