The Intergalactic Highway

artemis-lady-warrior wrote:Razor, Evolution is just a theory. Many, many people know this but they try to make it totally real for some reason but it's just a theory and quite a few of those evolution things have been proven to be fake.
What i would like to know is where all these 'trillion of years" came from. Do these people just reach into a hat of dates and choose one, plus there's the fact that when they find something knew in archeology they just make the whole thing older and older...
a man not the "who created God" question again.
Okay as you know God is an immortal being that can never die. Nothing created God he is omnipresent..

Omnipresence is the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere at a certain point in time.

He was always there. For how long we don't know. but here is something interesting about the earth in the scriptures.

The earth was without form and void

I have yet to figure out what the meaning of this scripture means but it might mean that the earth was a black mass of something that had no life and had no shape.
and then there is

and darkness was upon the face of the deep

I'm not sure what that means either. It could be referring to water or the universe itself before the stars were made on the fourth day. But of course days could be longer back then than they are now.......
I'll have to look into it some more.

In reference to the "Who Created God?" question, I was positing that question with reference that he was the "First" thing in a finite scope and yielded that in an infinite scope he would have no beginning and no end and thus be omnipresent.

In other words, I was only raising that question if god had a beginning

I have a few other theory's to mention.

The Theory of Gravity.
Atomic Theory.
Cell Theory.
Kinetic Theory of Gases.
The Theory of Relativity.

All containing the word theory. Yet only Evolution seems to cop the "It's just a theory!" treatment. In science, Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch as it would in the lingua franca. A Scientific Theory is a model or set of rules that describe natural phenomena and is supported by observation and evidence.

Evolution exists functionally in the microbial world. Ever get a flu shot? That's evolution in action. Every year new strains of flu appear that we need new vaccinations for. Sometimes such flu strains can be incredibly deadly, as the flu pandemic of 1918 - 1920 proved, which killed more people world wide then World War 1 (25 - 50 million people).

Macro evolution, or speciation is the kind of evolution most frequently criticized since often it is difficult to find intermediary fossils.

However, lookup Archaeopteryx. Most notably, it is a transitional fossil of a bird species rising from dinosaur stock. It is the most ancient bird fossil found, dating back 150 million years to the late jurassic period.

And speaking of time, the universes age has been gauged at 13 billion years or so, give or take a few million years, and is inferred from the Cosmic Microwave Background. Fun little fact, turn on the TV so it shows a snowy picture. 1% of what you're seeing there is the CMB bleeding into the TV reception.

As for dates on Earth, that's done via a variety of methods, but most commonly for archaeologists, the tool of choice is Radiocarbon dating.

Carbon has a naturally occurring isotope (Carbon 14) that is the byproduct of life on Earth. When this carbon isotope gets buried, it slowly decays at a consistent rate. Compare the number of C14 atoms in a given strata of soil with that generally found in the atmosphere (as the production of Carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment is generally constant over long periods of time) and you can, via a rather irritating series of calculations, determine the age of an artifact buried in soil with a fair degree of accuracy.

For dates longer then 80,000 years, Carbon dating becomes inaccurate, and other methods of radiometric dating must be used.

The Earths age can be a bit difficult to pin down. Radioactive dating can be ineffective as the Earth's crust has been recycled by plate tectonics, and the oldest rocks that have survived that process have generally been through hell and back, being bent, folded, crushed, melted, partially melted, and so on.

The dates generated by Radiometric dating put the Earth's age at 4.404 Billion years and was the result of an analysis of zircon crystals present in rocks found in the Jack Hills, Western Australia.

Unless scientific theory as a whole is bunk, these then are the ages of the Universe and the Earth respectively. Occasionally revisions are put out as more precise measurements refine the results. That's what science does. There is no truth and there are no absolutes. If a new theory came about tomorrow that accurately predicted the rate of atomic decay better then current models, the old theories would be thrown out tomorrow in it's favour.

And just to prove that science isn't 100% right all the time, look up Phlogiston, the old forerunner to Oxygen before its discovery.

Razor, Evolution is just a theory. Many, many people know this but they try to make it totally real for some reason but it's just a theory and quite a few of those evolution things have been proven to be fake.

