Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

i was trying hard not to raise suspicion to that fact, oh well. Remember what i say people: the only thing you can do is keep living life normaly.

[dirtyape]

The missing link between fish to land based lifeforms has been discovered in Canada.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1180415,00.html

Also, the viral-nucleus hypothesis suggests that the "mother cell" which is the basis for all life on earth existed after a mimivirus invaded a bacterium and persisted there instead of destroying it and replicating itself. Thus introducing DNA into a cell for the first time (without killing it) and formed the first cellular life with DNA.

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/02/unintelligent-design-or-do-we-come.html

Now, if only someone could explain why probable precursor of all life on earth, the Mimivirus, existed in such a state of high order over 4 billion years ago we could write creationism off completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus

[Black Heart]

it existed because god created it. LOL

[BerG]

Yeah ape he clearly created it to trick us into thinking we evolved.

Duh.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Berg's got it right.

[dirtyape]

hmm, if your definition of God is the universe itself then i guess God did create it. But the question is was it by intelligent design.

I don't know the answer but i'm sure it wasn't created on earth, the dates just don't work. It would take a long time for such a complex structure to form naturally through random collision and for it to be present at the birth of life on earth is mathematically unrealistic.

There is increasing evidence that our sun, which we all naturally assume is the mother of earth and all the other planets, may in fact have been an interloper into a debris cloud of our deceased solar system. What i'm saying is that our sun looks like it has formed independantly and then passed through the remains our parent stars nova - collecting the debris and starting the formation of the solar system around us today.

ref: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1610398.htm


This also lend credability to the "Nemesis Star" hypothesis which is suggests a red dwarf orbits our solar system at about 150,000AU and a period of about 26 miliion year cycle. The nemesis star may in fact be the remains of our 3rd generation parent star.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star)


Given all this, I postulate that the mimivirus is a remnant of our original 3rd generation solar system and developed independantly to our current sun. Possibly even during the formation of our solar system.

[laurasaur]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

i will post a reply to this tomorrow after i have finished mad drinking spree :p

[Zarkov]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

i will post a reply to this tomorrow after i have finished mad drinking spree :p

A moth to the flame.

[BerG]

 after i have finished mad drinking spree :p

Typical creationalist.

[Verrt]

So the old star that went nova was the egg and our sun fertilised it

Could this information throw some of our dating systems out of whack?
seeing as the material would have existed long before it started recieving radiation from out current sun

[dirtyape]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

i will post a reply to this tomorrow after i have finished mad drinking spree :p

gee, at least us non-creationalists have the manners not to openly mock and laugh at ideas we don't agree with and try to explore possibilities outside the all purpose cop-out statement "god done it".

[dirtyape]

yeah thats what i'm saying verrt. But note - this purely my own idea at this stage, i've not heard anyone else suggest this. It needs to be mathematically modelled to see if it's even possible. Oh, and i'm not saying that this is how it is, or how it must have been, but rather that it's an idea that i'm exploring and have presented for others to think about.

the implications are immense, and yes i'm sure it would have some impact on the dating of the solar system. Not fully understanding how the solar system has been dated i cannot comment.

[Black Heart]

i hoped the sun dated bofre it became our mother, dirty whore sun.

[Arnifix]

yeah thats what i'm saying verrt. But note - this purely my own idea at this stage, i've not heard anyone else suggest this. It needs to be mathematically modelled to see if it's even possible. Oh, and i'm not saying that this is how it is, or how it must have been, but rather that it's an idea that i'm exploring and have presented for others to think about.

the implications are immense, and yes i'm sure it would have some impact on the dating of the solar system. Not fully understanding how the solar system has been dated i cannot comment.

It's a very cool theory certainly, though in my opinion, it seems MORE improbable that this would happen, than the mashings in the primordial stew bonding to create a cell.

[laurasaur]

Hi its JayKay, Laurs fiance.

I'm not going to get into refuting the remarkable fairytails such as promoted by the evolutionary propagandists cited by dirtyape - at least not right now as we're about to go out to dinner - but I would just like to explain the line of logic as to why I believe what I believe.

First of all, there is only reality, one truth (ie, on what has happened in the past, and what is yet to come including after we die) and as it may actually matter, I'd like to find out what the most likely truth actually is. Unfortunately the idea that we can believe whatever we want and "that its all ok" may actually be a very stupid idea, as there is only one reality, therefore not everyones beliefs can be correct.

So I base everything I believe on what is most probable, as neither creation or evolution is provable. It is true, disproving evolution (which is actually impossible to catergorically disprove) will not prove creation. Disproving creation (which is also impossible to disprove) will not prove evolution. And one cannot prove either creation or evolution. All we have is common evidence, and different interpretations of the same evidence. From that, we have to decide for ourselves as to what is most probable. By the way, because neither theories are provable or disprovable, neither are technically scientific theories, but mere hypothesis's.

