I stand corrected.
And I never said that Darwin's Theories weren't true.

I never said you did, I just thought you were being a little heavy handed on the guy. "You can see why I might argue with Darwin for ever creating his Theory of Evolution. "

Creationism is denial of evidence that is obviously there. I can understand Intelligent Design, but actual 6 day creationism is just silly. If you have to insert your religious beliefs into science, ID is the way to go. Needless to say, I beleive in evolution.

One of the finer points of God theory; hypothetically, and I stress this term, an ominpotent Godfigure would have no problems or issues of conducting thousands or millions, or even billions, or work within a simple 24 hour period, if not then a whole work week. Granted, plenty of Creationists would never concieve of such an idea.

Just some food for thought.

What do I believe...? I suppose its a mix of the two. I believe a "divine force" started everything. (God). This is because if we evolved, the beginning had to come from something. In my opinion, even microscopic beings didn't just come from NOWHERE.

Then, after everything was started, evolution carried us to where we are today.

Or, on the other side, God could percieve millions/billions of years as only a day. (Of course, this one only works if it was indeed God who dictated the bible, and there are a few problems with that...)

There is that too, but if Biblical, or even traditional, views are correct, a God figure would be outside of time, not bound by our constraints.

Only a few?





I asked a random Christian guy who stopped me on the street (To try and convert me "To the way of the almightly lord" and all that junk" something along those lines when he got to the "He is so amazing, he made the world perfect in only 6 days". I then got the awnser of "GOD wants us to understand his work so he put it in terms that we can understand". So then I go back to his point of him being so wonderfull as he can do it in 6 days, so it wasnt 6 days? That did get him so flustered,
I do love confusing the people who stop you and try to convert you, Happens allot outside college

...Not quite sure if I follow where you're going with this. He can do it in six days, so he doesn't in six days? What? You either need to collect your thoughts, or that guy was easily confused.

Well I was trying to make the point that he was trying to tell me how great god is and he could do so much in so little time, then when presented with the question, "But being god, dosnt time and space not effect him?" I am told that he isnt afected by it. So then I put the question to him about the creation was 6 days only, how it affected god the changing of days if time dosnt afftect him. so therfore, it wasnt so miraculous creation hapening in only 6 days then?
Im just bad at putting down my thaughts sometimes most of the times, so I hope thats better, if not then just blame the guy being easly flustered. ><

well in judism (or howerver its spelled)


the world was supposed to have been created as if the time had already passed(evolution i guess would have already happened) so i guess you could say its for both evolution and creation

Interesting point. Of course, continuing with traditional approach, once God created even one thing, time would also begin to exist. Just because he operates outside of it doesn't mean his decisions don't happen in real time. Or perhaps he entered into our time. Many explanations.

I like the thory, I never thaught of it that way.
Well safe to say I wont get a conversion attempt from that guy again,

I belive in evolution... its been proved !
I dont really belive that god created the world.

Is there any proof to that ?

The morden theory of evolution explains all this stuff preety clearly.
And there is no arguement to that....!!! ( i think )

each and every particle and each an every organisms exsistance can be explained by science.
From humans to to bacteria to matter to anti matter !

there has been no proof to this that god created the world.

Anti matter has not been fully explained, the start of the uiverse, how planes maintain an altitude (seriously, no one is quite sure) and quite a few other things remain unknown to scence. Maybe in the future science can explain but there are still plenty of things science doen't know.



No it hasn't. Theres ton's evdence but it hasn't been "proved" yet.

ohhhhh.......
I accept the fact about anti matter .

but i think so that evolution has been explaied ...
whats the part left unexplained.

as for the unvierse ( creation) goes the big bang theory has kind of explained the formation of galaxies and it states that universe is just a blank space that is increasing with the movement of the galaxies.


oh but anyway i would like to know whats unexplained in evolution ?
please tell me about that , i would be glad to know !

thanx for all the other information !

i would say that we as humans DO NOT! have the answers cuas we are pitifull stupid beings and i justs say:

I dont know why we are, but we indeed do exists

It's still only a theory. Same for Big bang.



We're not stupid, Far from it. We've just made some mistakes. We are still learning this whole civilisatoin thing.

Oh its a theory allright, but I'm just pointing out that the occurance of variations and the transfer of traits from parents to offspring has been explained in the theory. So its preety true i think !
If you see .... the theory can very nicely expain the human evolution from premitive apes.


whats up with the point in calling HUMANs stupid ?
I dont think we are stupid or pitifull in any way !
I hope you can explian why you siad so lone ?

There's so much we don't know/don't understand/can't comprehend. Maybe stupid isn't the correct term. It's more of ignorance.

yea i think we can say that ... but stupid is not at all acceptable to me.
But with time i think we will make progress and slowly we'll be able to comperhend and understand things that we could not.

I don't really appreciate the phrase "We came from monkeys" in the evolution choice. It suggests a misunderstanding. We and monkeys both came from a different thing altogether.

I take evolution to be true. I have encountered evidence for it, but no evidence for creation.

ID is really just Creationism with "God" removed.

Its not monkeys, its APES!

I know. Didn't want to further confuse.

But, yeah. Monkeys spilt of long ago, humans/apes more recently but still long ago (though we really 'are' apes).

dont worry about confusing people, they then ask and learn, its better then telling them the wrong thing,

Technically, I didn'y say anything wrong. We 'are' related to monkeys, just far more distantly.

Monkeys are from a different genus its self or what ?

In tha same sense we are distantly related to all life on the planet,

i belive we came from that sludge in the earths caves that scienitists are so keen on saying it wa sthe base of life

us humans? we came from nitgrogen sucking single celled orgonisms?
could be.....although saying there is no g-d is an even more amazing explination to our esistance than saying there is

Being primates, monkeys are 'somewhat' closer than, say giant squids. But, yeah, I get it.



