BBtB, it sounds to me like you have given up thinking . . . . . . . surrendered your free-will . . . . . stopped trying. You need more resolve and determination. Dont think its all out of your control and that you dont matter. Dont just watch the 'spin of the wheel' . . . . . . . make your OWN mind up. And dont assume that others are 'deluded' just becuase you dont understand their life-choices . . . . . . . they might be cleverer than you!

I, personally, don't think that they need to be mutually exclusive as people always make them. The whole conflict between the two seems to stem from the way Thomas Henry Huxley presented Evolution to the rest of the world. Let's just say he was rather combative and was an "all or nothing" kinda guy.

splck, you may also want to consider the possibility of what people will do when Evolution is mentioned. We think it ludricrous that the Greeks thought the world was composed of earth, water, wind, and fire. What will the people of the future think of our theories?

Humans didn't evolve, we adapted to our environment. The humans that could stand upright lived longer and reproduced more because they could carry more food. The humans with better thinking and comunication skills got the better shelters and outsmarted the game better so they reproduced more offspring. Adaptation to the environment has always helped species grow stronger and become dominant in Earth's history.

I think that it can be a combo of both.
Why not.

Me I believe in evolution.

But thats not the only part of this thread - the title wants universe history too. So here is what I can provide you.

History of Universe:
1. Initially-Minkowski Space -pre big bang
Mass = 0
Temp = 0k
Volume = 0 *Laws of Physics do not apply*
2. Big Bang - Universe Created
-First appearence of Expanding Energy -something higher energy than plasma
3.1 Second into Existance
- 1st appearence of mass
- Exponential Expansion Phase
- Broken Symmetry (slight variations in texture)
- Hotter and "cooler" regions begin to form
- 1st Heterogeneties
4. Partical Creation Phase
- 1st particles - antiparticles created
- Expanding Sphere continues
5. Partical Production Ceases - subatomic particles
- Particles and antiparticles mutually anialate each other
- Attraction due to electormagnetic properties
6. 14 seconds after Big Bang
- Subatomic particles begin to organize into protons & neutrons
- Then organize into the nuclei of H and He
- 80% Hydrogen 20% Helium
- Temperature = 3 Billion K
- H & He concentrated in Hotter Regions
7. Time = 300,000 Years
- Temperature 3000K
- Temperature is cool enough for electorns to attract to H and He nucleui - atoms formed
- "Proto"star formation in hot dense regions
8. Time 1 Billion years
- Accumulation of enough H-He to allow 1st stars to ignite
- Proto galaxies begin to form - corresponding vacuum of space

Thats the history of the universe for you. Kind of placed it in this post for fun. I'm bored and been drinking a bit yet its too early to go out just yet.

In case you are interested into where formation of earth comes into play I'll help you out. All you high school students take note maybe you can use this in one of the science classes you take

Estimates range for universe age most being between 13-20 billion years. Based on the "Red Shift" (Hubble I think discovered this). And by Cephid Stars (they pulse at a high rate and somehow they determine this I could explain the best I can but it would take too much time).

Our Solar system can be very precisely be estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. Oldest dated earth rock - 4.2 Billion. Now time for earth history:
1. At least 1 supernova explosion before matter in Earth can be formed (remember H and He were the only elements that existed at formation of universe... We have more than H and He right?)
2. Planetesimals form in our solar system (masses of matter)
3. Heavy elements settle to inside of planets (now I'm just goign to do earth now).
4. After 100,000 years our sun enters a T-Tauri stage where it expels 25% of its mass in a proton/electron plasma.
5. This explosion blows a good portion of the gases from the inner planets out to the gaseous planets.
6. Fairly long planetary accretion process of how elemental seggregation happened (that I will not get into-Smith and Ringwood models if you care to look them up)
7. Then sometime in accretion process when earth is still molten a big meteor hits it and displaces some of the matter, making up the moon. Trust me this is a logical model - I could provide you with elemental percentages of matter in earth and moon and compare it to smith and ringwood models and it would make sense.

Well I think this is my longest post ever by about 4 fold. Hopefully the people that cared enough to read this learned some. I find it pretty interesting.

If you are curious as to how I know this stuff, well I learned it from about the 3rd and 4th lectures in Geochemistry at my school. (I'm a geology major).

if we are talking about the universe it's creationism (the seven days described in the bible) or the big bang theory.

the big bang occured when something started it, it didnt just happen (although it did but something had to start it).

i believe that something was God, hence science and religion. there is no reason for them to be separate in my mind, yet i feel they dont need to be together if u see it that way

Many of you receive your original information from Origin of Species and the other fathers of Evolutionary theory. I think it is only fair that you listen to the words of Darwins close companion and another champion of Evolutionary theory. He does not specifically say that Evolution is bogus or any such thing but he does say that you cannot discount Creation. No one was there to observe the creation of the universe whether it was a big bang or a divine act. Because of that and because we cannot reproduce that original creation we cannot prove what happened. Science must be repeatable and observable to be true fact. The actual origin of the Universe will always be left up to explanation. Thus we cannot discount any theory of it's creation. Huxley, Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission that follows.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).
Creation by means of a divine being is entiredly possible. Either way you imagine the universe being created inspires such wonder at the mechanisms of nature and/or of a higher power. Isn't science and nature exciting?!

you mention the best evolvers in your 'proof' that evelution doesn't exist. Ever notice the EVOLUTION of the virus' that infect the human body? They develope imunities to our attempts to kill them. They evolve, in an abservable way, to circumvent our attempts at ending their existance. (change, over time, to continue their existance)

There are no facts that prove creationism. Every one who tries to convince me there is a god uses the same 'catch all' illusion. FAITH, which by deffinition, is belief without factual backing.