Actually, Artemis... *points to the recent emergence of the "vampire" finches in the Galapagos islands*

Darwin theorized evolution because in small, isolated locations (like an island), it's possible to watch evolution occur in our lifetime. Differentiation in a species can even be seen across mountain ranges, and we've developed the technology to look at an animal's DNA and see the changes in it as they occur across several generations of animals.

For example, look at dogs; they're wolves. We know that. We have historical records as well as technology to show us that. Toy poodles didn't exist two-thousand-some-odd years ago. However, we chose certain traits within puppy litters over time and bred for those traits enough times that we created a specific genotype within the species. It's been tested with foxes, too. There was a report in the paper a few years ago that some researchers were breeding foxes for timid-ness. They found after a few generations that the more timid foxes' ears drooped and their tails curled - the same thing that happened with the wolves waaaay back when. We're so adept at controlling our environment, we've learned to guide evolution and now we can watch it happen. We're still a bit limited on proof of spontaneous genesis, however, consider this:

Now, I'm one of those guided evolution nuts you were all laughing about earlier. That's because I haven't heard a report of someone creating a functioning strand of DNA from scratch yet. Besides, the mathematical probability of a functioning strand of amino acids congealing not once but enough times to create the variety of life there is now, not to mention surviving conditions similar to Venus... well, those of you good at math can work those odds out. In order for life to have come about completely by chance, realistically bacterium would have had to congeal a mind-blowing number of times before enough of them would survive to start transforming the surface of the earth into today's living conditions. It happened too fast. I really think something's been poking it along, but total interference? Eeehhh.....

What i would like to know is where all these 'trillion of years" came from. Do these people just reach into a hat of dates and choose one, plus there's the fact that when they find something knew in archeology they just make the whole thing older and older...

they don't really just randomly guess an age. They use things like carbondating to figure out how old like a fossil or a layer of rock is.

From my understanding, (re: to the science students here in general) things like carbon dating work by measuring how fast a radio-active molecule decays into a less charged form, right? And we have the ability to watch that happen with an electron microscope? There's also the speed of light to take into consideration when looking at stars. We know the speed of light, we've measured it. With that formula in hand, it's not hard to extrapolate how long a star has existed for if you know the distance it is from your eyeball, and there are ways to calculate that too.

That's where the "trillions of years" comes from. I believe it was Einstein who said "math is the language of God." We've pretty obviously learned enough of that language to notice things like the abundant number of times-sevens in the bible. Why do we have to stop speaking the language there?

It's why I can't understand why it has to be so black and white. Depending on how hard you look, there's evidence both ways. It seems to me that somewhere down the middle sits "truth". Some day, maybe when I retire in another 44 years, I'd like to sit down with a huge pile of religious texts and scientific notes and compare them. What's similar, what's different, and maybe start drawing a line down the middle of it all. Anyone care to join me?

Original text above is the same as before, the edit below is to address the fact 3 posts have been made since I started typing over an hour ago. I'm just avoiding a double post.

7Knight, I mean it as in they are different parts of a whole. Both religions are worshiping something – a "higher power." Going back to the diamond design, Allah and God are two faces of a being that our mortal minds can't wholly understand right now.

here are many religions, and many gods do closely resemble the Christian God, the bringer of love and justice. However, the key difference is that most pagan gods demand something from their people and will punish their people if they do not do right. The Christain God does not demand justice for wrongdoing, beacuse his Son already took the punishment for us

If you wouldn't mind referencing that for me, please? Which god/goddess do you have in mind? Secondly, if you don't mind me asking, what, then, is Hell?

I've been called a Satan worshipper out of shear ignorance. I've been condemned to Hell and back because I happen to like trees a little more than a closed church, and I wear a star for spiritual protection. I chose a different path, and I've been told God will punish me for it even though I haven't done anything morally wrong other than see something differently. How is that any different than what you're saying a Pagan "god" does?

As for not hearing of anyone else being that loving, look at the native-american concept of "Creator." Or Greek Diana and Aphrodite, or Roman Flora, or Japanese Amaterasu and Uzume, Celtic Brigid who became St. Brigid. And that's just Goddesses. They all have loving aspects, just like God and Jesus have darker aspects.

