Can you prove evolution wrong

I'd just have to stick with the whole evolution. There may be missing links but for all I know there could be more evidence that Santa and a dog in a clown outfit created the universe :p Scientists have way more evidence of their theory than the other way around. so I'd be happy to stick with the idea of Darwin and modern science.

reply to post by MrXYZ


The question you propose cannot be answered on your premise. It is unfair to ask this when evolutionists have nothing to offer in a comparative understanding.

Not all creationists believe the same. Some creationists believe in a creator far different than others therefore the word creationist can not embrace all of the many belief systems in the world. I would venture to say that you have the same facets in your theology. Darwin was not on trial in the Scopes case. Scopes used the Darwin theology of evolution as the case expanded but the trial was basically with Scopes teaching the high school children about Darwinism. In other words Scopes was on trial and was found guilty of teaching children about the theory of evolution. That was what it was called at that time. It was not a facet of science nor is it today. If it were a facet of science then it would have to be replicated and proven as a fact.

I am a Christian Creationists simply because that is what I chose after many indecisive years of listening to intellectuals spiel their own theories such as how a frog came from a tadpole or mixing mutations with evolution and many other such theories. I was not taught creationism by my parents but chose this avenue of study simply because I believed that there is an afterlife of men and women.

Being a Christian creationist is not to say that I am independent of Jewish creationists. As a matter of fact my entire theological teachings exist through Judaic literature. We believe that our Creator has created many creations in the past and has erased these creations for reasons of which belong to the Creator. I also believe that this universe may very well be millions of years old and has left many artifacts of previous creations. I differ in my belief from other creationists in that I do not believe in a literal twenty four hour day creation by the Creator. I have reason to believe that one day of the creation is actually one era of creation and that day one can be more or less than day two. I do not have any idea of the length of time an era is simply because time was not instilled in this creation till the forth era of light.

As far as evolution is concerned, it is possible and likely that this creation has changed or evolved due to a number of reasons. Climate change is one great factor which influences a host of other environmental changes including our air that we breathe and water that we drink. This is directly influenced by the sun and the projection of the magnetic influence of the earth. This facet of science is primarily theology at the present but there are some factors that can be verified.

In all of this it should be noted that all creationists are not on the same page nor will they ever be on the same page. I am a theologian and not a scientist but there are some scientists who are creationists and who agree on many points of the scientific world. I guess that I should also declare that I am a coward by nature because I fear that if I am wrong that I may end up as a cow chip in someone’s barnyard. Maybe that’s why I am a creationist.

reply to post by Seede

It is unfair to ask this when evolutionists have nothing to offer in a comparative understanding.

Except for the fact that nothing understood about biology today makes sense except in light of evolution. So you can claim that evolution provides no understanding, but you're simply wrong. Even a cursory reading of scientific literature in the field of biology would show you that.

Not all creationists believe the same. Some creationists believe in a creator far different than others therefore the word creationist can not embrace all of the many belief systems in the world. I would venture to say that you have the same facets in your theology.

Except for some key differences - there is objective evidence supporting evolution and it is observable, testable, and reproducible. This is what takes evolution outside of the realm of theology and into the realm of science.

Darwin was not on trial in the Scopes case.

Given that he had been dead for about forty years at the time of the trial, I should hope not.

Scopes used the Darwin theology of evolution as the case expanded but the trial was basically with Scopes teaching the high school children about Darwinism. In other words Scopes was on trial and was found guilty of teaching children about the theory of evolution. That was what it was called at that time. It was not a facet of science nor is it today. If it were a facet of science then it would have to be replicated and proven as a fact.

You seem to be either misinformed or under-informed about the weight that theories carry in science. Let me help:

From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

The theory of evolution is made up of facts, as are all scientific theories.

I am a Christian Creationists simply because that is what I chose after many indecisive years of listening to intellectuals spiel their own theories such as how a frog came from a tadpole

That's not evolution. There's no concomitant change in genetics with a metamorphosis from tadpole to frog.

or mixing mutations with evolution and many other such theories.

Mutations are part of evolution, along with several other mechanisms. Further, mutations are observable and evolution due to mutation coupled with selection is observable.

I was not taught creationism by my parents but chose this avenue of study simply because I believed that there is an afterlife of men and women.

Except that evolution does nothing to refute the existence of an afterlife.

Being a Christian creationist is not to say that I am independent of Jewish creationists. As a matter of fact my entire theological teachings exist through Judaic literature. We believe that our Creator has created many creations in the past and has erased these creations for reasons of which belong to the Creator. I also believe that this universe may very well be millions of years old and has left many artifacts of previous creations…

(Sorry, had to snip this out because of the character count imposed on posts.)

...This is directly influenced by the sun and the projection of the magnetic influence of the earth. This facet of science is primarily theology at the present but there are some factors that can be verified.

(Emphasis mine) Such as?

I fear that if I am wrong that I may end up as a cow chip in someone’s barnyard. Maybe that’s why I am a creationist.

Yep, fear sums it up alright. It always boils down to fear with fundies. Even if your destiny is to become a cow chip, why be afraid of it? Fear is a poor reason to make any important decision in life.

The bottom line is that regardless of any of the anti science rhetoric that these alleged creationists spew, evolution is the only one backed by evidence. The knowledge is out there and there's absolutely no excuse for your poor understanding (or intentional deception) of the topic at hand.

www.hhmi.org...

Change the format to DVD and type evolution in the search box.

This is a medical institute that gives out FREE DVDs on a large variety of scientific topics. I'm pretty sure they still have free shipping as well.

I highly recommend:

Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps
Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads

Perfect place to start for those of you who want to learn about the facts and scientific studies regarding evolution, without having to dig around though various articles and studies. It's pretty straightforward and very informative. Now, there's absolutely no excuse for the ignorance. I also recommend that you check out their other videos, they cover far more than just evolution. Pretty awesome that they give it all out for free. I've already ordered tons of them from the site and haven't paid a dime. The knowledge is priceless, though. You simply can't go wrong. Worst case scenerio you learn a little bit.

Evolution does not discount a creator, nor does it discount the possibility of genetic tampering of our DNA in the past. You are free to have your beliefs and accept scientific facts at the same time. Most creationists have no problem with this.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by RebelRouser

 

i believe in dogs from wolves, cats from lions

You are not even worth debating. Dogs don't come from wolves and cats do not come from lions. They share a common ancestor. Just as humans and chimpanzees do.

Actually dogs do come from wolves and it's a relativaly recent event. I suppose it can be called an evolution but the term is domestication and with domestication also comes physical changes. A wolf and a dog is the same species. which means that there has been no deversion in their evolution but only physical changes due to domestication.

A species is defined by its ability produce viable offspring ( offspring which in turn can procreate) A dog and a wolf can have sex and produce a litter of pups and that litter can then produce more pups so a dog and a wolf are of the same species.

So a dog and a wolf isn't like a human and a gorilla. They're more like an office worker and a hunter gatherer.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero
... you're not really raising any scientific questions against evolution, much less "theory killing" ones.

You're basically saying that there has to be a "reason" or a "need" for a species to randomly change by complete accident into a new species, no? I'm thinking by reason or need you mean an environmental stress, no? Can you explain what was the environmental stress that caused our missing link the need to give rise to us- the weakest link in the whole chain?

Energy. We have a very powerful brain and most likely have always had a powerful brain compared to other animals.

The trick to survival is to get the greatest return for the smallest possible amount of energy used,

We use less physical energy than any primate and that's because we walk upright. We can see above the terrian better than any other ground hunting animal on the planet. We can relay information with the minimum of energy.

In fact we conserve so much physical energy by being the most adapted predator on the planet that we use the rest on our brain and sex.

There's alot more to it but I'd be here all night typing so perhaps you can google the question " what's the advantage of being human" or something like that.

reply to post by iterationzero

reply to post by Barcs


The word evolution has a different meaning to most creationists simply because it has its own place in almost all of the sciences including biology but evolution of man from lower primates does refute my belief of my Creator as is taught in the Hebrew literature. Our belief that the Creator did create man in His own image and after His own likeness does teach us that man could not have evolved from a lower species. As a Christian Creationist (Fundie) I naturally believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and if He is the begotten Son of God then this shows us man did not evolve from a lower species. If we are correct then evolution of this kind is not science nor is it biologically provable to us. That was why it was called theory of evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial. It was taught in the same text books as biology and the meaning was quite clear as to mean the ascension of man from a lower animal species. This was proven to be just another theological (fact) from the evolutionists.

As a Christian Creationist I have no quarrel with the true sciences who teach theology in conjunction with their proven work but I can not accept the theories of evolution from lower primates to man any more than I can accept that something came from nothing. So in this case of the Butler Act, evolution of this sort does refute creationism. It simply is theology and that was my intent to show from the onset.

Insofar as fear is concerned I would venture to say that even you in all of your atheist bravery do harbor fear. If you fear nothing then you are the first to have this strength but not believable by any stretch of the imagination. Derogatory name calling is not necessary and it does not add any thing to your self grandeur. A fundamental Christian is not as cowardly as you may be led to believe and history can verify that as a provable fact and not just a theory

reply to post by Seede

The word evolution has a different meaning to most creationists simply because it has its own place in almost all of the sciences including biology but evolution of man from lower primates does refute my belief of my Creator as is taught in the Hebrew literature.

So when objective evidence conflicts with a book of subjective interpretations, believe the book. Solid reasoning there.

Our belief that the Creator did create man in His own image and after His own likeness does teach us that man could not have evolved from a lower species. As a Christian Creationist (Fundie) I naturally believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and if He is the begotten Son of God then this shows us man did not evolve from a lower species. If we are correct then evolution of this kind is not science nor is it biologically provable to us.

Then you are incorrect. Evolution is most definitely science, as it is observable, testable, and repeatable. I find this to be an amusing position that you're taking -- essentially, you're saying that if science and religious dogma are in conflict, the science must be wrong because... of something or other... infallible word of God... yadda yadda. Talk about working backwards from your conclusion.

That was why it was called theory of evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial. It was taught in the same text books as biology and the meaning was quite clear as to mean the ascension of man from a lower animal species. This was proven to be just another theological (fact) from the evolutionists.

You seem to be confused. Evolution wasn't on trial in that case, the teaching of evolution was. Further, it's still called the theory of evolution, although it's also referred to as modern evolutionary synthesis to differentiate it from Darwin's theory of evolution, which is a part of the modern form of the theory. You seem to need another refresher already on what constitutes a scientific theory, so feel free to scroll up to my earlier reply to you.

As a Christian Creationist I have no quarrel with the true sciences who teach theology in conjunction with their proven work

Except that theology is inherently non-scientific. Science relies on evidence, of which there is an abundance in support of evolution, and theology relies on faith, which is the antithesis of an evidentiary belief.

but I can not accept the theories of evolution from lower primates to man any more than I can accept that something came from nothing.

Then just say that you don't believe in evolution because of your religious beliefs and leave the accusations that evolution isn't science out of the equation. The former is an intellectually honest statement. The latter means that you're either uninformed or lying.

So in this case of the Butler Act, evolution of this sort does refute creationism. It simply is theology and that was my intent to show from the onset.

So when religion makes claims that are testable and the evidence shows that religion is wrong, then it must not be science any more? Have you stopped to think that maybe religion ceases to be religion when it makes scientific claims?

Insofar as fear is concerned I would venture to say that even you in all of your atheist bravery do harbor fear. If you fear nothing then you are the first to have this strength but not believable by any stretch of the imagination. Derogatory name calling is not necessary and it does not add any thing to your self grandeur. A fundamental Christian is not as cowardly as you may be led to believe and history can verify that as a provable fact and not just a theory.

Except that you made it clear that you believe the things you do out of fear. That seems to be an incredibly poor basis for a set of religious beliefs to me.

reply to post by iterationzero


You seem to be mistaken in your understanding the facts of the Scopes trial. The Scopes trial was a charge of the state of Tennessee upon John Scopes for teaching a theory that mankind evolved from a lower form of life. Scopes was not a full time biology teacher but was primarily a coach in the athletic field. The charge was not against the science of biology or any other science. This was not a factual provable teaching according to the charge against him and John was found guilty of teaching the evolution of mankind from a lesser life in this trial. I have repeatedly stated that this particular teaching of evolution is not provable by any stretch of the imagination and it is not provable to this day. Therefore it is theology and it is called theology of evolution in reference to the Scopes verdict which was the subject matter from the onset. I have never implied nor stated that evolution in some facets of science was false and stated that in the onset of this discussion.

I did not realize that my fears were of value to your factual science. When I used the word fear in context of my writing it was not a literal meaning of being afraid with knocking knees and sweating palms and I believe that you clearly understood the meaning. To clarify this language of which I used is meant that I am a coward in the sense that I may end up as a cow chip in a barnyard instead of a celestial entity in the Kingdom of God.if I am wrong. A creationist does realize that he or she could be wrong just as a true scientist theorizes that they could be wrong before evidence is produced. The reason that Creationists have doubts at times is because we do not have proof of our God any more than you have proof that there is no God. Can you prove to me that there is no God or Creator? If so, then many of us would appreciate your input on this fact of science. If you do not have scientific proof that man evolved from a lesser life then admit that this is nothing but theology. Be honest in all of your wisdom.

I stated from a theological understanding that if Jesus is the true Son of God then man could not have evolved from a lower form of life simply because Jesus being a man such as we are today, shows us that he did not evolve from a lower life. Now that is with our understanding that He (Jesus) was brought forth in the image and likeness of God and if He was in the image and likeness of God, which we believe that He was, then He had not morphed into any other life form.