If you believe Darwin and quote him you must listen to his collegue and champion as well.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

The only reason you deny creation is that if you admit there MIGHT be some supreme being than you can be judged for you actions and you REFUSE to be accountable to anyone. It is a completely selfish viewpoint and the reason so many people refuse to think about anyone else but themselves. You are incorrigible and so closed minded you mind has rusted shut. Forget you people. I am without any hope for you to ever think with your own mind, instead of parroting others and to think of anyone else besides yourself.

This is actually a topic that has always interested me intensly... I have read a lot on it and have come to the following conclusion (simplified):

Evolution is a theory. BUT, it has a lot of credence. We can't just simply ignore millions of years of fossil records because we want to believe in God. If you look at evolution and the fossil record, it shows us that it has direction, not random mutations. Also, given a 15 billion year limit, even at a high mutation rate (and each mutation keeps its knowledge of previous mutuations to keep from mutating into its own death-most mutations are fatal), it's almost impossible to start from 1 unaware cell to what is there now. American Scientist, Popular Science, etc., have all discounted (I can find the dates of the articles) Evolution as a viable reason we are to the point we are at.

I believe that there is definitely a supreme being... call it God, Alien, or whatever... But it exists... (why not? Most people believe aliens HAVE to exist somewhere in the universe... what if one just exists outside of time?)

Now... the fun part... Christian faith and evolution.
If you look closely at the record of God creating the world in Genesis and the fossil record/scientific data, the steps they state coincide exactly... From what first was created, to man...

I can get some more info if you'd like... let me know.

I beleive the theory is that it is all dark matter.

----------------------------

One thing that drives me crazy about conversations on this subject is that people will say I don't buy into the theory of evolution because there are not enough facts. Then turn right around and say I believe in creation, something that is based on faith with no fact at all.

If you can have faith in religion and in a God that created everything without any fact or proof other than the your own faith, then why not believe something that has some proof to it.

Within the next 20 years they will find a planet like ours in a near by galaxy. That planet could possibly have life on it. I cannot wait to have this discussion again at that time.

Which reminds me of the popular theory, that religion and especially polytheist religions came into existence because of alien visits in a distant past. I didnt give it much thought until I read the biblical prophecies of Ezechiel, where he describes some sort of epyphany in great detail which can easily interpreted as a space age-aircraft .

You can read the text here or in the stolen hotel-bible of your choice.

Chapters 1 and 10 are especially recommended. In chapter 40 Ezechiel describes a vision where he is shown the exact blueprint and measures of the New Temple. Make up your own mind why God would go to such lenghts to have his "house" built according to exact technical specifications :]

Of course the POSSIBILITY, of a creator is real. In that, there is not currently a logical explaination for what caused the begining of the Big Bang. I grant that a creator possibly exists/existed, but not the one/ones claimed in all the current religions. None of the current religions even account for the length of time earth has been in existance. Nore the length of time that man as we know him has been here.
When I consider that a mutation/change that makes an eagle see sharper, and thus a better hunter, makes him live when available food is scarce. I have to believe that, since he lives, and poor sighted eagles starve (and have no childrens) evolution is being proved.

Along the same lines.

It is obvious that people can not live on Antarctica. There is not enough food, nor shelter from the extreme elements. So, people don't live there. Were it not for religion, PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE STARVING IN AFRICA. Since those regions in Africa do not produce enough food, the people dumb enough to stay there, die, and have no childrens. Religion, in the form of missionaries, bring them food. Which teaches them nothing about the oldest law on earth besides gravity. Natural Selection. If you can't servive in a place, you move or DIE.
I realize it's a streach but it's a case of Religion trying to thwart Evolution. (and failing I might add)

Charity vs Evolution?
Which is best for the future of earth/mankind?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by harry

You can read the text here or in the stolen hotel-bible of your choice.

Amazing,
Some guy has a serious mushroom trip, writes it down, and the guys who created the bible add it to their story.
This truely could have been 'the word of god' or a visit from Aliens. by his discription, but, could also be a mushroom trip, or a sleep deprivation trip, or just a dream.
Unless I missunderstood the text. (which is possible since I only speak english)

"None of the current religions even account for the length of time earth has been in existance. Nore the length of time that man as we know him has been here."

As to the length of time that the earth/universe has been here - We do not know for a fact what that length of time is. We can guess based on carbon dating but even that might be wrong at times. There have been times in order to test it's accuracy that things that we know are only hundreds of years old have tested out at millions. The way it works is it measures the amount of carbon remaining in a formerly living thing. There is carbon in any living form and as the creature/human remains deteriorate that carbon decreases. If there was a world wide flood as the Bible suggests then the pressure of that amount of water would increase the rate of deterioration in some things. Also there are other factors such as the type of soil or ground that the thing is buried in that affect that rate of deterioration. The rate will also slow as the remains become older. Inertia always decreases over time. This leaves us with a different rate then which the remains began to deteriorate at. Though carbon dating gives us a useful tool to guess the age of the earth and other things we do not really truely know because no one was there to observe the creation/formation of the universe or earth.

