God vs. Science

[YoTa_BoX]

Who cares what you're for?

But it's pretty obv what "side" you are trying to defend. Don't act brand new... it's not sexy. My post is directed at any1 who is a bible thumper. If that's you - then it's meant for you - if not, carry on.

well you quoted me so is why i said what i said... when you quote what some one says you generally are aiming at them... lol and how did i act brand new? oh well...To be honest im not for either side. Im still learning more and more about each side. I do read the bible and at the same time am an avid science person.

[Maniac1]

Yota, you gonna answer my question or ignore it because you know im right?

[YoTa_BoX]

Yota, you gonna answer my question or ignore it because you know im right?

lol well in the case of Pastors and scientist they Did do the research that you refuse to do.. so no they can keep doing what they studied for. There is a diff between your uneducated ranting and some one who has spent Years learning both sides.

[Maniac1]

lol well in the case of Pastors and scientist they Did do the research that you refuse to do.. so no they can keep doing what they studied for. There is a diff between your uneducated ranting and some one who has spent Years learning both sides.

But like you said, I had no proof to back up any of my posts. Right? Pastors and Scientists don't either, on alot of things. So answer my question, should they stop doing what they're doing, yes or no? I mean, you can continue trying to disprove my theory on this subject, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Do you really want to win, or just look good losing?

[YoTa_BoX]

lol im not losing anything man. And i said no they should not stop what they are doing, yet again where you did not take the time to read and educate your self. Im not trying to disprove anything. Your the OP of this thread and im just telling you before you try and make a post about something Read a damn Book about it first before Blabbing on and making your self look like a dumb ass. Those pastors and those Scientist continue to learn more every day to gain knowledge. No one person can know every thing about anything. But you on the other hand dont want to learn all you can on both sides to make an educated post. Dont get your panties in a wad man, you asked for opinions and im giving you mine. Like i said in my post..im for neither side as of right now.. but i can open mindedly look at both sides unlike you.

[Duke E. Love]

relegion and faith is for people that are affraid to die. thank u that is all

[Vayda]

I'm going to try and be as logical as possible about this....

Firstly, I think we can all agree that religions (note the plural, all religions) exist to answer three fundamental questions: Where do we come from, where are we going, and why are we here.

Science has answers to all three of these questions, and very logical ones at that. We come from chance, evolution has pushed us to the top of the food chain. It was pure chance that Lucy climbed down from her tree one day in the primeval Savannah and stood up to look for predators over the high grass. It was pure chance that her descendants chose to pick up the first tools that lead us to Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and later, Homo Sapiens. When we die, we go to nothing. Our body stops functioning, our thoughts fade, and if we live on, the only form in which we do so is via our works in life (ie, our writings, achievements, goals, children, et cetera.) We are here need not be answered. We come from chance, therefore we are here by chance. Can anyone disagree with these? Please provide me a logical explanation if you can.

The second question is, I think, slightly more important than the other two, because it seems to also determine another fundamental characteristic of religion: The existence and purpose of the soul. If you believe that all religion is, more or less, a crock of ****, then there can be no soul. The essential qualities of each person are genetic, or a product of the environment in which they were raised. Because of this, I'm going to focus a little more on the second question than the first or third. I'm also going to discuss four major religions: Christianity (and Mormon within it), Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

The Christian eschatology is very widely known; at least, the common idea of heaven and hell is. When a person dies, their soul leaves their body and they head "up" to heaven. They meet St. Peter at the pearly gates, and are admitted to heaven, all assuming they met the qualifications to get in. If they did not, they go down to hell, and are tortured. In the Catholic version of events, there is a third option, purgatory, where the soul will go if they were not good enough for heaven but not bad enough for hell, or if they were an innocent (such as a baby who died or was stillborn, or a person who lived before the time of Christ.) They wait in Purgatory until their survivors back on Earth either pray them into heaven, or the rapture, at which point Christ comes down and redeems the ones worth redeeming, and condemns the ones who aren't.

The Mormon version of this is pretty different. When a soul dies, if it is a good Mormon, it goes to Paradise. If it was a bad Mormon, or not a Mormon, it goes to purgatory. There, the person is given a chance to convert and repent for everything they did wrong, at which point they can go hang out in Paradise. But all of this is basically a waiting pool, because when the Rapture comes, everyone is judged. The people who were the best Mormons in life are given essentially their own planet, which they become the God of. The OK Mormons will populate these planets, or get a smaller planet, depending. The bad ones and the ones that never converted are done for.

