A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Solja_Boy]

Originally Posted by This_person

I believe God is eternal, but I also believe that the universe has not been. Both the scientific studies done demonstrate this, and the Biblical reference is to a beginning of time.

I think in terms of dimensions we comprehend - the spacial components and time - are not all there are. God is in a different dimension of understanding than we have, and is not limited by time as we are. Kind of a "Reader's Digest version" of my belief, but it's how I think of it.

Is god like one of the beings in stargate that assend to a different dimension or plane of existance?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Solja_Boy

Is god like one of the beings in stargate that assend to a different dimension or plane of existance?

I've never watched Stargate, so I'm not sure what ascension you're talking about.

However, I believe as I said above.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by This_person

I believe God is eternal, but I also believe that the universe has not been. Both the scientific studies done demonstrate this, and the Biblical reference is to a beginning of time.

I think in terms of dimensions we comprehend - the spacial components and time - are not all there are. God is in a different dimension of understanding than we have, and is not limited by time as we are. Kind of a "Reader's Digest version" of my belief, but it's how I think of it.

My point was for the sake of argument. In the grand scheme of things 1) God does not go into enough detail to really know 2) Not having a real understanding of what eternity is how do you define "...in the beginning" and 3) It really makes no difference in what the real message of the bible is.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

I sort of agree with what you're saying here. The theory was provided to us as a truth, and the consistent work of millions of people throughout time has been to discredit the information provided (as truth). So, the observable is life itself, the information was provided to us (not our own theories), and the revisions are really in the understanding of the information - not the information itself. So, I kind of agree with your distinction here.

What information do you say was provided to us? How does life itself constitute evidence for a transcendental being?

Originally Posted by This_person

True, but churches are not leaders. Bin Laden believes he should kill us because we don't follow his version of his religion, or follow religion the way he wants, or whatever. That doesn't make him right.

While that is technically correct, it misses the point. Moderates in religions are absolutely right to condemn their extremist colleagues. But their reasons for doing so are weak ones, usually a claim that the extremists are wrong about the nature of the religion's gods. From a standpoint outside that religion, the moderates' claims about the nature of their gods have no more validity than the extremists' claims. The two groups seem to agree that the goal of human behavior should be about pleasing their gods - apparently their only area of disagreement is on what their gods allegedly want. Surely one should reject Bin Laden's type of extremism because of the enormous harm it poses to human life and human freedom.

Originally Posted by This_person

if ID were viewed as the scientific theory it is (not specifically Creationism, which is tied to a specific religion, but ID as an all-encompassing theory), it could be proven or disproven with that same process.

ID relies on the baseless assumption that a certain level of complexity could only have been designed intentionally. Matthew Chapman's book "40 Days and 40 Nights" offers evidence that ID began as an attempt to push religion disguised as science.

Originally Posted by This_person

"False" in what sense - that it's not scientifically proven?

No, false as in illusory.

Originally Posted by This_person

I was referring to the concepts of an expanding universe - implying that all of time, space, and matter originated at a single point, and everything has not "always been there", but that there must have been a single point of initiation of everything. Sort of like "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" concept - there was nothing (including time), and then there was time, and matter and space. This is a scientifically backed theory.

The concept's similarity to an element of Genesis doesn't amount to scientific verification. For one thing, many other religions have creation myths. For another, the burden is on Genesis to show that a god was responsible for the initiation. The fact that science does not have a complete explanation for the birth of the universe does not automatically indicate the existence of any higher beings. The same is true of Noah's Ark - many religions have flood myths, and one theory is that the myths arose after the end of the last Ice Age cause sea levels to rise, but that doesn't automatically prove Genesis' claim that a god caused the flood to punish humankind.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

How does life itself constitute evidence for a transcendental being?

In that it is completely inexplicable. Now you don't see it, now you do. Something more significant than a chemical reaction HAD to account for it, in my opinion.

While that is technically correct, it misses the point. ... Surely one should reject Bin Laden's type of extremism because of the enormous harm it poses to human life and human freedom.