As to the validity of the Bible. You might find the book "The Bible Was My Treasure Map" an interesting read. The author (who's name I cannot remember at this time) is an athiest but he treats the Bible as a useful historical record. Using it's accounts of early civilizations he manages to make many successful archeological digs that bring him many objects intact and in good condition. He does not place any stake in the prophecies or words of any diety but he does show that the Bible wasn't written completely by crazies. Take a look at the book you might well enjoy it.

I apologize. Dear old Hubby Dei37 used my computer last night and I didn't realize that I was still logged in as dei37 not as myself. The above post was from me.

Can you post a link or something of an example of something carbon dating a million years old but only being a few hundred years old. Carbon dating to my understanding is accurate within 100 years or so.

That is a perfectly justified request. I will see what I can find. I don't know of any link on the web. This I got from my reading over the years and I am sorry to say I would have to go back through my books. I will give you the reference or link as soon as I find it.

Great. Not saying you are wrong...I just though I was right :)

Here is one item I have found in my resources that might be of interest.

Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.

Also a link which I'm sure may spark a bit of controversy since it is from a Creation Science Research site. It tells what I have heard elsewhere. I will attempt to find the information in another source which which you will be more confident in.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm

Kind of off the subject but still related, how do Christians explain dinosaurs and such? Do you beleive that man was created first and just hid from the gigantic beasts? If so, what killed off them but not the humans?

Several things:

First... Where are the dinosaurs? OK, The problem with translated text is that you miss out on all the original rythyms and sentence structures and WORDS the writers originally used. Dinosaurs ARE mentioned in Genesis. They just aren't described as "Dinosaurs". Looking at the original text, the writer describes "Large Lizard creatures" that roam the Earth.

-Second: Carbon dating can definitely have its flaws... ever try dating a cigarette you just smoked? Yeah... it's millions of years old.

-Days: In the Bible, It explicitly states that God's days are not the same as ours. Also, (this also goes with the BIG BANG) time is relative. We have proven over and over that gravity and speed affect time. Now imagine the universe when God sets it in motion with the big bang... Can you imagine how much gravity was at that initial point? It was tremendous. So, at that point in the timeline, one "day" was a long ass time ("Days" is a liberal use of the words, since it would still take a LONG time before there were 'our' days). As the universe expanded, days began to slow down since the gravitational forces became spread.

-Another thing... Everytime GOD interacts with someone in the bible, it is through nature... So, why is it hard to say that God didn't just set us in motion with the big bang and everything since then (including evolution) did happen because of his original planning? When a clock maker makes a clock, he lets a person buy it. Maybe the clock will glitch here and there, but for the most part, it works on its own until it basically collapses on itself (dies) and needs to be replaced.

A GREAT book on these subjects is The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. Amazon's summary states "Schroeder (Genesis and the Big Bang, LJ 9/15/90) is an Israeli physicist and scholar of Genesis who maintains that a properly understood Bible and a properly understood science provide consistent sets of data. In recent decades, scientific discoveries in cosmology, paleontology, and quantum physics do not demonstrate or prove the activity of God, but they do remove conflict with that activity. Rapprochement occurs when believers read the Bible on the Bible's terms, avoiding literalism, and when scientists realize that science is powerless to pronounce on a purpose for life. Schroeder is very lucid in explaining difficult scientific concepts, such as the passage of time according to the theory of relativity, and religious data, such as the original Hebrew words. Schroeder's careful and responsible handling of the data on origins from science and Genesis 1, combined with a fresh, judicious correlation between the two, is compelling. Highly recommended.?Eugene O. Bowser, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Greeley"


Check it out... he's written several books on the subject and, even if you reject what he is saying, it is damn interesting.

Very interesting Mac God. This was the theory held by Benjamin Franklin and many around that time. Believing that God was the master clockwinder. I have learned that just swallowing what all those "authorities" in my religion say has not been the best route for me. Many of those would disagree with that theory but so far as I can tell it makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the reading suggestion.

Good words raeanna... The movie Stigmata sums my feelings on the subject... I was raised strict Baptist.. but college changes people and the movie definitely sums my feelings up now...

In the words of Bill Nye, The Science Guy:
Please Consider The Following:

The Big Bang is a THEORY (which is better than a hypothesis but has not been proven) because it can't be proven, no one was there.

It has become a postulate, which we know from geometry to be a theory that is accepted as fact. The Big Bang is accepted this way for the same reason it is a thoery; it can't be proven, no one was there.

Therefore people that dismiss religion solely on the basis that it is religion, MUST dismiss science for the same reason; science as well as religion is an explaination of nature, it was created by man.

Nature created neither science nor religion, nor do either COMPLETELY explain nature. Nature being the natural world, etc...

Thank You For Considering The Previous.

very true

Re: The creation of the universe.. Evolution or Religion..?
 

Why not? Micro-evolution is in effect around us every day. It is observable fact. Is it so hard to imagine that over the course of 100 million years these small changes could amount to much larger ones?

It's likely... but one thing science proves time and time again that the likeliness of something happening that extreme (to push evolution forward) is sooo minute, it's basically impossible. And for it to happen OVER and OVER is another impossibility that is incalculable. A way to relate the kind of 'luck' evolution would have to get from beginning to us was described this way:
Fill Texas up with nickels up to 8 feet. Paint the side of ONE nickel red. Now, the chances of every step of evolution getting us to where we are now would be the same as you randomly picking that RED nickel everytime you tried.

Your analogy is flawed in that evolution does not have a presupposed goal (ie - find the red nickle). It is a series of subtle shifts in genotype that expresses due to environmental pressure. As I said before, you can watch it in action (peppered moths being by far the best example).