Judaism is similar to Christianity in its belief in heaven, but Judaism does not include hell. Instead, Judaism has Seven levels of Heaven, and your deeds and works on Earth decide where and how you go. I believe it is also possible to move up through these levels.

Hinduism expounds the belief in reincarnation. When you die, your soul goes into the cosmic cycle, and is then stuffed into a new body back on Earth. There is little change from one life to the next - the soul is a rather static object, and generally if you are in a lower Caste, you can expect to stay there for some time.

Buddhism also includes reincarnation, but it is different than Hinduism. It was best explained to me like this: Imagine a candle, and before it is extinguished, its flame lights the flame of a candle next to it. The second candle lights a third, and so on. Fifty candles down the line, it is hard to imagine the flame burning there is the same flame that burned in the beginning, but the fact remains that the final flame came from there. This mutation of the soul, growing from its experiences in life, and learning until the soul (not its current possessor) gains enlightenment, is the principal belief of Buddhism. In Hinduism, your soul never gets out; in Buddhism, there is an eventual end to the cycle.


All of these five different belief systems contain one thing in common: the soul. Science eliminates the concept of a soul entirely. If you are going to argue that science does NOT, then please explains what happens to the soul when you die. Religion answers this.

If you do not argue that a purely scientific belief includes a soul, then you agree that when the body dies, the essence of the person decays along with the flesh, correct? Am I also correct in saying that it is a flawed scientific method to claim that the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence? The reason I ask this is because the only evidence you could give for a lack of a soul is that there is no physical evidence thereof. The problem with that (aside from a lack of evidence not being evidence) is that there IS proof of a soul, or at least of some other incorporeal part of humans that lives on after death. There is massive evidence of ghosts and spirits haunting places, and people. There is scientific data of temperature changes, things moving on their own, and the like. To deny this or try to explain it away is to do the SAME thing that Christians do to evolution. There is always another explanation.

So, logically, you can assume that since everything can be "explained away" despite a great amount of scientific proof, both evolution and souls are complete fallacies. If, however, you chose to think that not all things that CAN be explained away SHOULD be explained away, then you must think that NEITHER evolution nor ghosts and supernatural should be. If you are going to stand here and tell me that one should and one should not, then you're nothing but a hypocrite. If you're a hypocrite, then I automatically win, so don't try


Because we've successfully argued that there is, in fact, a soul, I think we can agree that not all religion is a crock of ****. However, the question still remains of whether or not there is a god. Not all religions specifically believe in one. However, most religions have some sort of belief in a higher power, be it one or many. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in the same God, call Him Allah, Yahweh, or just God, it's the same thing. I point to a famous text in the Old Testament, the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. Commandment number 2: "You shall have no gods except me" or, in Latin, "non habebis deos alienos coram me." Think carefully about the explanation here. Why would God, being the all knowing deity that He is, note that the Hebrews should have no other gods, if He is the only one? Why is God a jealous god, if there are no other gods to be jealous of? The Hebrews are His chosen people. I don't think God cared what the OTHER people on Earth did or believed, or which god they worshiped, as long as the Hebrews only worshiped Him.

So does this mean there are many gods in the world? Why not?


I can continue on this thread, but it's going to come down to me explaining why my specific set of beliefs is...well, is what i believe. I think my point was best made when it came down to proof that both religion and science must exist in tandem, or neither can exist in all.

[Maniac1]

lol im not losing anything man. And i said no they should not stop what they are doing, yet again where you did not take the time to read and educate your self.

Actually I did read that part. But you failed to answer my question, once again. You said, "if you don't have enough knowledge of both sides of the card(you didn't say card, im just saying it to use as an example) then you shouldn't post up posts that carry no weight on this subject." Then I brought up the fact that the pastor who also doesn't have knowledge of both sides of the card.

You then continued to bring up scientists. And comparing them to pastors. Which was good. Yet, that came with a price. My question now had two not one supporting parts of the question. All that did was add another liter of fuel to the fire.

Which is fine. But you used that as a trump card to avoid answering my first question. Should they stop, because they're in a way like me? They have more knowledge on their field than the other because thats what they're using all their time and energy on... Am I doing something differently? No. Im also gaining more knowledge from religion, by going to church and asking questions. So once again, you didn't answer my question. But after reading your posts I don't expect to see an answer anytime soon.

Im not trying to disprove anything. Your the OP of this thread and im just telling you before you try and make a post about something Read a damn Book about it first before Blabbing on and making your self look like a dumb ass.