Research it. You'd be suprised.

even though plenty of biblical facts have been proven to be true...
I don't really buy into the Carbon dating thing or whatever. It still does not answer the question. where did these millions of years come from and where are the so called fossiles that prove its even real? Do NOT mention that stupid Lucy fossil cuz that was proven to be a fake and why are soem of these so called prehistoric creatures alive today? If you look on youtube and type "Prehistoic shark" you'll find videos of a shark that was thought to be extinct "millions of years ago"

It's really not the thing of "evolution" that bothers me that much it's the fact that some people have to get nasty about it and say things like "that will show the creationists" I find that kind of person rude and offensive. It's one thing to believe in Evolution it's a whole another thing to do it just to "show a creationist"

For the record I do not claim to be a scientists but I do do research on things and I don't put much stock in everything I read and hear. There is no way that somebody is going to teach people BOTH theories about how the earth came to be without being biased to the other.

Even if there are SOME forms of evolution it STILL does not prove it in everything. I REFUSE to believe my ancetors came form apes because such a concept is stupid.

and No I have never had a flu shot. I've only ever had the flu once in my life.

7Knight-Wolf wrote:
Every thing I've heard about Evolution says that it works by trial and error. It would be impossible to ever come up with any organism if one wrong spontaneous movement would kill whatever had started. There are countless, lierally countless possiblilities. Thus the only way a trial and error system would work is if the universe was ageless--and even then simple logic disproves. (And for me, my fath in God disproves it.)

But you say that Evolution is a force that destroys anything that doesn't work. You're implying that it's not a trial and error system. If this is true, then you are also implying that there is a force behind evolution, a higher power. There will always be a guiding force, but people dispute over what it is. You say it's a relatively mindless thing called evolution. Christians say it's the three spirits of everlasting love that make up God. Of the two, I'd have to pick God.

You seem to misunderstand evolution again. I will try to explain.

The idea that no complex system cannot possibly form by chance and that thereby evolution is bunk is known as a "Straw Man", a flawed argument used to attack the entire whole.

What I think you're trying to get at here is Abiogenesis Vs. Biogenesis. The jury there is still very much out.

For now we'll focus on life. The simplest microbial life arose around hydrothermal vents in geological hot springs. They're still around today billions of years later completely unchanged because they have had absolutely no reason to evolve.

Nearest to the hydrothermal vent the temperature is constant and warm. The further out you go, the more the temperature varies. Microbes with mutations that benefit it's survival in cooler environments have the following advantages over microbes that dont:

1. Ability to tolerate varying temperature
2. Wider possible habitat
3. More regions to draw food from

Life thus expands to fill niches because of a lack of competition for the resources within said niche. Mutation allows species to propagate into said niches.

Mutation is the driving force behind evolution. The Mutation rate can vary depending on selective pressures. If the selective pressure is too high, very little mutation is tolerated and the individual organism stagnates. If the selective pressure is too low, organisms with nigh fatal traits can get away with surviving long enough to propagate.

Mutations can occur as a result of the imperfect copying and replication of DNA. Radioactivity can also play a role in encouraging mutation.

If life arose as a result of an intelligent designer, in the case of god, why would he create the DNA molecule, so wondrously intricate and complex, yet design it in such a fashion that it cannot replicate perfectly?

If the human mind or the eye is a product of an intelligent designer, what was he thinking? The brain is a veritable kludge and the eye is no better.

Consider this. Memorise a random string of 15 numbers. For a computer, an intelligently designed system, it's a piece of cake. For the human mind, it's a struggle to go beyond 9 except in special cases of Autism.

Consider the eye. Wonderful, elegant, it gives us sharp vision and lets us see the wonder of the universe.

Except that it too is a kludge. Light entering the eye must pass beyond a nerve bundle before striking the retina. This is known as a blind spot. Why would an intelligent designer create the human eye with such a blatant flaw?

I say that evolution destroys anything that doesnt work because anything that cannot live long enough will not propagate and thus destroys the deleterious mutation. Neutral mutations can and do occur. A mutation that is neither selected for nor against can and will persist.

Evolution is as blind a force as saying anyone that stands in the fire will die. This is not a higher power, it is simply nature.

Now, subatomic particles. String theories. But what's behind that? It has to be God.

Has to be? Presume the following.