Now if I had a fish in my hand and said to myself: "I want this to become a human in a million generations.", then yes, the odds are improbable in the extreme. But that is simply not how it works.

Yes... but the chances of things evolving the way they have and the massive amount of variation-that was what my analogy was for...the chance of that happening over and over is so small that anyone looking at it logically can conclude that it wouldn't be likely or possible. Yes, it's possible to flip a coin 10 thousand times and get nothing but heads, but what is the chance of that happening?

Well, there are no odds. It is random occurance that has brought us to the point we are at (if you have to assign odds to it then probability is 1). If there was no adaptation (evolution) we would not be having this conversation, because there would be no life left on the planet.

The chance of lightning hitting you is unbeleivably small, but if you are struck by lightning you do not dispute the fact because of the odds.

yeah... but you're not realizing that evolution isn't gradual! It's these sudden birsts! Look at the fossil record... for these to happen consistently, its like getting struck by lightning consistently in everywhere you go... it just doesn't happen unless you are carying a tire rod ...

It's not really that sudden. We are talking about periods of 10's of thousands of years at a minimum. It does come in bursts, but that is a factor of the earths environmental conditions (namely the ice-age cycle and extiction level events such as meteor strikes and large volcanic eruptions).

Yes, evolution has flaws, but what do creationists have? a book.
a book written thousands of years ago when people were even dumber than we are today. The bible was written in an attempt to explain the ways of the world before they had any other methods (science). So sure, there are loopholes in the theory of evolution, but it is still a lot more justifiable than creation.

Also, although it seems childish, the x-men movies opened my eyes to a certain possibility. They mentioned that every so often in the evolutionary chain, a mutation occurs (the mutants). To me, this explains the missing link. I now believe that there isn't really a missing link, but it was an inexplicable mutation in the evolutionary chain.

A series of mutations is all evolution is.

you have a one in two chance of it happening, each time.

I think debaser made a lot of the points I was going to make so I'll instead breifly address Otaku.

You're right, a one and two chance each time, but in order to address combined probability you have to multiply independent probabilities. So for the flipping of the coin 10 thousand times and only getting heads the probability for this is (1/2)^(10,000). A very small number.

The Mac God's logic is flawed in other respects that debaser pointed out. If discussion flares up again, I'll be here to help articulate these arguments.

This has been mostly about evolution. Now I believe evolution is how we became what we are. ever since that star exploded and became our solar system. Hey, were all related. We are stardust if you will.
But did the universe start at some point? Is it possible that the universe just came to be? That is, was there a time before time?
thinking about this I started to consider the circle of time thing. How can time start or end? I don't belive things just appear out of nothing.
So religion can explain these things.. based on nothing.
Where does this god or whatever come from?

as for evolution, First there was just molecules trying to be like the "noble-gases"(im from sweden.) like helium and such. They find systems wich lead to cells,, and from there they adapt,, and become more complex.. and that is evolution.. One day us humans might not have hair you know.. the process has started.. LOng ago

i would prefer to belive in creationism, but i read one to many science books, and i just couldn't lie to my self any more.

I believe in God....A christian god....an all knowing omnipotent god... for many reasons of which the following are two......

One is the theory of the uncaused cause.........or "Theos" to the ancient philosophers....Before the first cause (or event) there was some thing that caused the first cause. (is that circular enough?) Before existence something existed......

Secondly there is the paradox of belief....If you believe in god and there is no god you sacrafice little but, if you don't believe in god and god exists you sacrafice your eternal soul. From the first example you can see that waiting for the last cause could be a very long time.

Knowing the unknowable seems like the ultimate attempt at futility.....Imagine a circle that represents the whole of human intelligence....The larger the circle the larger the border of the unknown becomes.....soon no man can know all there is to know...soon after that all mankind cannot know all there is to know.........

Good luck trying :-)

Mac Gods logic is flawed I feel.
the laws of probability break down for very high numbers. For example, there are thousands of roullette wheels spinning around the globe as you read this. They have spun constantly 24 hours for say the last 50 years. Now taking the number of spins into account (billions) you would have expected an unbroken run of at least ONE of the even chances (high/low . .red/black . . odd/even) to be have reached a reasonably high figure by now . . . I undertstand that 26 reds in a row is as much as has ever been witnessed.

The point being that whilst 100 reds in a row are 'theoretically' expected given the large number of spins to date, in reality, the 'abnormal spikes' or deviations do not proceed past a certain point . . despite you doing the matematics to 'prove' to yourself that they do.

Conversely, whilst it is statistically unlikely that you will ever win the lottery . . 'someone' always does . . . . . every week!

Whilst I am robust enough to make up my own mind . . . its this kind of subtly 'threatening' language in attempting to instill fear in people (in particular primary school children), based entirely on your own philosophy, that causes atheists to lose respect and tar religious folk with the same brush. We have nothing to fear except fear itself . . . . . . . I never understood the term" are you a god-fearing man?" . . . . . . . . where's the free will? No-one wants to live in fear . . . real or imagined.

The reason for my dime explaination is only for scientific probability... Science itself says that anything remotley possible will most LIKELY not happen... especially over and over. Yes, it's possible to throw 10000 heads or the roulette wheel, but would you bet on your friend doing it? Or yourself? I think not... Or would you bet on someone who created a machine that could always throw heads?

unfortunately yours is flawed, we are not talking about a period of 50 year, we are talking about billions (~14.9billion) and we are not talking about just this planet, which some people have the audacity to think we are the only planet out there. We are talking about the chance that on one of the billions of planets over the billions of years something occurred.



Lets see you wanted 100 reds on a roulette wheel 1 spin every second for 50 years. Roughly 2.6x10^7 spins

In roulette there are 38 out comes 18 black 18 red 2 green rights?

18/38= .47368 ya I think I can do that. Let me have a bit to write program to see if I can get 100 'red' in a row with in 2.6x10^ spins

this should take me 30 min to run or so

Missing my point Dilbert! Your programme will run the numbers and tell you that, given the number of roulette tables in the world and the fact that there have been probably 1000s spinning constantly worldwide for many many years . . . then in 'theory' there should have been 500 reds in a row by now . . . . but there hasn't . . there have only been 26 because your tidy little theory of probability does NOT apply for very large samples . . . . . its the 'law of high numbers' . . probabilty calculations do not work for large numbers.

Evolution is a bit like these threads on the TFP . . they meander off course and then come back on topic . . . in a random and unpredictable way. . . . by your logic, a thread on 'Evolution' . . if it continued long enough, would 'eventually' touch on the topic of 'australian beaver cheese' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .but by my reckoning I suspect that no matter how long the thread runs . .it will stay roughly on topic, swerving off down the odd dead-end every now and again but never drifting too far . . NO MATTER how long the thread runs.

hmm..

ok, first, i don't feel like reading the whole thread atm
and second, i don't have any sort of long, involved, researched and thought-out ideas on this (unlike some of you, which i admire)

but regarding the original question/post, it seems like 2 totally separate things here.

because, We, as humans, are NoT _The Universe_
we are just some animals living on one of god-knows-how-many (yes, god with a small 'g') - planets in this vast space...

neways...when i think of 'evolution' i think of, for example, how we as humans, &/or the other animals, came to be on this planet.

when i think of how the Universe started, i do not think of evolution, rather, the big bang, or whatever other theories there may be.

so i guess, i think this should've been two separate discussions, in order to keep things more clear.

dunno, that's just my 2 cents.

:)

Youre right about this thread... it meanders off course until one of us puts it back on... and the ONLY reason we now would touch "austrailian beaver cheese", is because you DIRECTED us to that and not because of chance... (I never knew there was such a thing)

I guess by mentioning australian beaver chees I actually proved myself wrong! Doh!

lol...

On the evolution and probability theme . . . . . . consider that the earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years (or whatever) . . . humans have had the technology for sending signals into space (or receiving them) for the last 50 or so! Now even if we are all around for another million years before we die of disease our wipe ourselves out by war or we are hit by a meteor . . that 'million years' timeslot (during which we have capability to send and recieve) is relatively a blink of an eye in the great scheme of things.

Now assuming 1000 other planets evolved intelligent life at various random 'million year' timeslots in a similar way over the countless billions of years . . then it would actually be a miracle if 2 such evolved planets coincidentally co-existed in the same time frame . . . hence our sense of being all alone.

I believe our lives are all story book fiction. Nobody really knows the truth to anything. There is no logic to answers nor is there any real answers to logic. I think evolution was created by a wondering mind. Evolution has many faults found in the history and everything to this point makes no sence at all. God is something like a character in a story. He is a superhero as some put it. He is like a Santa claus in our society, He is a way to make death look good so no one will be scared anymore. I believe that there is no God nor is there any clear signs of evolution.

. . . . . . well I cant see any signs of God but there are plenty of jig-saw pieces to build a picture of evolution . . a few of them might be in the wrong place but its pretty convincing . . you dont need all the bits to see the picture.

I have never seen a tiger . . but I beleive people when they tell me they exist . . . . . . . . . not so with God . . other than as a concept or idea in your mind. Even religoius folks dont think God 'actually' exists other than as a relative concept.

OK... so you say that mostly seeing is believing... Well... have you ever seen the wind? No, you've seen the effects of the wind... not the wind itself... much like 'God'... the effects of god are a controlled direction of life... called evolution...

the speed and strength of the wind can be precisely measured, and predicted (to varying degrees). It is moving air. No-one disputes the existence of the physical phenomenon know as 'wind'.

God is not so easy to pin down. A better analogy would be to pick another abstract concept . . . . . like 'love'. You can say Gods is like love . . . . . . . neither 'really' exist outwith the minds of humans.

no... you missed the point... a lot of people base their beliefs on seeing... well... you can't see the wind! no matter how you slice it...

the best way, combinfing the best of both worlds, faith and science, if i had not lost the faith that is how i would be.

And this right here is my proof that their is no god and if there is he is not YOUR GOD.

Any being that would create all that we know would not make me able to think and reason only to damn me to hell for not having enough fact to believe in him.

I am not afraid of your god.

My friend made me believe in both Creationism, Evolution, and all of that.

His theory was that time extended infinitely backwards and forwards, so there was never a start or a stop - It just 'is'.
Assuming that evolution always happens, and if time happens infinitely back, then something had to happen before us, and that's where theirs the idea of a higher being. Humans are higher then say, a dog. So what's to say that the higher being isn't just a more evolved version of us? In theory it could work if you somehow find a way around the big bang/crunch theory. I believe this theory, and with creationism, if something extends that far back, we can't be the first to figure out gene therapy, and all that other exciting and fun stuff, so we could also be the spawn of the 'higher creature' in our or someone else's evolution scale.

Also, with this idea, the higher being always has a higher being above that, and there's always a lower being in the future below us, so there's no 'true' higher being, just those that show themselves above humans, or whichever is above them.

interesting article...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/935413.asp?0ql=c9p

Man's logic is failed (including mine), he will never figure out how the universe came to be with his current logic, and mental abilities. The only way he will know is if he evolves into a creature with a different unknown logic pattern, or he goes and meet a "creator" in the next life. My guess is something started the pattern, because i have never heard a completly sound reason for how matter was created from nothing.

The belief of a God comes from Man's illogic. Logically, there is no reason to believe in a God. You also strike me as someone with an ego; because you can't figure out how the universe came about, "no one possibly could either".


According to the theory of relativity, time began with the Big Bang. For that reason, all the matter in the universe already existed when time began. As a result, there was no matter created from nothing.

why does there have to be a beginning to the universe? can't we just accept that time is cyclical and the universe has always been, and probably always will be?

We could accept that, but is it true?

It's funny you say that because you say it like you know it is fact. There is no more probability that is true than the Universe was created...

just about every natural process is a cycle in some form or another, why wouldn't that extend to the depths of space? I'd say the probability of that is greater than the creationist argument of 'there's a higher spiritual being who decided to create the universe, the earth, and all creatures on it just for us humans, his "greatest" creation' :rolleyes:

I believe in a little bit of both...but i dont' have a definitive answer do too lack of evidence to support either side.

Okay, here is the theory i subscibe to about how OUR universe as we know it came to be. Scientists have recently been theorising over what is called a "white" hole. I the centre of our galaxy, there is a great big mass of stars and matter, seemingly coming out of nowhere. But matter is also dissapearing. Black holes suck matter in, they even suck light in. Scientists believe that there are other universes, and we are just one black holes "stomach", what is in our universe is what the black hole has eaten. The matter comes in FROM the black hole on the other side thru a WHITE hole, which spews matter, light and energy everywhere. The black holes in our universe are believed to lead into other universes, and so forth. Our big bang may have just been the creation of the black hole on the other side, and henceforth the creation of our universe. I am a big believer in evolution, there is no way in hell any entity would create such an imperfect thing that is our universe. Anyone wishing to challenge me, feel free to do so

A very elegant theory, but unfortunately that is not how Black Holes work.

Black holes are local phenomenon. Universes are somewhat larger.

A Black Hole is just a collapsed neutron star. Although it is refered to as a "singularity", the term is a misnomer. It has a definite volume, and that volume grows as it accumulates matter from other objects.

The only theory similar to yours(and one not adhered to by many, I might add) regarding what happens to a Black Hole is that eventualy the matter (and therefore energy) contained in the singularity reaches a "critical mass" of sorts and manifests as a quasar. Again, let me stress the disclaimer that there is very little hard science behind this, it is speculation at best.

Where did the matter come from to create "time"

[B]The belief of a God comes from Man's illogic. Logically, there is no reason to believe in a God. You also strike me as someone with an ego; because you can't figure out how the universe came about, "no one possibly could either".

Those were not my words "no one possibly could either". I just think that mans logic is flawed in some unforseeable way. No man has solved where we have come from yet, so its not just me who can't figure it out, its you as well. Theory of relativity, is still just that a theory. creation hasn't been proven. nothing has been proven yet.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sportsrule101
err rephrase the question please. Matter didn't create time...

Read the bold text. You stated that you and the rest of humanity can't figure out how the universe was created. I just was paraphrasing what you said.

Wtf do you mean by "man's logic"?

I quote John Rennie:

debaser
your quote regarding black holes. Scientists claim that in the very centre of the galaxy is a giant black hole, which, along with all the little black holes, suck matter, energy, pretty much anything that comes too close. According to Newton Magazine, white holes are not a local phenomenon, but exist in ares of space that are too cluttered to examine thoroughly.

By local I was refering not to objects nearby, but rather a definable point, which is absent in the case of a "white hole", ie local vs. global (or in this case universal).

The matter at the center of galaxies in general is not coming out of nowhere. It is, in many cases, moving inward toward what are theorized to be supermassive black holes. The acceleration and condensation of this matter can itself form stars in addition to the ones being pulled towards the center already. Even in cases not involving black holes the tidal forces at the center of a galaxy can create stars rapidly (< a million years). These stars don't live very long, as they are usually the victims of collisions or the same gravity that formed them.

Unfortunately a star cannot survive being pulled into a black hole, it is a long process, and it invariably destroys the star. Therefore it would be highly unlikely to discover an object that ejected whole stars (if you were implying that in your first post, you may not have been).

You guys are forgetting that black holes are still theories. We have pictures of things we THINK are black holes, but that's it.

Although still theoretical, black holes are accepted by the scientific community as a whole. Not only is the science behind them solid, they show up where predicted and behave as predicted. Of course you can't take a picture of a black hole, that is impossible by the very nature of the object, but we can watch the behavior of objects around (and behind) black holes. This behavior is our "picture" of the 'hole.

so... anyone had some good australian beaver cheese recently?

Looks as though someone has read SCIAM. :D

:D

I totally agree with that description... its almost like describing God... Just replace 'black hole' with 'God'.

Thats ridiculous. Just because we can't SEE something, doesn't mean that we don't know it exists. We can't see gravity, but we can observe its effects. We can't see atoms, but we can infer their existence. We cannot see planets outside of our own solar system, but we can observe the effect that they have on objects close to them.

I find it both hillarious and a little bit frightening that so many people spout "facts" about the origin of all things as if they were actually there, watching it all begin.

I believe in God, but none of us have the "facts", so don't be such assholes to one another just because you don't agree on something. If there is a God, he is a GOD, and you are His creation, which means it's probably not even possible for you to understand His methods or His reasons, much less how He did it all, what His "formula" was.

And if there is not a God, then no one has anything to worry about. Rapists and murderers and Sunday school teachers will all rot together, side by side, forever.

:confused:

What would you suggest? We all live in a solipsitic paradigm and never attempt to figure out our world? You know you don't have to see something to know it's there...right?

I also believe in God, and I accept both evolution and the big bang. I don't see a conflict between the three. It's only when people start asserting that their 2000+ year old book should be taken as authority, especially when it not only contradicts itself, but also science.

I have only read through the first page of this thread, and I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said already, but here it goes anyways.

1st what are these holes in evolution, like Phoenix said? Every time it has had to step up and prove itself to skeptics, it has stood it's ground.

People keep saying we can't see evolution happen, but there are common examples happening all around us. Take resistant bacteria. Say someone has the flu; we pump them full of medicine and kill almost all the virus cells except for the ones that have some type of resistance to the drug. These survivors then multiply, passing their genes on, and voila a new version, hell arguable a new species of the influenza bug is born within a few generations. Now this is with human intervention, but the same thing happens in the natural world, accept with things other then massive waves of poison thinning the population, more simple things like predators, food shortages, and droughts. Those animals best suited to survive these events pass on their traits, and after generations, these traits become the norm.

Now what about the making of new species? What makes a group of animals not only separate by a few traits, but by their ability to breed with each other? Lets take our own evolution (as well as explaining why there are still apes in the world). A group of apes are separated when the Great Rift Valley is formed; one group remains in a forest, and evolves into the great apes we see today, perfectly adapted to live in the trees. Now the other group is in a much more severe condition. They have to adapt to the grasslands that they now inhabit. To look over the tall grasses to avoid predators and find food, they learn to stand on their back legs, freeing up their hands for the creation of tools (of course this takes millions of years to happen). These half monkey, half man creatures do appear on the fossil record. Fossils like those of Lucy, or homo habillis, or homo erectus..or the ones with the longer names that I’m far to tired to try and spell and to lazy to look up at the moment.

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, evolution is described like a tennis tournament. Obviously, in any tournament, there must be a winner, and in a game of skills, this of course is the most skilled. But in nature you have to throw luck and random chance into it, so lets say after each point, the loser has to play Russian roulette. Now there is still a higher probability for the most skilled player to win the tournament, even with luck. As is the case with those that are best suited to survive pass on their genes.

Many people think that it is impossible for a molecule as complex as DNA to occur by chance. But in nature, those things that are best suited to be together, stay together. Take the sentence TOBEORNOTTOBE. By randomly typing in letters, it would take billions of combinations before you eventually got this. But lets say you first get the T, then after that the O, after that the B, all the way until the whole sentence is complete. This would just take a few hundred tries, and explains how, if the proteins, molecules and atoms found in DNA would stick to each other, and eventually form the entire strand (which wouldn't be nearly as complex as it is today)

Humanity isn't the last step in evolution, in fact we are just another branch in the great tree of life. And ya i believe in evolution over creationism

"You're right, a one and two chance each time, but in order to address combined probability you have to multiply independent probabilities. So for the flipping of the coin 10 thousand times and only getting heads the probability for this is (1/2)^(10,000). A very small number."

I don't know why Creationists continue to use this argument. Basically, the amount of possible "things" that could have happened is high enough to be infinity. There is a 1 in a high number chance of anything happening.... Our evolution wasn't the only possible thing that could have happened. What you are saying is the same as saying since there is an INCREDIBLY small chance of my genes ending up like they did, I must not exist. And it is the same thing. There are many others ways I could have ended up though. Evolution could have followed a different path. Open your mind and realize that even though humans can't comprehend senses outside the kind we have, or a different kind of life, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Also, evolution is selective, not random. There is a higher probability of animals that are more genetically fit surviving, and as a result, new more complex and efficient life forms arise. Why are apes still alive? It's call isolation, and the fact that animals evolve to adapt to their environments. This is key. If a species spreads itself out in two different environments, the path of evolution each group follows will be different, and result in two different species after millions of years. It really makes plenty of sense. So much sense that to deny it takes place or is at least very possible is quite illogical. How could someone choose the accounts of the Bible over that?

I agree with you Uocom, it's a post-hoc argument.

I can't remember who it was, but someone stated it like this: Take 52 cards and pick out five cards at random. After you pick them out, realize that the probability of picking those specific cards is very slim.

Same goes for evolution.

Religion vs Evolution
 

I did a search on this but it was hard to narrow it down to find anything.. so here it goes..

I was just very curious as to what everyones thoughts were about this.

All the time, I see people who refuse to believe in the evidence of evolution.. as well as people who beleive the grand canyon was created in a matter of days from the flood. Earth created in a matter of days, ect. What does everyone here think?

Personally I am not a very religious person, its just something that has never been in my life. As such, evolution is how I see things...

I apologize if there is a huge discussion on this I just didn't see it.

Five pages.

Knock yourself out ;)

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ight=evolution

Thanks=)

Qucikest ....thread....ever.