Again, you know nothing about my knowledge when it comes to this topic. I brought up the fact that the bible said that the earth was created in 7 days. You then said that I had no knowledge because God said a day for him is 1000 years. Ok. Thats the only post of mine that you went out of your way to try to prove me wrong.
But again, you failed. Because the earth wasn't created in 7,000 years. LOL I mean if you believe that you're the only dumbass in this thread.

Those pastors and those Scientist continue to learn more every day to gain knowledge.

Im doing the same. Am I still a bad person with no knowledge or in the same category with both pastors and scientists?

No one person can know every thing about anything. But you on the other hand dont want to learn all you can on both sides to make an educated post.

I agree with 50% of what you posted.

Dont get your panties in a wad man, you asked for opinions and im giving you mine. Like i said in my post..im for neither side as of right now.. but i can open mindedly look at both sides unlike you.

Im not tripping about anything that has been said in this thread, dude. Far from it. Im enjoying every minute of it... Seems to me like you're the only one taking this seriously seeing as you were the first one to use a bad word on the other person. Lolol. Its ok man, if you really want to win this argument, you win. I give up.

[The12lber]

Science exists in a world of enlightenment and reason. Supernatural Religion/God exists in a world of intolerance, irrationality and mass delusion. The two are of a nature completely distinct from one another, as such any comparison is pointless.

[David88vert]

To those that don't believe in a god, and believe in pure science, please review the mathematical probility of the "big bang" actually happening - 10 to the 38th power. Science cannot explain how matter came into existence. Period.
If you wish to believe in the big bang and evolution, understand that you are accepting it completely on faith in men's words, and you have become no different that the Christians, Muslims, Jew, etc, that you dispise. BTW - there is no problem with that either. It's your life, and your choice. Just don't try to act holier-than-thou to everyone else. Evolutionary "science" is the faith of the atheist.

[The12lber]

To those that don't believe in a god, and believe in pure science, please review the mathematical probility of the "big bang" actually happening - 10 to the 38th power. Science cannot explain how matter came into existence. Period.
If you wish to believe in the big bang and evolution, understand that you are accepting it completely on faith in men's words, and you have become no different that the Christians, Muslims, Jew, etc, that you dispise. BTW - there is no problem with that either. It's your life, and your choice. Just don't try to act holier-than-thou to everyone else. Evolutionary "science" is the faith of the atheist.

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use scientific evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

[Thighs]

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use science evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

LOLOL PWNT. that was actually one of the smartest and most well written things ive read on the topic in a long time. reps to you sir.

[Maniac1]

TTT. Yota_box, im waiting for your reply...

[YoTa_BoX]

Actually I did read that part. But you failed to answer my question, once again. You said, "if you don't have enough knowledge of both sides of the card(you didn't say card, im just saying it to use as an example) then you shouldn't post up posts that carry no weight on this subject." Then I brought up the fact that the pastor who also doesn't have knowledge of both sides of the card.

You then continued to bring up scientists. And comparing them to pastors. Which was good. Yet, that came with a price. My question now had two not one supporting parts of the question. All that did was add another liter of fuel to the fire.

Which is fine. But you used that as a trump card to avoid answering my first question. Should they stop, because they're in a way like me? They have more knowledge on their field than the other because thats what they're using all their time and energy on... Am I doing something differently? No. Im also gaining more knowledge from religion, by going to church and asking questions. So once again, you didn't answer my question. But after reading your posts I don't expect to see an answer anytime soon.

Again, you know nothing about my knowledge when it comes to this topic. I brought up the fact that the bible said that the earth was created in 7 days. You then said that I had no knowledge because God said a day for him is 1000 years. Ok. Thats the only post of mine that you went out of your way to try to prove me wrong.
But again, you failed. Because the earth wasn't created in 7,000 years. LOL I mean if you believe that you're the only dumbass in this thread.

Im doing the same. Am I still a bad person with no knowledge or in the same category with both pastors and scientists?

I agree with 50% of what you posted.

Im not tripping about anything that has been said in this thread, dude. Far from it. Im enjoying every minute of it... Seems to me like you're the only one taking this seriously seeing as you were the first one to use a bad word on the other person. Lolol. Its ok man, if you really want to win this argument, you win. I give up.

Alright then, Both Pastors and scientists Read and learn about Both sides of this argument. If they did not they would Be Biased like you and only know half the story. Yes Pastors do research on Science Believe it or not. For one to Preach against something he has to first Know what he is Preaching against.

