Poll: How did human life come about?

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

:crumbs;

According to the Book of Genesis Chapter 1, the earth did even exist until at least the 2nd day. Tell us, exactly how long was that first "day" before the earth was even created?

~24 hours.

And in case you're wondering where your :[roll]; is, I ATE it, toasted with butter.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Agman
ok....I don't want to start a flame war or anything but to the people that chose the evolution with God not in the process or anything that does not involve God...I have a very simple question...where do you supposed that fist very basic life form came from?? Some might say well from matter from the Big Bang...If thats the case then I ask..where did the matter that caused the Big Bang come from?

What we call 'God' doesn't have to be a man with a white beard that lives in the sky.

For example, the wave collisions of a higher realm of wave energy outside our detection could be responsible for creating our 3 dimensional universe, then we could call those waves 'God'... (Anyone who has read my prior posts knows what I am talking about; Xenogears provides a real eye opener on creation theories and the gullibility of humans in dire need of explaining their origins).

Do I believe in heaven and hell and biblical stuff about sins and going to hell and all that? Do I believe in some intelligent being that created mankind out of sand? No I don't, not necessarily in the way religious types might believe. Those are likely fairy tales invented by human imagination to explain things observed at the time.

Maybe people of biblical times DID in fact observe those things. For all we know the events of the bible did happen... but lets propose for a moment that it could have been 'aliens' who artificially synthesized us and dropped us off here, and maybe even intervened now and then in the beginning (commandments, all the miracles in the bible, etc). Maybe the 'God' story was made up to protect our psyches, or maybe we just interpreted it that way with our primitive minds. Some religious zealots might cry blasphemy or say that?s not being faithful and its ridiculous to say ?aliens? made us or similar stories, but not at all. For all intents and purposes, such an entity is the very 'God' described in the Bible. Just because it/he/she doesn?t meet your personification of a potential ?God? as a old white man with a white beard and gown sitting in a throne doesn?t mean it/he/she isn?t that ?God? you believed in all your life. ANY such entity meets all the criteria of an all knowing, powerful, and intelligent being that some define as 'God' from our perspective as humans.

And even if something fitting your ideal of what 'God' is does exist, then the question is where did it/he/she come from?

Do I believe that spontaneous chemical reaction is responsible for initial life here in this universe and then evolved into its current state? It?s definitely possible. But even if that was what happened, it doesn't answer where did this universe and its matter and energy come from and why does it exist in the first place? Just like we keep exploring inward into molecules, atoms, quarks, etc, we also discover outward, going from one planet to a solar system to galaxies, the universe. Just as we ask ourselves how much smaller can our observable elementary particles get, we must also question, how much more is there outside of our directly observable universe?

Beings of this realm using the physics and instruments of this realm will never be able to directly observe such an ?outside? realm if there is one, without intervention from that realm.

What do I believe? I believe I don't care. I'm going to go home and work on my car and play video games.



"Born from the fallen wreckage, 'she' slowly arose, her long hair blowing in the wind as her eyes reflected the dawn's breaking light. Reflecting the start of the day that 'god' and 'humankind' fell to earth."

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years. you have a chapter and a verse to back that up right? Science proves that's false. The bible says the entire population on earth descended from 2 people. there eventually had to be a first 2 procreating humans...even with evolution Science proves thats false. The Bible says that everyone except a single family was wiped out in a giant flood. Science shows that's false. Oh really? Because archeology shows that a flood did happen... The Bible is PURE CRAP. It's fake, it's fiction. and you can prove that a man named Jesus never walked the earth? because once again the archeologists show evidence that he had... Each and every day science shows just how truly offbase it is, but the truly weakminded desperately cling to each and every point that's been emphatically disproven. and every day a bunch of internet scientists who have done no real discoveries or research of their own, read books and pass off other peoples opinions as their own, without fully understanding or verifying what they're saying You can always tell a person has absolutely no clue about the real world when he relies on the internet for his information.