Now, without going into details right now, after many years of reading both sides of interpretations of the evidence (most people only ever read the popular media's side of the evidence, such as the internet sites cited by dirtyape), in my opinion, by far the most unprobable of the two theories is evolution. And by far (from my research) the most probable is creation by a supernatural being (eg something outside our known laws of physics, chemistry and time was needed to start off our universe, and life). The number one reason (in my opinion) as to why evolution became so popular, and remains so, regardless of damning evidence (or lack of evidence for it) is that it gives human beings comfort that there is no "greater being" to whom we may or may not be accountable, and that there is nothing to worry about when we die. These reasons are pretty strong reasons to give one a strong bias towards evolution.

And as a side note, I do not need "religion" as a "crutch" to help me through my "meaningless" life, as some would say. No, if the evidence pointed to evolution being the most probable, I would throw my belief in the God of the Bible out; I need no crutch!

One only has to read "Darwins Black Box" and other material written by secular microbiologists to show how debunked the various "first single cell organism" theories (some of which are referred to by dirtyape) are, and how they don't even address the most problematic issues regarding the forming of the first form of life.

I read with great interest the article in the paper the other day on the "intermediary fish/reptile". The media frequently publish the latest sensational evolutionary "proofs", but then steadfastly fail to the publish the following fall out between the original proponents and other scientists (often professing evolutionists themselves) who debunk the claims completely. I'll be keeping an eye out for this one! Regardless, doesn't it strike you as pretty funny how its taken them this long (150years or so since evolution really started to take root in western society) to find one intermediary fish/reptile? They find many many examples of ancient fish fossils (some of which have since been found to still exist) which predate this supposed intermediary, and many reptiles that come after this supposed intermediary (but which are infact, still just fully formed reptiles, in no way intermediary). Yet infact, given the millions and millions of years one must allow for such a transition between these animal types (if it were possible at all at a genetic level), we would expect to find millions times more examples of various intermediary forms than we do fully formed "prehistoric" fish or "prehistoric" reptiles. But we don't.

Anyway Laur has done her hair and makeup, so I'm off. Hope you don't take offence dirtyape. We have just come to different conclusions based on what we so far think is the most probable.

Cheers
JayKay

[QUPHOZ]

FUCK THAT SHIT EH!

[Fragin]

Hi its JayKay, Laurs fiance.
.
.
.

This is garbage.

If you want to believe in god that's fine with me I have no problem with that. I'm not going to tell you your're wrong to do it. But if you think that you are somehow basing your opinion on an objective comparison of competing theories, as you claim, then you are misleading yourself and insulting my intelligence.

"after many years of reading both sides of interpretations of the evidence". Puhlease! Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. You're mixing them up (deliberately?).

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

It has occurred to me that any further discussion in this thread is going to be irrelevant, the same ideas are just going to be brought up over and over again, and never reaching any conclusion.

When I read JayKay's and dirtapes post, A reply forms in my head, until I realize that I would already have posted the same thing few times before in this very thread.

Whose idea was it to resurrect this thread from the grave?

[Zarkov]

People kept talking about how great it was.

How cerebral discussion was in the old days.

Same with the Mephala thread.

It was just nostalgia though.

[Fragin]

Did you mean 'conclusion' SM? Although 'collusion' could fit. :sly:

It occured to me too but then i realised that people have been discussing this topic for 100's of years without reaching any conclusion.

The very next post could be the one that decides it once and for all....

[Steady]

This is garbage.

If you want to believe in god that's fine with me I have no problem with that. I'm not going to tell you your're wrong to do it. But if you think that you are somehow basing your opinion on an objective comparison of competing theories, as you claim, then you are misleading yourself and insulting my intelligence.

"after many years of reading both sides of interpretations of the evidence". Puhlease! Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. You're mixing them up (deliberately?).

Exactly what I would say if I could think of words this big. Good work bro  :rnr:

[Steady]

Whoa did I decide something???  :eek:  Cool!!  :bounce:

Oh you said "could" haha aww got my hopes up

[- NicK -]

Please excuse me if something along these lines has already be posted, I never did read through this whole thread.

The only 'truth' I subscribe to is that "all fact is faith." i.e. one can never really know anything, we all just believe in our 'truths'. If you want to label my beliefs then I guess you could call me an agnostic nihilist.

In relation to the Creation vs. Evolution debate (and by extension any other debate), both sides accept reality as it is. Both accept that studies have been done, evidence found and then differing conclusions made. It is amusing to me that although both sides are falling over themselves to declare their belief is scientific and logical, a mere report in the media of studies and evidence is proof enough to them that any such studies or evidence exists. Can you prove to me, or more importantly yourself, that this is so?

I believed not, and so the next step in my logic was that the only way to find the truth would be to conduct the tests and examine the evidence for oneself, firsthand; then one could draw their own conclusions. However I realised that I was again taking reality at face value, relying on our physical senses to 'show' us reality. Our senses are not infallible, and can you prove that what you see is real? What you hear, feel, taste, touch and even what you think all cannot be proved to be accurate.

So in the end all scientific endeavour is futile; you may as well take the blue pill and believe what ever you want to.

[KiLL3r]

to even attempt to explain how we where created is madness because you will never truly find the right answer

[Fragin]

Exactly what I would say if I could think of words this big. Good work bro  :rnr:

'Puhlease' is the best one. :asian: