Darwin's theories have compelled people to have faith rather than look for "special effects" to confirm the existence of God.
~Rev. Mitchell Brown, Evanston, IL (one of 10,000 ministers nationwide to sign a statement of support for evolution in a divine context).
"The big bang is not exactly possible according to the laws of physics.... oh, I suppose you want to know why? -"
Dave, congratulations on understanding the physics involved and you're going to be lauded in the scientific community when your paper is published. Nobel prize for physics, no less, I should think.
I presume your creation view involves a steady state universe and one that's around 6009 years old, for otherwise the "big bang" looks like a pretty convincing creation event for those who want to see the finger of god on the button.
We've had experiences with people who design perpetual motion machines (unfortunately they don't build them before getting political support for somebody else to build them in the interests of national defense). These inventors are honest enthusiasts and they're not at all accepting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a bit of a show-stopper. And it seems this they have in common with religious fundementalists: any science that stands in the way of their beliefs must be wrong. Well I guess that can be accommodated within private beliefs. But not when promulgated in schools, and here. And such statements completely undercut the credibility of the person hoping to spread the "good news".
People who choose to believe in some notion, after they have done so believe that notion to be true and don't know themselves well enough to remember they choose (or were indoctrinated into) that notion in the first place.
Scientists, whether their ideas be correct or in error all are searching for the truth. They are unbiased and discover what is there to see(except the chemists at the pharmaceutical companies who get the marketing strategy first and then work backwards.) Organised religion starts with a goal and manufactures stories to that end. There is nothing more to it.
If you don't believe me and want an authoritative approach from an "honest" theologian then read "Who wrote the Bible" by Richard E Friedman who was head of the theology department at UCSD. It's a great read and the basis for any serious Old Testament scholar.
Steve: You'll have to do better than this to get the thread to 200 posts and win the Champagne. What about saying the bird flue mutation is not an example of evolution but a curse put on the Asian world for not having a sense of humor.
I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I'm the idiot who's proposing that our ancestors came from somewhere else. I refer to myself as an idiot, because it's a waste of time to go against 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world and think I'm going to convince anybody. If I could convince anybody.....I'd be a dead man.
Science claims that we can all be traced back to Africa. I say, it's impossible for anybody who naturally developed on this planet to have a problem with the UV rays of the sun. Especially, if we all started in Africa. (No evidence of any Eskimos getting lighter from living in the north) Even Mars, makes more sense than what we've been told. But before you jump to conclusions, I'm only going off of circumstantial evidence and don't have an exact answer. This means, (sigh) the door is wide open for ridicule, now. Okay, Punks, time to roast TheGr8Steve. Give me all your dumb Von Daniken comparisons. (this may be a sleazy way to get this thread to 200+)
I've spent years convincing myself I'm on the right path, but I've given up trying to convince others. The comments following this post will give you the answer as to why. (that is, if anybody reads this)
Steve, you haven't given us enough to work with (or against, as the case might be). More details. The only thing you have mentioned seems to overlook evolution: give up dark skins when move to colder regions because a light skin is an advantage (weak sunshine). Yes, I've forgotten the details about that and will have to look them up.
One single aspect of this all keeps reminding itself to me: the direct and overwhelmingly present lack of tolerance proportinate to the degree of belife. If HE, SHE or IT is guiding and leading them shouldn't they be voicing tolerance and compasion? I see very few examples of this. Deeply religious folks from any camp aren't genreally speaking even close to it. . If you observe the actual results of the bible or Quaran you could easily conclude that they are most likely the work of a very evil person(s) and they have, like say scientology, managed to find the key that manipulates the masses into doing all the horrible things that religon is in fact instigating and ultimatly resonsablle for. I see regligion as simply a gruesom motor of hate. I have absolutly no trouble living the 10 comandments - how many christians manage that?
On a lighter note:
LONDON - Neanderthals in Europe were killed off by the advance of modern humans thousands of years earlier than previously believed, losing a competition for food and shelter, according to a scientific study published Wednesday.
The research uses advances in radiocarbon dating to revise understanding of early humans, suggesting they colonized Europe more rapidly and coexisted for a much shorter period with genetic ancestors.
Paul Mellars, professor of prehistory and human evolution at the University of Cambridge and author of the study, said Neanderthals — the species of the Homo genus that lived in Europe and western Asia from around 230,000 years ago to around 29,000 years ago — succumbed much more readily to competition.
If you're easily offended, just pretend this is a lousy Twilight Zone story.
My post overlooked evolution. But not me. I'm not about to start writing' War & Peace' in an effort to change anybody's mind. I've been looking into it for years, but it took me years to convince myself.
I believe in God, in evolution and that our ancestors started somewhere else. I don't believe God and man look alike. My vague theory was briefly mentioned in my 1st post on this page. The only thing that makes sense to me, is that you would only create man in your image if there was a real reason behind it.
Scientists have already said we are only a couple of centuries away from extending our lifespans considerably. It does seem funny that the first few humans seemed to live a very long time, according to the Bible, and with each generation, that time went down until our normal lifespan was reached. Seems funny that that information was even included. But when we get to the stage of extending our own lifespans, it may make more sense then.