Actually it's usually called creation v. evolution, because it's primarily a Christian fundamentalist position. There are entire MB's devoted to the topic (I should know, I moderate one :D ).

from a buddy's profile, I found this link: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

in it are science fair projects based around creationism. One or two were very... entertaining, heres the best I found:

Now I dont really intend to start a flame war, although this is perfect tinder for such, there are equally outrageous projects that try to support Darwin's theories too, but in order to keep the middle line here, I find it interesting to note that the Pope even said that the theory of evolution may be more than a theory and could be used to explain God's plan of creation. (paraphrased, I dont remember exact wording)

Now why cant we all get along like that guy's political mind?

Oh sweet fuck! I haven't laughed so hard in a LONG LONG time! I feel so guilty laughing at a 13 year old!

Thank you for posting that all the same! :thumbsup:

I should have used that instead of the damn volcano ... what was I thining... everyone does the stupid volcano.....

Ah! That's hilarious! Man if i could just get away with that kind of logic all the time....

Until about 5 years ago i didn't actually realise there were people in the world who beleived in 'creation' the entire concept seemed in the same league as Santa or the Easter Bunny - boy was in for a shock! I still find it utterly silly and am yet to see one serious arguement for it. (no, i'm not asking for one, that five page waste of space contained enough).

Here's an interesting way of explaining creation and evolution in the same breath that I discovered recently:

Imagine if you will, God playing Sim Life. He lays the groundwork and sets everything up, but then proceeds to get bored and hit the speed up button until things look the way he wanted. Thus God used both creation and evolution to solve his problems.

Try whipping that puppy out in either conservative or liberal groups. Everyone hates the middle man!

Everyone hates the middle man because he's not very interesting. It tends to be the easy way out.

This is a bit more complicated than it's usually made out to be.

I'll start with the scientific side....

This is mainstream biology:

Evolution, or decent with modification is fact. This is no longer debated, it is the mechanisms by which this happens that are debated.

Darwinian mechanism - This is pretty solidly accepted. This is that variation and selection business, its responsible for novelty and adaptation. And something that is extremely important in all of this, but often not understood: it is not intrinsically progressive. In other words all that stuff about an evolutionary ladder is just popular fiction, a human is as 'evolved' as a cockroach.

Those two concepts are not what biologists are debating, its other mechanisms that are currently being talked about: genetic drift, mass extinctions, etc...

There are also lots of open questions:

Is change concentrated in speciation? In other words, do organisms undergo drastic change when there is a split or is it gradual?

How does sybiosis play a role? For example, it is believed that modern eukaryotic cells arose from sybiotic relationships between primitive cells. Mitochondria have their own DNA and are thought to have been independent cells are some point.

Basically, mainstream biology thinks evolution is Darwinian, but not always gene-centered, gradualist, etc.. Impo

Now, other disciplines factor into evolution as well. Physics for example, has non-equilibrium thermodynamics. What this is is not important, just realize that if mainstream biology's evolution is thrown out the window, so must a lot of physics, notably modern physics. (Creationists often have a problem with modern physics but they love Newtonian physics, and this ties into purpose.)

Now to the creationist side...

There are people who are anti-science creationists, in other words the only infallible truth is the Bible, and so much the worse for anything that contradicts it. They pretty much think science is bunk.

Then there are young-earth creationists, who are what most people think of when we say creationists. They do not dislike science, in fact they respect it greatly, which is why they try to give their arguments scientific credibility. Young-earth creationists interepret the Bible literally, that is they believe that there was a worldwide flood, that the earth was created in literally six days some 6000 years ago, that our ancestors are Adam and Eve, etc....

Next there are old-earth creationists. They think science is good, they are ok with the scientific age of the earth, but they still do not believe in a common ancestor.

There are also progressive creationists, and their beliefs are most easily described with a diagram. Visualize a tree of the species evolving from a common ancestor as mainstream biologists suggest. Now, progressive creationists see it like this, whereever there is a branching off, each one of those events is a creation itself. So their tree is not connected.

There are also guided creationists, who believe that life does have a common ancestor, but they do not buy the Darwinian mechanism, they don't believe species arise from selection, but rather that evolution is 'guided' somehow.

There is also the intelligent design camp, who insist on explicit design, leave age issue open. There is also New Age Evolutionary Creation (descent OK, mechanism not; immanent spiritual unfolding), and Non-religious anti-Darwinism (left-wing: oppose competitive elements)

So as you can see, people can be all over the map when it comes to this stuff. If you analyze the different positions, you will see that a fundamental difference between what is scientifically accepted as evolution and what is creation is purpose. Creationists say that there must be a driving force for everything at some level, a reason. The secientific community, on the other hand acknowledges that there is no purpose, or even progress that it is all just random.

Here is where the rejection of modern physics by creationists comes into play. If you only know of Newtonian physics, then nothing is random. Everything that exists has a cause. So if you are given every possible variable in a situation, if you could take everything into account, you would be able to predict the outcome of a seemingly random event, such as the roll of a die. By the same logic you could predict all of the evolutionary changes by knowing all of the variables. Basically everything happens for a reason, at some level.

Modern physics throws all of that upside down with the notion that quantum events are truly random. Given all of the facts (which itself is not possible, since there is no way to observe some things), there is no way to predict the outcome of an event. Everything exists without reason, it just is. This is very counterintuitive, but that is how modern physics is often described. So, since the big bang was a quantum event, random and not progressive, so must everything that follows be, without purpose.

Maybe its a little more complicated than people think, but its also not mutually exclusive. Darwin couldn't find evidence to disprove the actions of God and Christians for the most part support science. The only thing still seperating the two camps is the stubborn conclusion that one of them has to be right and the other has to be wrong.