And, this is my point - regardless of what we find, that does not require any particular act. We were created with free will, not a subservience to a religion. Even those that feel we have the subservience CHOOSE to believe that, proving themselves wrong in the process

ID relies on the baseless assumption that a certain level of complexity could only have been designed intentionally. Matthew Chapman's book "40 Days and 40 Nights" offers evidence that ID began as an attempt to push religion disguised as science.

While you may think the assumption baseless, the people who believe it thiynk it's not. I think you find it baseless because there's not yet been a provable essance to it - like science's views on the origins of life.

The concept's similarity to an element of Genesis doesn't amount to scientific verification. For one thing, many other religions have creation myths. For another, the burden is on Genesis to show that a god was responsible for the initiation. The fact that science does not have a complete explanation for the birth of the universe does not automatically indicate the existence of any higher beings.

I agree, it's not proof of either side (any of the religions nor science). It just continues to find scientific evidence in support of what was said thousands of years ago about the origins of the planet, lending credence to other claims.

The same is true of Noah's Ark - many religions have flood myths, and one theory is that the myths arose after the end of the last Ice Age cause sea levels to rise, but that doesn't automatically prove Genesis' claim that a god caused the flood to punish humankind.

I agree, it does not prove it. It merely suggests that these are not just "stories" out of people's need to be told stories, but there is some truth to them.

[Bustem' Down]

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

That's a great question. I do believe entirely, but I won't try and change your mind, nor belittle your belief.

Many people can discuss their respective beliefs without debasing the other person's belief. Some can't.

[Nucklesack]

I just finished a book called "The Basque History of the World". did you know :

• They have a ODD blood type, there is a higher (than global) average (55%) of Type O blood
• The Basques are well-known to have the highest percentage (around 33%) of Rhesus-negative blood of any human population, and so are regarded as the original source of this factor.
• (Probably due to) Rhesus-negative blood the stillbirth rate among Basque that impregnate a outsider is much higher than Avg.
• Many Basque people exibit an extra vertebra (a 'tail bone' -- called a 'cauda')
• Basques have lower than normal body temperature, and lower than normal blood pressure
• Basque is related to no known language. Basque absolutely cannot be shown to be related to any other language at all. The structure of the Basque language is also very distinctive, it is said to contain only nouns, verbs, and suffixes. The language strongly defines the Basque people. It's thought that Basque is the descendant of a spoken language originated by the Neanderthal people
• further reading has proposed that the Basque were the founders of Europe, and the creators of Stone Heng

Hmm… it sounds like they are half-way down the road to being a different species

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by This_person

That's a great question. I do believe entirely, but I won't try and change your mind, nor belittle your belief.

Many people can discuss their respective beliefs without debasing the other person's belief. Some can't.

Yeah, imagine how peaceful the world would be if we just stayed out of each other's personal beliefs.

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I just finished a book called "The Basque History of the World". did you know :

• They have a ODD blood type, there is a higher (than global) average (55%) of Type O blood
• The Basques are well-known to have the highest percentage (around 33%) of Rhesus-negative blood of any human population, and so are regarded as the original source of this factor.
• (Probably due to) Rhesus-negative blood the stillbirth rate among Basque that impregnate a outsider is much higher than Avg.
• Many Basque people exibit an extra vertebra (a 'tail bone' -- called a 'cauda')
• Basques have lower than normal body temperature, and lower than normal blood pressure
• Basque is related to no known language. Basque absolutely cannot be shown to be related to any other language at all. The structure of the Basque language is also very distinctive, it is said to contain only nouns, verbs, and suffixes. The language strongly defines the Basque people. It's thought that Basque is the descendant of a spoken language originated by the Neanderthal people
• further reading has proposed that the Basque were the founders of Europe, and the creators of Stone Heng

Hmm… it sounds like they are half-way down the road to being a different species

I'm suspicious of this one. There is no known anthropological record of Neanderthals interbreeding with Homo Sapien or Homo Erectus, if that were even biologically possible and since that species died out I see no reason why the language would persist. also, since Neaderthal lived before written history and had no written language, how would anyone even be able to suspect that Basque is a decendant of it?