Most of your posts are Rants about stuff and nothing Factual to them. Im just telling you Bring more to the table than you have...because from what you have shown you know little of both sides. I read all your comments on this thread and i posted the one that made really any factual remarks.

As far as what i believe in like i said im not sure yet. Im researching both sides of the table because both interest me.

and just so you wont say im getting around the question some other Way


NO they should not stop what they are doing.

Why you ask...Because Both Scientists and Pastors have to research on what they are trying to Disprove otherwise they would look like idiots.

[Maniac1]

That post was just a copy with an extra grain of salt from the others before it. If you can't say anything that I haven't already read, just forget about this argument. I thought I would actually learn something from you, but looks like just another person who acts like his knowledge is superior to mine.

Which is just not the case. But that doesn't matter now, I know you won't think differently, So I quit.

ps; Looks like you won this battle.

[YoTa_BoX]

lol maniac im not trying to win any battles here. As far as Knowledge goes on the matter im just looking at what you posted man..which you told me to do and it would show me what you knew about it. I read all your posts and nothing stood out of your knowledge for either side. Show me your knowledge Maniac...PLEASE thats what i have been waiting for the hole thread LOL, untill then i have to go by what you have posted so far, and that is really nothing except your opinions. When you make a Science Vs God Thread Bring some Knowledge with you Because it is a subject not to take Lightly.

[Maniac1]

lol maniac im not trying to win any battles here. As far as Knowledge goes on the matter im just looking at what you posted man..which you told me to do and it would show me what you knew about it. I read all your posts and nothing stood out of your knowledge for either side. Show me your knowledge Maniac...PLEASE thats what i have been waiting for the hole thread LOL, untill then i have to go by what you have posted so far, and that is really nothing except your opinions. When you make a Science Vs God Thread Bring some Knowledge with you Because it is a subject not to take Lightly.

If you really did go back and read all my posts you would know that I have more knowledge when it comes to science. All I have been doing here is disproving the first question of this thread. Which was the student pointing out the fact that science and god are much alike. And that altough the professor didn't have anything to say, others did... Do you agree with this or don't? Have I been doing something else?

Which is just not the case. I have also been comparing opinions, which I told you I was doing a couple posts back. I didn't come in here saying I has all knowledge of both science and religion. Cause I know I don't, so why front? Your first post in this thread was a comment made about my 7 days opinion. Which you then corrected me because you have read the bible. Which is cool, this means you have more knowledge then me when it comes to that.

Still having facts from the bible is like having children explain to me that the earth is only 7k years old. Having knowledge about the bible, TO ME is nothing more than knowing what goes on in the minds of children. I not telling anyone to disbelieve in it, but alot of storys in the book are nothing more than bed time storys. Sorry I choose not to get all into something I have no interest in. I continue learning all I can about science, which is not only about astrology but all the observation, identification, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

You think I having nothing because im only expressing my opinion on the matter. So what?! Does that matter? We are not trying to teach anyone anything here, more like expressing our thoughts of the subject! You on the other hand see this thread as a class room. A thread that is trying to teach, which is far from the truth.

Next time you think you know what kind of knowledge someone has. You need to look at yourself and think if you have anything to come back with enough sense and facts that can back you up. And when I mean back you up, I mean that'll it'll make your opponent shut up! Make sense?

[YoTa_BoX]

Maniac i have said all i need to say. its pretty much Beating a dead horse from here on.

[Maniac1]

Glad you understand. Maybe next time we can have a discussion with less attitude.

Maniac i have said all i need to say. its pretty much Beating a dead horse from here on.

[YoTa_BoX]

lol what comes across as attitude is just my way of talking. Im blunt and say whats on my mind.

[YoTa_BoX]

ill say this, The more and more i read into science the more i feel that there is an intelligent design. Its just so amazing that everything had to be So perfect just for us to be in existence. Both sides are very fascinating to say the least. Just think about this..Your Brain Its a Big Pile of Mush in your skull..Yet it enables you to do everything you do on a daily basis. Look at your fingertips .. No ones fingertip is alike. Life is just amazing the more you Read about it and study into it. Does it answer why we are here no, so thats why i lean some what towards that there is a Higher power. Humans are about 75% water for crying out loud also consisting of carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen, oxygen phosphorus and calcium . Yet we have the ability to move mountains. If there is a god i think he gave us our brain for a reason..to figure things out. Do i buy into Heaven and hell not really. Things can be said on both sides of the spectrum like well if evolution says we come from monkies..well then where are part monkey ppl. there would have to be some variance of us some where. Ahh but we all just evolved...well then why are there so many diff kinds of Birds, Bats, Bees, dogs,cats exe... you would think there would be some diff kinds of ppl walking around. On the other hand you read the Bible and it says all the Fantastical stories about 1 man parting the ocean,God speaking and giving signs that he is really there. Why dont these things happen any more? To sum it up for me Science is amazing and i love it to death but like i said the more i look into science the more it makes me think there is a god.I think the heaven and hell things were made up by man so that man would Act good and not evil.