Are you saying that claiming there is no god is more extrodinary/odder/etc than claiming there is one? I have to disagree. Stating that something does not exist (unless there is evidence for existence) is really the default state. I could claim an invisible Edward Elric rules the universe. That'd be far more extreme than saying there was no invisible Edward Elric.

Oh, if you take the time to sit back and think about it, I'd think you'd end up agreeing with him. The universe is constantly expanding around us, and for it to do so that means that at some point in cosmic history is was smaller than it currently is, which means somewhere down the line our universe was infinitely as small as it is possible to be without not existing, and right before that it began. Why did it begin? How did it begin? The Big Bang, let's say. What cause the Big Bang? Inevitably, you have two conclusions, both of which are equally fantastic and bizarre.

I'll leave what they are for another time.

See, adding God in thus adds the need for origins for God. Why can't the Universe have just Always Been, in some form or another?

Science refutes the idea that the universe could have always been. As I said, and have beaten into the ground, if the Universe has been steadily expanding through out history, if must have had something to expand from, thus going back into infinitely smaller quarters. In the end though, it's a little odd to deny the existance of an eternal source of some case, but embrace immortality for something not quite capable of self-governing itself to this point. The detail of life itself only further lends a nod to this idea.

Not quite. See, there's the theory that it cycles. Expand, contract, expand, contract, etc. If God created the universe, where'd he/she/it come from?

Why does it cycle? What makes is cycle? A very fishy theory, if I can say so.

Less fishy than some being which apparently doesn't need an origin. Was God created by some other God? Turtles all the way down.

...Turtles?

No, not less fishy, just as fishy. If the universe is capable of doing this to itself, it must also be both immortal and concious, not unlike some claims to a God. A conciously aware, immortal system is just as believably as a conciously aware, immortal source for a system.

Referencey thing.


Why does it need to be conscious? Could not the Way Things Work do it?

Discworld referance?

All self-regulating systems are either actively concious or designed to function that way. If it was unconcious, you'd have a rock or something. As for the "Way Things Work,' I find it an even greater stretch of belief to think that everything unintentionally and accidentally worked out completely perfect (From a biological standpoint) of its own chance.

On the biological standpoint-it only exists that way because that is the only way it can exist. Things seem perfect, becuase that is the only way we've 'ever' known them. Many things are 'not' perfect. I see 'no' evidence for design or Unversal Consciousness. The Universe basically is a bunch of rocks and various other things. It's not really ordered.

..I'm finding this very, very hard to conceive of. Not ordered? Not perfect? Life meshes together in perfection. The Human body, and all animal and plant bodies for that matter, work in such finely-tuned, well-kept cognitive manner, how could be anything but perfection? If one working of your body was "Off kilter" in any way, you'd know about it, might even cease to exist. And if the universe is basically a bunch of rocks and "Various other things" how can it be self-regulating in the least. Rocks just lie there, doing nothing. Plants have all the details mapped out and in progress, as does the Human body. You don't need to think or force your body to do what it does, it functions on it's own.

Science confirms that living beings are islands of order in an entropic system. That life can exist at all, to be, is a sign of something.

There is a lot of unused DNA. Also whole organs (appendix!).

Life exists thanks to the formation of amino acids from smaller molecules. Eventually, these formed single-celled organisms and after Much time, us.

And where did the amino acids and their smaller molecules come from? What programmed them to come together and function as they did? And I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that the appendix served a purpose, emphasis on past tense, that we no longer need as developed human being (so we've either grown beyond it, or it was instrumental in our development as a fetus). Not only this, but what is unused tends to not have anagonistic affect as well. It's been used or not needed, but doesn't take up time or benfit from other fully integrated parts.

Served a purpose in ancestors, maybe. Now, it is a liability.

As for the acids and such-they formed basically randomly. Energy+various elements+lots of time=life, as far as I've read, heard, and thought.

Most of this is most likely broken genes that caused slight mustations during evolution that and broken/un-activated virus' that may have been caught milenia while we were still in different stages of evolution. As far as we know we might create a substance that activates a particually deadly virus and "poof" the human race goes caput.

Verily, 'tis so. That's not Perfection, as was suggested, though.

Earth is perfect for life as we know it because life as we know it grew on Earth.

Methinks you're reading too much into this perfection thing, esrz22. The point is, life functions like an intricate machine, with it's body naturally and fully sorting out what it needs to do. The slightest miscommunication or natural problem would have serious repercussions. Yet our nervious systems, joints, organs, all function as they were meant to, collectively, and not for our detriment. That's how it "Justed happened" to be? Pretty freakin' fortunate indeed. Plants, animals, humans, all function on a finely-tuned, juuuuust right basis. I find it quite a leap of faith to assume these elements randomly gathered to form such a well-working whole, especially when the individual elements have no idea as to the final structure.

I still question where the energy and elements originate, or how they get about to this mutual arrangement of life.

Pretty fortunate, but lots can happen in billions o' years. The origins of Everything are unknown, but it is simpler to have Everything always there in some form than to have something Else always there that created it.

Simplicity doesn't dictate truth. Nor does obnoxious smileys. >_>

Quite a lot of the time truth is complicated, "Stranger than fiction" as they say. And yes, lots can happen in billions of years, such as everything simply happening to form in the right way to create conditions for planets, moons, life, etc. The universe is older than us, and seems to have been in synchronized working order all this time.

And if you deny an outside source, than there must be an inside source, and it must be concious in some respect to keep itself in such uniform working order across its vast cosmos.

I disagree. There is no need for consiousness in the overall nature of reality. If there is an outside source, what is the source for that source? If that source doesn't need one, why does Everything else?