Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Mon 03/19/12 04:18 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? If God(s) can always exist then why cannot nature is my problem, it's like people say one thing can have a attribute, but the other cannot. Yes, we know that something occurred that has the universe expanding, but other than that out knowledge breaks down at the "singularity", so to just say "God(s) did it", is just not cool.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Mon 03/19/12 04:19 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? He lives in the Ethereal Plane as a gaseous form.He does upto 84 hitpoints of damage with his lightning bolt,him and Zeus battle it out on Mt.Olympus during the Gods Lightning Bolt challenge,it's a simple game the first one to hit a spectator at a golf game wins.Jesus was there last week signing autographs along with Mary Mag in a bikini.

mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Mon 03/19/12 04:24 PM Edited by mykesorrel on Mon 03/19/12 04:25 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? He lives in the Ethereal Plane as a gaseous form.He does upto 84 hitpoints of damage with his lightning bolt,him and Zeus battle it out on Mt.Olympus during the Gods Lightning Bolt challenge,it's a simple game the first one to hit a spectator at a golf game wins.Jesus was there last week signing autographs along with Mary Mag in a bikini. Lol, if this creator was a coder, man this code sucks.. $God = ""; $evidence = "Scientific method showing existence"; if($God == $evidence): $God = "rational evidence for God"; else: $God = "a figment in our imagination"; endif; echo $God;

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 04:24 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? He lives in the Ethereal Plane as a gaseous form.He does upto 84 hitpoints of damage with his lightning bolt,him and Zeus battle it out on Mt.Olympus during the Gods Lightning Bolt challenge,it's a simple game the first one to hit a spectator at a golf game wins.Jesus was there last week signing autographs along with Mary Mag in a bikini. does she have a rockin' bod?

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Mon 03/19/12 04:29 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? He lives in the Ethereal Plane as a gaseous form.He does upto 84 hitpoints of damage with his lightning bolt,him and Zeus battle it out on Mt.Olympus during the Gods Lightning Bolt challenge,it's a simple game the first one to hit a spectator at a golf game wins.Jesus was there last week signing autographs along with Mary Mag in a bikini. does she have a rockin' bod? It's almost comparable to Heras body,Zues' wife.It's freakin smokin

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Mon 03/19/12 09:04 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? If God(s) can always exist then why cannot nature is my problem, it's like people say one thing can have a attribute, but the other cannot. Yes, we know that something occurred that has the universe expanding, but other than that out knowledge breaks down at the "singularity", so to just say "God(s) did it", is just not cool. Nature is but an attribute of God. Life is our chance to enjoy it. Heaven is our chance to relax from that enjoyment.

mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Tue 03/20/12 10:36 AM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? If God(s) can always exist then why cannot nature is my problem, it's like people say one thing can have a attribute, but the other cannot. Yes, we know that something occurred that has the universe expanding, but other than that out knowledge breaks down at the "singularity", so to just say "God(s) did it", is just not cool. Nature is but an attribute of God. Life is our chance to enjoy it. Heaven is our chance to relax from that enjoyment. According to....?

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Tue 03/20/12 02:11 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness? If God(s) can always exist then why cannot nature is my problem, it's like people say one thing can have a attribute, but the other cannot. Yes, we know that something occurred that has the universe expanding, but other than that out knowledge breaks down at the "singularity", so to just say "God(s) did it", is just not cool. Nature is but an attribute of God. Life is our chance to enjoy it. Heaven is our chance to relax from that enjoyment. According to....? Reality as it is revealed to me. But you need not worry of the source. I am but a spot upon his garment. If it fits your reality... Accord it by the worth you see in it. If you see not worth... discard it as sand to the earth.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 03/21/12 08:48 AM
So have we decided yet if the god of the gaps created life via evolution yet?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Wed 03/21/12 09:07 AM
So have we decided yet if the god of the gaps created life via evolution yet? Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Wed 03/21/12 09:15 AM
Reality as it is revealed to me. But you need not worry of the source. I am but a spot upon his garment. If it fits your reality... Accord it by the worth you see in it. If you see not worth... discard it as sand to the earth. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 03/21/12 09:18 AM
Reality as it is revealed to me. But you need not worry of the source. I am but a spot upon his garment. If it fits your reality... Accord it by the worth you see in it. If you see not worth... discard it as sand to the earth. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I totally read this with the Dudes voice.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 03/21/12 09:37 AM
But you need not worry of the source. That's good advice. I think people spend too much time wondering and pondering and searching for the meaning and/or origin of life, and not enough time living it. As the wise guys (Italian) would say: "Forget about it!"

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 03/21/12 09:44 AM
The origins of humans are simple really,the enviroment was water and the specie was the lung fish.Call me crazy but prove me wrong.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 03/21/12 09:46 AM
The origins of humans are simple really,the enviroment was water and the specie was the lung fish.Call me crazy but prove me wrong. I've never heard that before. But I'm not well versed on evolution. You made the claim. Provide your evidence.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 03/21/12 09:54 AM Edited by RKISIT on Wed 03/21/12 09:56 AM
The origins of humans are simple really,the enviroment was water and the specie was the lung fish.Call me crazy but prove me wrong. I've never heard that before. But I'm not well versed on evolution. You made the claim. Provide your evidence. Also theres videos but i'm sure you don't want to watch 3 or more hours of this.Also it's a theory thats getting alot of attention.Meh it won't let me link it,just type in lung fish

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 03/21/12 09:58 AM
I'm not saying it's 100% fact but the explanation of why it's possible is logical.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 03/21/12 09:59 AM Edited by RKISIT on Wed 03/21/12 10:00 AM
http://scienceblog.com/50768/small-step-for-lungfish-a-big-step-for-evolution-of-walking/ there we go.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 03/21/12 10:08 AM
That article did not say anything about lung fish being the ancestor of humans. It did suggest that it may have been one of the animals that evolved to walk and breath on land, which would mean that it could be an ancestor of any land animal.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Wed 03/21/12 10:13 AM Edited by RKISIT on Wed 03/21/12 10:15 AM
That article did not say anything about lung fish being the ancestor of humans. It did suggest that it may have been one of the animals that evolved to walk and breath on land, which would mean that it could be an ancestor of any land animal. exactly including primative humans,it's the point that fish can make a transition from swimming in water to walking on land.I can keep posting links but if you're interested i'm sure google has more.to lazy to keep linking