Yes this is One long ass run on paragraph LOL but i dont care.

[Vayda]

...Ahh but we all just evolved...well then why are there so many diff kinds of Birds, Bats, Bees, dogs,cats exe... you would think there would be some diff kinds of ppl walking around. ...

You're gonna love this one, but there WERE. Way back in the time of Homo Erectus, which was more or less our first ancestor that looked like us (hairless mostly, walkin on two legs) those dudes managed to cover the earth. We've found remains of them all over the world. Most ended their evolutionary chain there and died off. Some went to China, quit evolving, and were found later by their evolutionary decendants. Some went north into Europe and evolved into Neandertals.

Yes. Neandertals. They're NOT, as commonly thought, ancestors of humans. They're an entirely DIFFERENT SPECIES.

So the buncha Homo Erectus that stayed in Africa ate a buncha fish, grew a bigger brain, and eventually evolved into Homo Sapiens (aka, us.)...And they began to walk around, too. They made their way into Europe, and met up with the Neandertals.

Well, long story short, we won. We kicked their ASSES. We kicked their asses so hard we killed off their species.



As a side note, please make some sense with your capitalization. You caps on "birds and bees" but not on "God" or "I"....at least be consistant


[edited: checked a source, removed a number i had wrong]

[YoTa_BoX]

You're gonna love this one, but there WERE. Way back in the time of Homo Erectus, which was more or less our first ancestor that looked like us (hairless mostly, walkin on two legs) those dudes managed to cover the earth. We've found remains of them all over the world. Most ended their evolutionary chain there and died off. Some went to China, quit evolving, and were found later by their evolutionary decendants. Some went north into Europe and evolved into Neandertals.

Yes. Neandertals. They're NOT, as commonly thought, ancestors of humans. They're an entirely DIFFERENT SPECIES.

So the buncha Homo Erectus that stayed in Africa ate a buncha fish, grew a bigger brain, and eventually evolved into Homo Sapiens (aka, us.)...And they began to walk around, too. They made their way into Europe, and met up with the Neanderthals.

Well, long story short, we won. We kicked their ASSES. We kicked their asses so hard we killed off their species.



As a side note, please make some sense with your capitalization. You caps on "birds and bees" but not on "God" or "I"....at least be consistant


[edited: checked a source, removed a number i had wrong]

LOL ya for some reason i have this Thing with capitalizing Random things.
It helps me type for Some weird reason. So forgive me on that.

Alright i know of such things as Homo Erectus, Homo ergaster and such but that still does not explain why there are no other variances of Human.
You said we kicked Neanderthals asses and beat them as a species. Is there proof of said Extinguishing other than they just dont exist any more. And what of the Homo Erectus who did not eat fish and grow Bigger brains, Did they just die off? There would Have to be some Diff type of Human walking the earth SOME where but there isnt. Unless you believe in Big Foot ZOMG

[Vayda]

What other proof do you need of them extinguishing than them not being there anymore? That's kinda a fundamental concept of extinction. What proof do you have that a candle is no longer lit other than that the wick is no longer burning?

And actually, there are a couple theories on Neanderthals and why they died off. One is that they were "absorbed" into the human species, basically they interbred with us and eventually their own species died off. I think this is most likely after I work a long day. Most of my customers are neanderthals.

Anyway, that theory is far less substantiated than the idea that we were the better hunters, better gatherers, and better fighters, and eventually won.


I think you might be missing some of the concepts of evolution, and i dont blame you, as it's not widely taught. The idea of Speciation is a big part of what we're talking about here. Speciation is when one parent species (in this case, Homo Erectus) diverges for whatever reason into two or more. Darwin's theory was not actually evolution, but was natural selection. In his idea, the "survival of the fittest" as it is known, the best members of the species would be more likely to survive, breed, and pass down their traits to the next generation. This can eventually lead to evolution.

However, speciation is a bit different. It generally comes from a parent species being split....there's several forms, and i'd say check the wiki on it if you really wanna learn. But take this simple example: Say there is a pond, and in the pond live a species of frogs. Some developer comes and builds a road through the middle of the pond. Frogs can't cross the road, so now their population is split in half. On one side of the road, the frogs have a lot more water, because that's where the stream enters the pond. These frogs need to become better swimmers, or they'll drown. On the other side, there is far less water, and the frogs need to be quicker hoppers to avoid land predators.

A million years passes.

Do you think these two frogs are going to be the same species anymore, after generations of learning to hop faster or hold their breath longer?

That's speciation.

So your question as to why we have no other current breeds of humans walking around? Well, think about it. Has a highway ever stopped you? Did an entire ocean stop Columbus? Did a continent stop Homo Erectus? No, absolutly not. Why should it? We're bigger, we're badass, we're awesome, we're not going to be stopped by a minor geographical inconvenience.

So the homo erectus that didn't eat fish? Yeah, they did die off. More likely our ancestors kicked their asses. We're simply the dominate species....we won




Check the Wiki on homo erectus for a list of their other decendants, too. It wasnt just neanderthals, they were just the most famous example.

[YoTa_BoX]

Well enough but its all theory as far as to what happend to Said Other Humanesc type things. You bring up natural selection, then explain to me why there are so many types of every other animal Yet Humans are the only Sapien type. I dont buy into allot of that because there are still all sorts of types of monkies around but just one of us. My brain is tarting to hurt now LOL

[Vayda]

Because each other species is naturally selected and adapted to best survive in the environment in which they live. Like the galapagos finches. They developed different beaks so they were able to feed at different times of year, from different plants, or even as much as a different spot on the same tree.

Why are there different types of monkeys? Different environments. Do silverbacks live in the same place as orangutans, or chimpanzees?

[David88vert]

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use scientific evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

Actually, you just showed that you ned to go back to high school and learn basic mathematics. You obviously do not understand mathematics or physics and definately do not have a degree in either. Probability is not the same as possibility.

Again, let's see.
Law of Conservation of Mass: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html

Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. That's a LAW - not theory.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html

Basic problem: Where did the matter come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? The same amount of matter needed to exist before the Big Bang. Something cannot come from nothing. That's a LAW - not theory.

If you believe in the Big Bang Hypothesis, you need to be able to explain this question in detail, or you are taking it on faith - nothing more. And that makes it the same as a religion - based on faith. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Now if you want to discuss the Big Bang Guess, you had better come prepared to discuss these points:
1) Singularity
2) Smoothness
3) Horizon
4) Flatness
5) Inflation Theory
6) Missing Mass
7) The Age of the Universe
8) Radiation from the "Decoupling"
9) The Big Bang Timeline
10) The Abundance of Light Elements
11) Red Shift Anomalies
12) Curved Space
13) The Decelerating Expansion of the Universe


The ratio of the number of electrons to protons must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 10_37 (10 to the 37th power); otherwise electromagnetic forces would have been stronger than gravitational forces and thus no galaxies, stars, or planets would have ever formed.

Is it possible that the universe and the physical laws could exist by evolution - YES. Is it probable - NO. The odds? 1 in 10_10000(10 to the 10000th power - much more unlikely than simple protons/electrons). Better odds would be that your car's engine would freeze solid instead of warm up - every single time you started it. Do you think that maybe there might be some sort of intelligence behind the universe's design, rather than random chance?


Additionally, if any 1 of the 47 things listed in the attachment went wrong, we would not be here. Some light reading for your high school educated brain.

Now, do you really want to try to have an educated discussion? Go back to playing your video games if you aren't prepared.

[The12lber]

That's a lot of text to basically state a single counterpoint. Trying to muddy the water much?

"BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM?" - Why even bother addressing this? You can't argue this, its circular logic. If you want to argue that god is an explanation for the existence of the matter, you have to explain god's origin.

Basically, it is true that I have no explanation to offer you, the only logical assumption is that it always was. You can attempt to tell me that god did it but then you will have to explain the origination of god to me and logically how this fits into the framework of the creation of the universe. If god could have always existed, logically why could matter not have always existed?

I notice you didn't even touch what I said about evolution/the logical inconsistency of the conceptualization of Abrahamic god in comparison with reality.

Honestly, I am kind of sad for you. You see that reseach puts the odds vastly against a natural origin of the universe, so instead you decide it must have been something that there is NO EVIDENCE OF. Thank you very much for the overly pompous LOLOLOL GO BACK TO UR VIDEO GAMEZ comment though, douchebag.

