aussieflyboy

Australopithecus afarensis

does this source work better for you?

__________________
If it weren't for sexual fantasies, I'd have no goals at all

irishNJ

How dare you belittle other peoples beliefs - you are a RABID anti-Pastafarian-ite. My avatar is one of many many photos of His Noodliness. How many actual photos of God have you got to show? Eh?

Thought so,

You can see more at:
Wallpapers and Graphics at Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

preludespeeder

Brian, the problem I have with your argument is you want to automatically use the word God to explain something you can not understand. How does taking what we see around us today where we do not understand how long it has been here or where it all came from and slap God on it to explain where it came from. My question to you is if he did all of this where did he get it from, where did he come from. In my opinion all you have done is used a word to explain what science is trying to explain with evidence. God does not answer the question it just makes you think it has.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

preludespeeder

An interesting thing that most people use to say we came from God is the feelings of right and wrong. Well evolution explains this very well. If you look at pictures of cave drawings and the history of civilizations you can see a distinct path to morals and rules. It starts as something simple as don't fight over women in camp. The evolutionary process can explain it this way. At first the men in the tribe fight to the death over women in the camp. Over time this behavior is realized to harm the well being of the tribe aka they do not have enough food because all the men are dying. So they change the behavior to not fight to the death. This goes for sometime with just fighting but they realize that this still creates a lack of unity in the tribe and they suffer with a lack of food for the whole tribe. The behavior changes again, now they decide to not fight over women and worry about surviving with food. The process has evolved to understand that working together and not fighting will ensure survival of a group. This becomes a meme in the mind and is passed on the generations. But you like to think God created these rules instead of thinking the human mind is capable of thinking for itself.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

BrianS

The Bible is not a single source. It's 66 books written by over 40 different authors of widely different socio-economic backgrounds over a period of 1600 years on three continents in three different languages. That's certainly not a single source. The most amazing thing is all of these writings are in complete agreement. Just because these books are printed together doesn't mean they are a single source.

BrianS

That's impossible because if the universe has always existed we would never be able to get to this moment in time. If you jump into an infinitely deep hole, when will you reach the bottom? The answer is never. If the universe is infinitely old, when would we reach this moment? The answer, for the same reason, is never. The universe had to have a beginning if we can be at this moment in time.

BrianS

There is nothing automatic about my use of the word God. Logically I've proven the universe had a beginning. The Bible claims to answer how that beginning came into being. Since 66 books written by over 40 different authors on 3 continents in 3 languages over 1600 years are in agreement on the creation of the universe by God, the thought needs to be at least considered. There is no evidence given by you or anyone to prove this thought of God creating the universe is false. This idea of God creating the universe is currently the only hypothesis that does not contradict itself. "Science" looks for evidence of another hypothesis, but none has ever been found. Philosophers have looked for another possible reason for the creation of the universe, but none has ever been found. What's more logical, to accept the only hypothesis that doesn't contradict itself or to put your faith in a hypothesis that is contradictory?

Also, if I remember the scientific method correctly from my school days the first step in the scientific process is obeservation. No other step is ever to come first in science. Since none of us were here to observe the creation of the universe, can the scientific method be used purely to answer this question? The answer is, of course, no. Since the universe was created before us, one has to have a hypothesis or premise to start rather than observations. That's not really the scientific method then, is it? Aren't you just taking your faith and belief in contradictory theories and slapping the word science on them?

Yariv

I don't understand what you're talking about.

the number 47 exists. what is the first number? there isn't any. negative infinity to infinity. yet 47 is a defined number. what's so hard about the universe always having existed? if god always existed, then time is meaningless. I don't buy the 'outside of time and space' line.

as for the bible being a single source, it is so radically different than anything else you can use TODAY for studying nature, that all these books can be grouped together. and if you think they are all in agreement you are mistaken. there are MANY contradictions and variations. let's start with all the different versions of the bible... and HERE's a start if you want some examples. read the next couple of pages so as not to repeat the debate.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

BrianS

Infinity is a mathematical concept that does not appear anywhere in our universe. Give me one example of anything infinite in our universe. Just study infinity and you'll understand the truth of why the universe cannot be infinitely old. For example, what's infinity minus 1? It's infinity. What's infinity minus 1,000? It's infinity. What's infinity minus infinity? It's infinity, though you might have thought it would be 0. If you cannot add or subtract from infinity, then how can you get a sequence of moments? Let's look at a minute. It has 60 seconds and time flows by subtracting or adding 1 second, depending on your reference point. If infinity minus 1 equals infinity, how can you ever have a sequence of moments? How about dividing a second infinitely? If you can always take something and halve it, how far could you cut a unit of time in half and take that and cut it in half? Could you do this infinitely? If you could, you would never be able to reach the lowest measurement of time. If you cannot reach a lowest measurement of time how can you measure time? The very existence of time would come into question. Infinity is fascinating in mathematics, but cannot be ascribed to the known physical universe.

Also, consider that if the universe was infinitely old the temperature of everything would be equal. Heat energy goes from hot to cold and over infinity everything would reach an equal temperature. We obviously don't observe this, so scientifically we can be sure the universe is not infinitely old.

BrianS

The fact that there are different translations of the Bible does not mean there are contradictions in it. We have Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of each of the 66 books of the Bible. There are many scholars who can read these Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in the original language. The fact there are so many different English translations is because people have varying needs in understanding the text. In translating from one language to another you can translate each word individually or you can translate large sections as a whole. The word for word translations are more accurate to the text, whereas the large section translations, called dynamic equivalent, could be more accurate to the intention of the original text. Since dynamic equivalent translations require the translator to interpret what the text is saying before translating it to English most scholars and teachers prefer the word for word translations. The average person who thinks word for word translations are difficult to read might be willing to place some trust in the scholarship of a dynamic equivalent translator in order to have a Bible that's easier to read in today's language. If you don't trust anyone at all, you are free to learn Greek and Hebrew and study the manuscripts for yourself. Surely then you won't be able to claim contradictions over translations!