Let's say you said this prior to the discovery of subatomic theory. One could say this:

But what's behind atomic particles? It has to be God.

After subatomic theory?

But what's behind subatomic particles? It has to be God.

I think you'll see my point. Just because we've discovered a new level of complexity in the universe does not mean that there isn't another as yet unheard of level of complexity below that, and another beyond that and another beyond even that.

The universe is a far more complex and beautiful place then we mere humans can conceive. If god is in fact, god, then he dwells at all levels at all points in time at all scales, in the known and unknown places and not merely limited to the latter.

So what is beyond string theory? I have no clue, but I'll be stoked to find out just what that thing is.

ugh. This is why I hate having discussions like this.

Uh... i think spot has a purpose just like your little toe or the appendix. Your little toe helps you balance properly and the appendix is useful for the immune system. I asked my parents cuz they know more than me. That's all I got to say on the subject, I know it's important because I have this thing called Toxoplasmosis that put attacked my eye. Now I have a scar in it and I don't have much of my center vision anymore. You don't know how important something is until it gets messed up.

artemis-lady-warrior wrote:even though plenty of biblical facts have been proven to be true...
I don't really buy into the Carbon dating thing or whatever. It still does not answer the question. where did these millions of years come from and where are the so called fossiles that prove its even real? Do NOT mention that stupid Lucy fossil cuz that was proven to be a fake and why are soem of these so called prehistoric creatures alive today? If you look on youtube and type "Prehistoic shark" you'll find videos of a shark that was thought to be extinct "millions of years ago"

It's really not the thing of "evolution" that bothers me that much it's the fact that some people have to get nasty about it and say things like "that will show the creationists" I find that kind of person rude and offensive. It's one thing to believe in Evolution it's a whole another thing to do it just to "show a creationist"

For the record I do not claim to be a scientists but I do do research on things and I don't put much stock in everything I read and hear. There is no way that somebody is going to teach people BOTH theories about how the earth came to be without being biased to the other.

Even if there are SOME forms of evolution it STILL does not prove it in everything. I REFUSE to believe my ancetors came form apes because such a concept is stupid.

and No I have never had a flu shot. I've only ever had the flu once in my life.

You're quite lucky to have never had a flu shot then. I've had the flu several times in my life because I generally dont have the time to get them. Flu dreams are fun but the fever and associated other symptoms really do suck.

Carbon 14 dating works thusly.

We have a roughly consistent amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere at all times.

Carbon 14 enters plants via photosynthesis.

Plants die.

Plants get buried.

Carbon 14 atoms decay at a certain proven rate over time.

Archaeologist digs up the remains of said plants.

Contrast the levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere to what is present in the fossil remains, or in the case of older fossils on the order of millions of years, the rocks in the strata surrounding it.

As for your mention of the "Lucy" fossil, I presume you're referring to Australopithecus specimen discovered in 1974 and dated to 3.2 million years ago? I'd like to know how that was proven to be a fake fossil.

In any case 3.2 million years is too old, and the wrong subspecies to boot. Humans only arrive on the fossil record 130,000 years ago and descended from the hominid species Homo Erectus.

With reference to the shark you speak of, I think you're referring to the Coelocanth.

The Coelacanth has in fact changed over millions of years, just not significantly. When comparing modern Coelacanth's to fossilised ancestors, there is a strong resemblance but nothing quite exactly like the fossils.

As to the whole creationist thing, there is a reason for this. Some creationists are attempting to push Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory to be taught in classrooms alongside evolution when it is anything but. Such attempts include redefining science.

Science, as defined by the dictionary, is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

ID supporters want this changed to include supernatural forces and this is why some have their proverbial boxers in a bunch. It effectively dethrones the scientific method and allows for almost any explanation one could want to stick in there.

Why do radioactive atoms decay? Because the magical winged fairy dragons do it. Occams Razor? Sorry, part of the naturalistic scientific method. The new definition allows me to cite supernatural forces to be the cause of natural phenomena. It completely bankrupts the scientific process that has allowed our entire civilization to get to this point.

And finally, my final point.

Why do you refuse to believe that your ancestors to the Nth degree evolved from apes or at least consider the possibility? Why is such a concept stupid?

Is it because apes are animals?

Humans too, are animals, just highly intelligent ones. Our intelligence and self awareness is what sets us apart.

However, I recently perused an article in New Scientist that described an experiment where a certain species of monkey (memory fails me at the moment) were raised much like humans and were taught to use tools as humans do. The conjectured body image for such monkey is presumed to be the equivalent level of a two year old. The experimental data revealed that the monkeys had the same level of body image understanding that nine year olds do, and more importantly, the areas of the brain thought to be responsible for body image and tool handling were shown to light up similarly in the brains of the monkeys.

Granted said monkeys wont be going to school any time soon, they lack the language and higher functions a nine year old would have, but it demonstrates that certain things that are inherently human, such as the recognition of self* and tool making are not necessarily so.

*Self recognition is required for handling tools. Humans treat tools as extensions of themselves. To do so, a sense of self is required. A sense of self in turn implies an awareness of others, and this was demonstrated in the experiment as the monkeys are able to return facial expressions and learn by observing others. In the wild, this species of monkey does not display these abilities.

That aside, the 99.8% genetic similarity between apes and humans is compelling. How can this be explained if humans did not evolve from apes?

Of worthy note to mention, Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. It is theorised that the fusion of two chromosomes lead to this differential and can be seen by observing the fused chromosome.

The chromosome in question is Human Chromosome 2, which is comprised of two fused Ape chromosomes.

A more detailed explanation can be found Here if you feel you need further information.

And curb any possible arisement of this point. The reason that apes today dont give rise to humans is because of us. We're territorial and dont like competitors. The only other hominid to survive almost as long as us were Neanderthals and we may well have had a hand in their downfall. Even today we're actively destroying the habitat of and killing apes. The niche that apes require to evolve into something human like has been filled by us, and we're not willing to share.

That's my last post for now. 4 AM and bed is calling.

let me point soemthing out. Human's are also closely related to chickens in DNA. Did we also coem from chickens?

Guess what i was taught growing up. I was taught both things. Creation and Evolution. Creation just makes much more sense.

I'd like to know something. There's a 2 percent difference between humans and apes. okay but that two percent difference is also composed of a HUGE amount of DNA that supposedly happened over millions of years. I'd like to make some kind of challange to these people. If they can honestly HONESTLY figure out some sped up way to make apes into humans THEN I will believe them.
I am NOT going to rely on their supposed scientific proof that i came from an ape. Especially when some of this comes from bones and fossils that are falling apart and turning to dust and bones DO turn to dust.

Now let me point out something.
Humans have souls. Animals do not.
Humans know right from wrong. Animals do NOT and they don't care!
Humans can speak and KNOW what they mean when they say it. Animals cannot, not even parrots because parrots just mimic what people say.
A human can learn how to use a computer properly. Animals Can NOT! If you sit a monkey in front of a computer it won't get on line and browse. it will bang out random things con the keyboard.
Humans do not have intercourse with animals. They have intercourse with other humans. Unlike animals. Ever heard of the Cabbit? It's the result of Cats and Rabbits having kids.
Animals don't worry about Global warming or pollution. Humans do.
Humans can also learn other languages, animals cannot.
Plus animals can get away with killing each other and eating each other without any problems. Humans go to jail. Thou shalt not kill!

There are many other things I can point out about humans that make us different than animals but I won't.


One more thing. you said posting link was not allowed.

Sorry, I used carbondating as an example becasue it was th eonly one I could remember.

Nurann wrote:

It's why I can't understand why it has to be so black and white. Depending on how hard you look, there's evidence both ways.

Yeah, I agree with Nurann there. I guess that's pretty much why topics like this just confuse me sometimes.

Haven't read through the five pages of this that have suddenly appeared lol, but I agree with the above statement. You can argue with just as much validty for either viewpoint, and no matter how much evidence one provides for one side, someone dedicated to the other view will not have their mind changed.

And you can combine both views, saying that Science states "how" things happened, and Religion is "why".

Razor one, here's something to consider. I don't believe Carbon dating is accurate because most of the fossils we find today (I believe) were very quickly fossilized. There was a worldwide flood which killed almost everything on earth, and which speeded up the fossil process from millions of years to just a few hours or minutes.

And here's some more proof that carbon dating is wrong. One time a gradeschool teacher took a large slab of rock and made her school children do an activity with it. They decorated pictures of animals and stick-people. Then the peice of artwork was stolen. The teacher made a big deal about finding it, but it was not recovered until about a year later when an archealogist found it hidden in a cave. Not knowing that it was someone's work of art, the scientist carbon-dated it, conculding that it was about three hundred years old and made by Native Americans in the area. Then the treacher stepped in to claim her stolen artwork. Interesting, isn't it?

Artemis, bravo! There is no proof that we are very closely related to monkeys, and scientifically speaking creation and evolution are just as likely. Logically, creation makes more sense.

I must disagree with one thing, though. Being an animal freak, I believe that animals do have souls, although perhaps not as deep as that of humans. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not say that animals are soul-less. In fact, it hints otherwise in Romans 8, saying that when God's kingdom comes, animals will be set free into "the glorious freedom of the sons of God" depending on translation. This probably means that they will have the same freedoms as the Sons of God, which in that context means humans.

Anyway, our DNA. Besides being similar to both chickens and apes, did you know our bodies are made up of many of the same elements as...dust? ("God formed man out of the dust of the earth...")

Razor One wrote:
If life arose as a result of an intelligent designer, in the case of god, why would he create the DNA molecule, so wondrously intricate and complex, yet design it in such a fashion that it cannot replicate perfectly?

If the human mind or the eye is a product of an intelligent designer, what was he thinking? The brain is a veritable kludge and the eye is no better.

Consider this. Memorise a random string of 15 numbers. For a computer, an intelligently designed system, it's a piece of cake. For the human mind, it's a struggle to go beyond 9 except in special cases of Autism.

Consider the eye. Wonderful, elegant, it gives us sharp vision and lets us see the wonder of the universe.

Except that it too is a kludge. Light entering the eye must pass beyond a nerve bundle before striking the retina. This is known as a blind spot. Why would an intelligent designer create the human eye with such a blatant flaw?.

God originally created human minds and eyes to work perfectly. He originally made animals and humans able to survive without killing each other. After Adam sinned, the world as we know it changed. If our brains worked perfectly, we would hardly need a Savior now would we? When God creates the new earth, everything from molecules to brains will work perfectly.

The purpose of this imperfection is, as explained in the Bible, to refine humans. The more trials we accept or work through with God's help, the stronger our faith. The stronger our love. The wiser we are when we are reunited with Him.

[/quote] The universe is a far more complex and beautiful place then we mere humans can conceive. If god is in fact, god, then he dwells at all levels at all points in time at all scales, in the known and unknown places and not merely limited to the latter.So what is beyond string theory? I have no clue, but I'll be stoked to find out just what that thing is.[/quote]

Oh, absolutely--I think there always be another level and another level and more after that. God is in every level, omnipresent. Perhaps I have been mixing up my statements. I believe that God is infinite, so when I say he is "behind" something, I mean he guides it and makes it grow. He has been, he is now, and he will be to come. He is everything.

You know, I'm really glad we have this topic. It really makes me think more about God, and strengthens my faith.

Let's keep talking!

Razor One wrote:
1. Respect The Opinion of Others.

2. If you link to off site material that violates the above, consider this thread locked. Come up with your own points of debate.

I wont have time to go into depth of the posts in the last several hours but I'd like to clarify that the moratorium on off site linking is limited to vitriolic material: stuff intended to offend the other party. The second point of point two is to foster a proper debate rather then a linkfest.

For example.

If I'd simply said <Link>Heres Evidence that humans are descended from apes</Link> and left it at that, that'd raise my ire.

I put forth an argument in my own words and used the link to give background evidence to back it up. I am not using the link to offend you. I am not using the link to make my argument for me.

As to the rest, I'll have to get back to you when exams die down a little

*head desk* It's okay. My fingers are typing fasting than my mind is thinking. I should have been paying more attention. Forget I said anything about it(Links)

Well I was looking into the whole thing and all of you make valid points and I learned a lot on what you found out and believe in.

I do have a good faith in science,but,as I learned,science can only explain most things,but not all.

Evolution:I think that evolution describes itself as accurately as possible,but there are some things I can not agree on,such as 'Natural Selection'

Creationism:I hope not to offend anyone,but the Genesis was a story of how civillization came to be.Yes,some things can be historically proven(Such as Noah's Flood,being only a flood to a certain part of land,not the whole world).There are many stories of creation,flood,and war between Divinities in most Pegan religions,and all have been adapted and used to have a creative interpretation of what life was like before them.


I remember that in the Old World,paticularly the Mediterranian(sp)the Egyptians,Greeks,Romans,and older civillizations all used/stolen/adapted each others Gods and stories of creation,but,in return,learn to establish a culture,weapons,sciences,and so on.

Now I should probably research this,but the religions,espeically the top one,Chiristianity all originated from Hinduism,but if I am wrong,elighten me please.

Philosphers had their ideas on God,the world,and creation,and I followed the futurist,such as I believe that the stories of religion,the flaw of science,and the fact that the Universe is still in dire need of understanding,is all due to the limit we have on the brain.The brain gave us the ability to think,function,and even give us imagination.In my original post,I was going by an Atheist standpoint,by saying that the God we see in the Bible and other Gods are part of the imagination part of our brain,until I asked myself,'What happens if we use our whole brain?'


If we were to use the whole thing,we could not only understand more of the Universe,but God's connection to it.I go back to Nostradamus,and his prophecies,as he,having better use of his brain,was able to see the eyes that has a 'God-like' quality,which is to see into the future,.But,even though Nostadamus had that power to see,he does not have the power of his whole brain.If we were able to,we can be able to 'alter' our bodily functions,figure out more things that can advance or eliminate the laws and theories we have now.


I remember that Nostadamus himself used symbols for his prophecies,much like the revelations of God's chosen prophets,as they were able to see things(But this could be due to the brain's improper use,due to fasting and/or dehydration,but,in some way,we are able to trigger hallucinations with a dying brain).God,or the people He chose,interpret His message into symbols that even us today are still trying to comprehend.


I guess this would take a whole lifetime of studying for me,and I know I lack the research for it,but this is what I think about.I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

artemis-lady-warrior wrote:let me point soemthing out. Human's are also closely related to chickens in DNA. Did we also coem from chickens?

Guess what i was taught growing up. I was taught both things. Creation and Evolution. Creation just makes much more sense.

I'd like to know something. There's a 2 percent difference between humans and apes. okay but that two percent difference is also composed of a HUGE amount of DNA that supposedly happened over millions of years. I'd like to make some kind of challange to these people. If they can honestly HONESTLY figure out some sped up way to make apes into humans THEN I will believe them.
I am NOT going to rely on their supposed scientific proof that i came from an ape. Especially when some of this comes from bones and fossils that are falling apart and turning to dust and bones DO turn to dust.

I have a few minutes before work, time to get cracking.

Human and chicken DNA share a 60% similarity. Humans and chickens share a common ancestor from 310 million years ago. One species became two (or more) and have been separate ever since.

Humans did not come from chickens. Chickens and humans merely share a common ancestor from long way back.

Modern Apes and Humans have common ancestors from not-quite-as-far back. The genetic gap between humans and apes is much narrower then with humans and chickens.

Please, explain to me how Creation makes more sense. Explain to me what evolution lacks to make it improbable that we came to be via that method.

Your point about making apes into humans via accelerated evolution is impossible. Any ape tampered with in such a fashion would never be human, they could be human-like, but absolutely not human. They wont belong to the same species.

Furthermore, any ethics board would scream blue murder at trying to accelerate evolution in the fashion you ask. Creationists would scream blue murder. Even hardcore evolutionists would scream blue murder as it is not only morally reprehensible to do so. You're essentially asking for scientists to accomplish the equivalent of conquering the galaxy by yesterday afternoon.

Supposing some two million years for evolution to turn the first upright apes into the humans of today, at an average lifespan of 30 years a piece, it took 65,000+ generations to eventually produce humans.

Fossils are the way they are because they have been preserved. Bones DO turn to dust when left exposed to the elements. Encased in rock, they are kept relatively safe. Scientists can determine what these apes looked like, what species they were and so forth by extrapolation, comparing to similar fossils and drawing upon the massive number of other fossils dug up by other scientists. A scientist that does this can be likened to a forensics expert, using fragmentary data to solve a "Crime", or in this case, evolution.

I'll have to get back to you later on your other points as I'm late.