[Vayda]

Hear, hear!! +1

[japan4racing]

hahaha...these debates about magic....err i mean religion....are fun to read

[bu villain]

In response to David88vert's post on probability:

I hear a lot of people saying things like "The odds of all these factors coming together in such a perfect way are too remote for it to be by chance." This is not a logical argument for design for two main reasons:

1)
It is true that there are several universal constants which must be finely tuned in order for life as we know it to possible be able to exist. You can not start from an outcome and then claim it was too improbable to happen by chance. Take the lottery for example. Millions of people play, one person wins (sometimes noone wins). That winning person could say "the odds were 1 in a million I would win, it must have been divine intervention". Its true their odds of winning were incredibly minute and yet they won. Do you think that means God must have intervened?

2)
Because we are human, we believe human existence is more special than the existence of anything else. If there were a certian type of rock that could only be found in one tiny region, on one planet in the entire universe, humans wouldn't think twice because we do not think of rocks as special even if the chances of that particular rock existing are more rare than the chance of humans existing. Along these same lines, take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.

[YoTa_BoX]

take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.

I would think....who ever shuffled the deck is ****ty at it

[David88vert]

In response to David88vert's post on probability:

I hear a lot of people saying things like "The odds of all these factors coming together in such a perfect way are too remote for it to be by chance." This is not a logical argument for design for two main reasons:

1)
It is true that there are several universal constants which must be finely tuned in order for life as we know it to possible be able to exist. You can not start from an outcome and then claim it was too improbable to happen by chance. Take the lottery for example. Millions of people play, one person wins (sometimes noone wins). That winning person could say "the odds were 1 in a million I would win, it must have been divine intervention". Its true their odds of winning were incredibly minute and yet they won. Do you think that means God must have intervened?

2)
Because we are human, we believe human existence is more special than the existence of anything else. If there were a certian type of rock that could only be found in one tiny region, on one planet in the entire universe, humans wouldn't think twice because we do not think of rocks as special even if the chances of that particular rock existing are more rare than the chance of humans existing. Along these same lines, take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.

But can you win the lottery every day for the rest of your life? 1:1,000,000 odds are drastically better than 10_37th. Big difference. If ANY of the items listed went wrong, you wouldn't be typing. How many people do you know that have won every lottery that they have played?

Read about DNA sequencing. There is not way that could happen expressly by chance. Possible - Yes (anything is), Probably - No. There is a difference.

Of course, that does not mean that you can't believe it. Just know that you are taking it on faith. Again, nothing wrong with that. If everyone was the same, we would be robots. Again, you are completely entitled to your opinion and beliefs. I am not belittling that. Just be informed as to why you believe something.

[David88vert]

That's a lot of text to basically state a single counterpoint. Trying to muddy the water much?

"BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM?" - Why even bother addressing this? You can't argue this, its circular logic. If you want to argue that god is an explanation for the existence of the matter, you have to explain god's origin.

Basically, it is true that I have no explanation to offer you, the only logical assumption is that it always was. You can attempt to tell me that god did it but then you will have to explain the origination of god to me and logically how this fits into the framework of the creation of the universe. If god could have always existed, logically why could matter not have always existed?

I notice you didn't even touch what I said about evolution/the logical inconsistency of the conceptualization of Abrahamic god in comparison with reality.

Honestly, I am kind of sad for you. You see that reseach puts the odds vastly against a natural origin of the universe, so instead you decide it must have been something that there is NO EVIDENCE OF. Thank you very much for the overly pompous LOLOLOL GO BACK TO UR VIDEO GAMEZ comment though, douchebag.

You can dish it out, but can't take it? Lighten up a little.

I am not arguing for an organized religion. Organized religion causes wars, power grabs, etc. God does not equal organized religion. Don't confuse the two. You can believe whatever you like however.

I am simply stating that the big bang is not mathematically probable. Your statement though that you do not have the answer, and that you are basically taking it on faith is a fair and legit argument. I have no problem with that. Now, why don't you research the topics that I listed and see if you still believe the same way when you have finished. I'm not asking you to believe me, just do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

As for matter always existing, if matter and its movements did not exist prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist before the Big Bang - matter and time came into being after the Big Bang. Their existence depends on each other. Based on your own scientists - Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking - these two conclusively proved in mathematical terms that the universe had had a beginning. Try reading, The Nature of Space and Time. Basically, your argument that matter always exists is refuted by well-known, pro-evolution scientists.