Chapter and verse from the Bible itself skippy. The Bible creates an exact timeline of what it foolishly wants you to believe happened. God created Adam, then Eve. They had three sons (no idea on who they married) and they begat their kids and they begat and they begat, etc. Do the math on that and you come up with somewhere between 2000 and 2500 years before you get to Jesus and another 2000 years to get to the current day. YOUR VERY OWN BIBLE SAYS SO.

But even if you allow for insanely long lifespans in that list of begats you still only come out to maybe 6000 years as other jesusfreaks want to believe. Fine, use 6000 years as the outside number. That's still been disproven. We have the fossil records to prove that humans have been around for around 150,000 thousand years. Not 4,000 not 4,500 and not 6,000, 150,000 years.

The Bible is wrong from page one. It itself proves that it's wrong.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

I don't see why religious people have such a problem with evolution. By continuing to deny facts (yes, evolution is a fact, we know that organisms evolve just as we know the sun will come up tomorrow and there is 130+ years of evidence to support this)) religious groups are just making themselves look like people who are willing to blatantly deny reality.

IMO evolution reinforces the idea of God. It life arose on earth through abiogenises which eventually lead to evolution, that would mean that the laws of physics are designed in a way that applying energy to molecules allows them to organize into something as amazing as a human being. That is what i call intelligent design.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

There are no inherit problems with evolution. Entropy, probability, and fossil records all comply with it or confirm it.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

The current theory of evolution (the one being argued on this board, and from richard dawkins book) evolution says that abiogenesis got from zero life to a single simple organism. Then natural selection got us from the single simple life to millions of complex organisms. yet if it could be proven that the single simple organism did not, or could not have existed as the first intermediate stage...

then there is a fault with our current theory of how history happened, this doesnt apply a fault with what natural selection is, or that it works. It does not imply that natural selection was not operating, merely that it was not or could not be the sole principal at work.

1. evolution is separate from abiogenisis. The existence of evolution does not depend on the existence of abiogenisis.

2. Natural selection is NOT the only mechanism by which evolution operates.

 

[OutHouse]

is homo erectus really modern humans ancestor? is that fact or therory?

 

[IEC]

That poll is just loaded.

*Prods with 10 ft pole and runs away*

 

[Semper Fi]

First option has more votes than I expected for ATOT.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

It is also anti-science. Of course, you're displaying the fallacy of assuming that the biblical interpretation of God is the accurate interpretation of God. There are millions upon millions of people in this world with strong religious beliefs that do not get involved in such a debate, as their interpretation is vastly different. To say that Christianity is the one true religion is horseshit. You have to accept which version is true (to say that the gnostics and their ilk were wrong simply ignores the fact that they were eliminated and their ideas ignored--not because they were wrong, but because they didn't gibe with the Romans that wanted to make Christianity the state religion, for their own purposes). Of course, there are far older religions that still survive today.

 

[shadow9d9]

96 people think some god created humans within 10,000 years time? That scares the ****** out of me... People are definitely followers, not leaders ... and it shows.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Although it would require alot of elaboration, #1 is the only choice that even comes close to the truth. It is not surprising that it has the least number of votes, but then this is an item that I have no problem in being in the minority. In fact, more often than not, the majority of the people are wrong the majority of the time.

I agree with you here. The majority of the citizens of the US agree with you, and they are clearly wrong!

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

Instead of basing your claims purely on the blind faith that the scientists obviously know better, why don't you explain to me how those issues can be explained without destroying the theory of evolution?

I don't care what degree you have in anything, that doesn't mean you can't or won't twist the facts to support your belief, nor does it prevent you from being deceived or blinded from the truth.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

there is no such word as "evolutionist" It was created by fundamentalists to imply that evolution is itself a religion (as you display here with bravado and unabashed ignorance). Evolution is far from religion. It is fallable, and testable. It is accepted by scientists in-so-far as it is the best explanation we have at this time (and possibly will ever have).