Ancient artwork depicts the original "Gods" as being approx. 9ft to 12 ft tall. (That's the same size a Discovery Channel program suggested Man would be, if he had developed on Mars. And, No. They weren't saying that happened or that there was any sort of Mars/Earth connection. Just a coincidence that they brought up that information.)
Now do a google search of Man/Chimpanzee DNA. (Don't worry, the naysayers have flooded the gates, so you won't believe anything's funny about that.) It does seem odd to me, that a Chimps DNA is closer to man than even another monkey.
You see? I've barely scratched the surface and I already feel like I'm wasting my time writing this. If you're waiting for our great leaders and learning institutions to admit this or somehow lean in this direction, don't bother. Because if what I'm saying is anything like the truth, that information has to be suppressed until all the "children" become adults. Otherwise Chaos would erupt.
We're not that far from being able to create an illusion of a bush that burns without being consumed. We may be quite a ways away from parting the Red Sea, but who knows what kind of technology will pop up in the next few hundred years.
But even at the level were at now, if we could time-travel back to the birth of civilization, we would still seem like Gods compared with the people of that day. (and we would probably hide on mountain tops to keep from being bothered by the curious.)
If nobody explained what those verses in the Bible meant, you wouldn't really know what they were talking about. In fact, you probably still don't know, but can quote somebody elses version verbatim. Most people have been listening to interpretations that have developed for centuries. I don't think anybody gets the true, original meaning anymore, myself included. Nobody even bothers to ask why it still says "Let US create man in OUR image". They're afraid they'll be condemned for all eternity for merely trying to get to the truth. So they don't even think about it. Personally, I'd think God would want you to ask questions and feel as if you've made the right choice, on your own.
I'm not even going to waste my time with the Pyramids or ancient structures around the world. If our learning institutions are ignoring new findings being suggested about a lot of these structures, why bother.
You need to be a Harvard, Yale or similar graduate, before anyone thinks you have a right to question anything. But the few professors, from these types of institutions, that try to question these things, usually have their careers ruined the instant they do. It's a catch-22 designed to keep certain information from being acknowledged. (Yes, to keep the nuts at bay too) We've been trained very very well, to automatically laugh at anybody who questions certain things. And we do.
Now, I'm tired of writing this. I used to think like most people and I know that 99% are chuckling at this right now. I may as well be crying "The sky if falling, the sky is falling". But, if you have the guts to NOT LISTEN to our professors and do the research on your own, you may have some new questions about everything yourself. But you'll be asking only yourself. Because you won't want to be laughed at either.
The other way, we can all have a genetic DNA source that started in one place, is if our DNA was mixed all along with somebody elses. The 'migrated out of Africa' theory doesn't hold up with me. Cold regions still reflect UV rays like crazy. Especially snow. But what would the UV rays be like on Mars? Or a Spaceship that's almost permanently in flight? You see? I don't have an exact answer, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I become, that what we generally accept as our beginnings, sounds just a crazy as my newer beliefs.
The only trouble with keeping it this short, is that it makes you sound wackier. You have to condense everything, too much. But if it took me years to convince myself, how the heck am I going to convince anybody here? Truth is.....I can't. The snowball of your thoughts, has grown way too large.
I like to think that God can handle theorys and not want to smite me for merely questioning everything. (gulp....I hope)
Very interesting stuff, Steve, but theories about coming from other planets are stretching things a bit for me. For a start, what was your mode of travel?
I'm happy to be descended from earthly ancestors, going right back to the slime.
My father's father's father etc, to the power of infinity (and my mother's mother's mother etc)
To help fill in the gaps, I enjoy observations like -
Does anyone here have goose pimples (goose bumps to some) when they get cold?
Have you noticed that each goose bump contains a hair root?
Could it be that our ancestors needed to make their hair stand up and trap air to help get them warm again?
We don't generally need to warm ourselves this way nowadays, but we still have the vestiges of this feature.
I have no problem with evolution. I'm only convinced that something intervened. That somebody came here whose origins started somewhere else, with evolution and all the normal things you already accept about science. That human-like beings also developed on this planet with evolution too. That there was a DNA exchange and modern man was created from a blend of the two. That's my theory of "Intelligent Design".
If you want me to give you specifics about a mode of travel, how can I do that? Why don't you just ask me which University I gradutated from or how much money I make, or maybe you would like me to unveil a secret video of the beginning of mankind so you can make up your mind as to if I'm a complete wacko or not. A theory is a theory.
Most people claim they sort of believe there's a chance that life exists somewhere else, even though, on our planet alone, life grows almost anywhere. You can't stop it. You can find it in the frozen north pole and you can find it next to underwater volcanoes at nearly 800 degrees Celsius. You get oxygen and water and any temperature near 0 to 200 degrees F (that's conservative), and life is going to develop. Yet a lot of people think that life, like ours, cannot exist anywhere but here.
Every single star is a Sun. They are countless. Even if less than 1% has life, that's billions and billions of planets.