[Sledlude]

ahem... Occam's Razor (ie. the simplest explanation is the right one). According to this logic, the presence of an Abrahamic God is a bit too fantastical to be correct. There is no science proving His presence; only antiquated text (which has been numerous times altered throughout history).

I would love to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because like others have stated, for the Big Bang Theory to hold, you need to explain where matter came from. It might seem much easier to say "God did it!".

BUT think of it this way... look at the leaps and bounds our species has made in JUST the past 100 years when it comes to science. We went from theories of "spontaneous generation" to understanding and sequencing entire GENOMES of organisms. We can amplify and construct DNA sequences. We can predict and treat genetic disorders, as well as infectious ones. All this has progress has been made during a small fraction of our time on the planet- given another 100 years (if we are not out-competed or faced with some catastrophic event by then), just think of the advances we will make. Just because we don't know NOW doesn't mean we never will. We are working on it. That's the beauty of science: instead of just blindly accepting God as our reason for existence, we are slowly working toward understanding natural law behind it. It will take a long ass time, but I think it'll happen.

[Maniac1]

I'd like to thank everyone who has posted! This thread wasn't made to put anyone down or to make people question your beliefs. Their yours, you are the only one who can choose what you think is the truth. But it's always good to hear/read what other people have to say about the subject, thats why I made this thread.

We can all agree on, that we do not have the answers to everything.

Which is fine, we're only human. With time will come knowledge. Til then all we can really do is continue learning and asking ourselfs questions and answering them which ever way we can. Some may look to church for this, guidance from a higher power. Others will continue reading science and mathematical formulas and continue reading science books lol.

Once again, thanks. This thread has been awesome!

And if anyone feels like putting their two cents in here, feel free to. I'll be here seeing if I can give you the discussion you're looking for.

[NAG2I]

those who say that the bible has been altered over the years and years of language translations, you are actually incorrect. I'm not sure where these ideas come from but there false.
It's actually fact that 99.5% of the new testament agrees with the old text.Most of the differences are in spelling and word order.

[The12lber]

You can dish it out, but can't take it? Lighten up a little.

I am not arguing for an organized religion. Organized religion causes wars, power grabs, etc. God does not equal organized religion. Don't confuse the two. You can believe whatever you like however.

I was stating that the western conceptualization of god, when you use your logics and maths, cannot exist. I actually wasn't saying anything about organized religion, so I'm not sure how I'm confusing the two . Abrahamic god != necessarily any specific church or even a church AT ALL, I was only stating that omnipotent, ominipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god cannot exist. If god isn't all of the above, is it really god (I suppose if he was all but omnibenevolent he'd still be god, just not a very good one)? That's all.

I am simply stating that the big bang is not mathematically probable. Your statement though that you do not have the answer, and that you are basically taking it on faith is a fair and legit argument. I have no problem with that. Now, why don't you research the topics that I listed and see if you still believe the same way when you have finished. I'm not asking you to believe me, just do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

As for matter always existing, if matter and its movements did not exist prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist before the Big Bang - matter and time came into being after the Big Bang. Their existence depends on each other. Based on your own scientists - Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking - these two conclusively proved in mathematical terms that the universe had had a beginning. Try reading, The Nature of Space and Time. Basically, your argument that matter always exists is refuted by well-known, pro-evolution scientists.

Stephen Hawking is as widely panned as he is lauded, perhaps he is right though, honestly I don't care to read Roger Penroses hardcover snoozefest. That being said, my statement was too nuanced. It would have been more accurate to state that you have the same logical problems explaining the origin of the universe with god or the supernatural as you do with incomplete science.

[Thighs]

holy ****... the argument has actually been resolved? WOW i think the planets must have aligned and the earth spun backwards for a day but we dont know it since we traveled back in time and slapped god in the face for creating science while evolving from monkeys and giving women big boobs and shaved vaginas.

[The12lber]

I would love to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because like others have stated, for the Big Bang Theory to hold, you need to explain where matter came from. It might seem much easier to say "God did it!".

Intelligent Design != Supernatural Creation. Both natural origin paired with intelligent design and supernatural creation paired with natural selection are logically intelligible statements. More over, intelligent design != supernatural design. Too many philosophical arguments center around supernatural origin & supernatural design, its very boring and demonstrates the stifling stupidity of people foolish enough to mix religion with logic and science. As is often stated, god lives in the margins of science, but these margins aren't evidence of anything but human imperfection.

Just a side note.