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

It is also anti-science. Of course, you're displaying the fallacy of assuming that the biblical interpretation of God is the accurate interpretation of God. There are millions upon millions of people in this world with strong religious beliefs that do not get involved in such a debate, as their interpretation is vastly different. To say that Christianity is the one true religion is horseshit. You have to accept which version is true (to say that the gnostics and their ilk were wrong simply ignores the fact that they were eliminated and their ideas ignored--not because they were wrong, but because they didn't gibe with the Romans that wanted to make Christianity the state religion, for their own purposes). Of course, there are far older religions that still survive today.

Could you reiterate?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

:crumbs;

According to the Book of Genesis Chapter 1, the earth did even exist until at least the 2nd day. Tell us, exactly how long was that first "day" before the earth was even created?

~24 hours.

And in case you're wondering where your :[roll]; is, I ATE it, toasted with butter.

Wow... so a day was already 24 hours before the earth even existed? That's amazing.

I'd better be careful arguing with your powerful intellect....

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

Instead of basing your claims purely on the blind faith that the scientists obviously know better, why don't you explain to me how those issues can be explained without destroying the theory of evolution?

I don't care what degree you have in anything, that doesn't mean you can't or won't twist the facts to support your belief, nor does it prevent you from being deceived or blinded from the truth.

If you could explain how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "problem" for evolutionary theory, that might help. My understanding of both indicates they are perfectly compatible. I have to know what you've got wrong before I can explain why you're wrong (I think I know what you've got wrong, but I'd like to hear it).

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... so a day was already 24 hours before the earth even existed? That's amazing.

I'd better be careful arguing with your powerful intellect....

And what would make you think otherwise? Moreover, how long do you think the period was?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Crono
I'm asking about abiogenesis because I want to see if people actually know what they believe in when they say they believe in evolution. You can't say I'm stupid unless you know what you believe isn't. "Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

What is the earth made up of? "Earth formed as part of the birth of the solar system: what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating cloud of dust, rocks, and gas." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

So to all you haters out there, because I (and many others believe) that an intelligence and power infinitely above our own created an order universe with laws and created man, rather than randomness out of nothingness or by "processes" (apparently also come from nowhere) you think I'm stupid?

First of all I haven't called you stupid once.

I can't help but take exception to how you say "...those who believe in evolution...". Believing in something suggests utter and complete conviction of the truth of that something.

It is my opinion that humans are a result of natural selection and evolution, but I realize that there is a chance of me being wrong. You recognize no such possibility of the untruth of what you believe and that alone is what causes me to disagree with you.

yep. this is why you can't argue with these people; as they will never accept that one structure (in the case of evolution, science) is based on an entirely separate system than their own. They assume that science, (as seen by scientists) must be infallible if they devote so much time and effort to investigation. They will never be able to wrap their small minds around the possiblity of an infallible means to investigate truth in the world.

This is also why, you rarely see evolutionary scientists engage in such debates: they realize this concept is lost in their detractors, (as they spend little to no time understanding even the simplest concepts of that which they deny) and accept that debating them simply lends credence to them, and the debate. It isn't even a debate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... so a day was already 24 hours before the earth even existed? That's amazing.

I'd better be careful arguing with your powerful intellect....

And what would make you think otherwise? Moreover, how long do you think the period was?

It could have been any length of time. FYI: the Hebrew word "yom" used in the passage does not necessarily mean "day." It can also mean "interval" or "age."
Another mistranslation from Genesis 1 (just to get us started) is that the Hebrew word "bara" means "created" when it actually means "filled" or "fattened."
I suppose that these are the issues one gets when one insists on a supposedly literal interpretation of a text that was originally written in a poetic language.

However, I'm more interested in how anyone could believe that a 24 hour day could exist before the first day ever occurred. You're claiming science, while basing your argument off a very unscientific premise, i.e. that time is not relative. Could you explain that?

 

[TheRock2]

Life spontaneously generated from the gaseous and chemical components of a young earth 3.5 billion years ago.