While at this time we're rooted in the Theory of Relativity, that theory will probably change in the future. We haven't reach our zenith in development yet. The one piece of information I haven't introduced yet, is the most embarrassing, because I know the knee-jerk reaction to it. Until it happened to me, I never listened to these stories with any more than a grain of salt. Until it happens to you, you'll probably react the same way. You need to have your own actual UFO sighting. Because stories, film, TV shows, pictures won't do the trick. You need to really see something before you'll actually believe. What I saw, was brief, about 6 to 8 seconds, but just enough to let me know that it wasn't a natural phenomenon or anything developed here. After that, I started questioning everything. (and because of the late night driving job I had at the time, I got to see a few more odd things in the air. All brief and too far away to give the kind of details you'd like) LIke I said, until you see for yourself, you'll probably do what I use to do, and automatically assume that the person telling that kind of story just saw some normal thing and somehow got mixed up or fooled by atmospheric conditions or what-ever. Once you've seen something for yourself, you'll start listening to these stories and try to separate the nut-cases from the real ones, but you'll listen seriously.
If you have a good imagination, you already know the possiblity that one planet could develop much sooner than another. Look at the progress we've made here, in the last 3000 years. Just the last 500 is amazing. We will probably discover 'loop-holes' to get around the Theory of Relativity and be able to travel great distances in a much shorter time than we assume now. You combine that with the promise of extended lifespans, the cloning and lab experiments going on right now, what we may be able to do with computers in the future and you should be able to see what I'm talking about. It seems almost blatant to me.
Unfortunately, a sighting was the thing that shook me up the most and made me start questioning everything. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to have one, so your whole belief system can be thrown into turmoil and you can question whether to say anything or just keep your thoughts to yourself.
As you'll see, I've lost all integrity by even bringing this subject up. That's what you have to fear by thinking different from the norm'. To me, it should make sense to everybody. It should be obvious. Yet, you're waiting for me to merely describe the vehicle that brought these beings here. Sorry, but my "Way-back" machine is on the fritz.
Have a sighting and you'll know. Until you do, you'll just think I have an active imagination.
PS: I have no problems with your observations about goosebumps or evidence of evolution. I just have a couple of more details to add to the story. Why can't DNA combining be a part of evolution too? Especially if it helps you aquire an entire Planet? It still doesn't make sense to you? Hmmm. You need a sighting.
Well Professor Fred Hoyle proposed that life came to earth in the ice of comets, but he was thinking at the molecular level rather than evolved intelligent life. Of course Douglas Adams wrote extensively on a hypothesis that has some points of similarity with yours. Should we take your hypothesis seriously? Well it's as sound about our origins as mainstream religions and you have some evidence for support. The difficulty, from a scientific viewpoint, is that your observations were brief and not recorded for independent verification. The use of "Ocam's Razor" suggests that the least complicated hypothesis is that our life originated on earth. But there are a lot of stars and it seems unlikely that earth alone has life. A casual look at earth life forms (particularly reptiles and mammals) suggests a common origin (one head, 4 limbs, 5 fingers, plumbing diagram) which is why creatures in science fiction films always look "our worldly".
Incidentally, in referring to the theory of relativity you really mean that science will find a way to travel faster than the speed of light (that is the limiting factor, not the theory). You need to read about wormholes, string theory and branes; lots of scope there.
garo- I have absolutly no trouble living the 10 comandments - how many christians manage that?
All I can say is wow! I assume you are not a Jew or a Christian from your posts and you manage to keep the 10 commandments? I am a Christian and to prove your point, I struggle with keeping all of them every day and yet, somehow, you manage not to. I would like to know your secret. Here they are listed below in the original context taken from the book of Exodus.
"God spoke all these words, saying: I am God your Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slavery. Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for [their] descendants, to the third and fourth [generation]. But for those who love Me and keep My commandments, I show love for thousands [of generations]. Do not take the name of God your Lord in vain. God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates. It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and mother. You will then live long on the land that God your Lord is giving you. Do not commit murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not testify as a false witness against your neighbor. Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that is your neighbor's."
Steve- Nobody even bothers to ask why it still says "Let US create man in OUR image".
This question was routinely interacted with in my freshman "Intro to Bible Study" class. There were a couple of options that were plausible based on the entire context of scripture: 1. In Hebrew (the language of the early jews), whenever kings or one of importance was spoken of as a pronoun or the such it was often pluralized. I remember looking over some extra-biblical sources that supported this as well as biblical references. 2. (In biblical context) It is making reference to the Trinity. Often times in scripture, the one who penned the scripture was not always aware of the meaning of the text they were penning (This is assumed as it would seem plausible that if David, when penning the Psalms, new that he was making references to Jesus Christ who was born well after him and that he was going to have 12 disciples, etc. he would have given a footnote for his Psalm to help out the reader so they would know what to look for). But, this is not the case and God apparently wants it this way for a reason, just like He made the Gospel the method by which man would be saved and He chose to use man as the vehicle for the Gospel to be shared. He could have saved man however He pleased, but in keeping with biblical context, the Son has to be glorified. Why, b/c God wants it that way.
Just some things I remember from one of my classes I took while at University.