I was forthright in explaining my theology on evolution of mankind but you have not committed yourself with facts. Your only defense is to attack the usage of language. Once again, I would be pleased to know the evolutionary scientific facts that mankind, as we know it today, evolved from a lesser life form. In that light I shall retire this post waiting your reply.

reply to post by Seede


Well unfortunately for you, your personal beliefs do not come before proven science, and is not a logical argument to use in a thread called "prove evolution wrong". You haven't even come close. The scopes trial is irrelevant. The field of evolution is HUGE today. You act like Charles Darwin laid some some dogma and everyone just went along for the ride and it hasn't changed to this day. You cannot provide any legitimate experiment or evidence that actually contradicts evolution or supports any other theory. Evolution does not conflict with god, only your strict literal translation of his "word". If anything evolution should strengthen your faith, not contradict it. We DID evolve from a "lower" life form as you call it. The evidence supports it. I think your issue is your literal interpretation of an ancient story that's probably been told and retold and passed down for thousands of years. IMO religion should be about your personal relationship with god, not a book. But it's up to you. I posted the links for the free evolution DVDs. Enlighten yourself or reject the reality that's staring you in the face. Present evidence against evolution or don't bother responding.

Originally posted by CaptChaos


Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense. Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end. And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.

Don't forget the theory of general relativity (gravity and the nuclear weak and strong forces which exist in all places all the time and are obviously all around us). They're all just theories too.

reply to post by Barcs


I thank you for your time and wish you the very best in your quest for your scientific proof of existence. Your game of cat and mouse has proven to us that you have nothing to offer except your limited knowledge of some biology which is basic grade school antics. It is not suitable for us to gloat at the ignorance of another human but only to wish you the best in life and pray that you will eventually understand the true God. I now retire from this thread with the offer of friendship and hope that you will one day understand that God is not a mutation of ones imagination but a God who loves you just as He loves everyone. Shalom --

reply to post by Seede

You seem to be mistaken in your understanding the facts of the Scopes trial. The Scopes trial was a charge of the state of Tennessee upon John Scopes for teaching a theory that mankind evolved from a lower form of life. ... This was not a factual provable teaching according to the charge against him and John was found guilty of teaching the evolution of mankind from a lesser life in this trial. I have repeatedly stated that this particular teaching of evolution is not provable by any stretch of the imagination and it is not provable to this day. Therefore it is theology and it is called theology of evolution in reference to the Scopes verdict which was the subject matter from the onset. I have never implied nor stated that evolution in some facets of science was false and stated that in the onset of this discussion.

Close. Here’s text from the Butler Act, which is what Scopes was charged with violating: (emphasis added)

That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Given the preferential treatment given to the “Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible”, the law was obviously unconcerned with teaching only what was factually provable.

And you’re right, no scientific theory is provable -- they are only falsifiable. There is an amazing amount of evidence -- genetic evidence, morphological evidence, fossil evidence, etc -- for mankind’s common descent from earlier forms of life. Amazingly, despite countless experiments and opportunities, the theory of evolution which, whether you like it or not, includes mankind, has yet to be falsified.

I did not realize that my fears were of value to your factual science. When I used the word fear in context of my writing it was not a literal meaning of being afraid with knocking knees and sweating palms and I believe that you clearly understood the meaning. To clarify this language of which I used is meant that I am a coward in the sense that I may end up as a cow chip in a barnyard instead of a celestial entity in the Kingdom of God.if I am wrong. ... Can you prove to me that there is no God or Creator? If so, then many of us would appreciate your input on this fact of science. If you do not have scientific proof that man evolved from a lesser life then admit that this is nothing but theology. Be honest in all of your wisdom.

So you’ve chosen to take Pascal’s wager. As far as the existence of God, it’s up to you, as someone who is making the positive claim regarding God’s existence, to prove his existence. No one can prove something doesn’t exist. And, again, while there’s no proof, at least none that will meet your personal burden of proof, there’s abundant evidence for common ancestry.

I stated from a theological understanding that if Jesus is the true Son of God then man could not have evolved from a lower form of life simply because Jesus being a man such as we are today, shows us that he did not evolve from a lower life. Now that is with our understanding that He (Jesus) was brought forth in the image and likeness of God and if He was in the image and likeness of God, which we believe that He was, then He had not morphed into any other life form.

That clears it up then -- Jesus but not be the “true Son of God” then. Glad we can agree on that. Also, you seem to be implying that evolution must take place on the organism level. It doesn’t , it takes place on the population level. An organism doesn’t turn into a different organism as a result of evolution.

I was forthright in explaining my theology on evolution of mankind but you have not committed yourself with facts. Your only defense is to attack the usage of language. Once again, I would be pleased to know the evolutionary scientific facts that mankind, as we know it today, evolved from a lesser life form. In that light I shall retire this post waiting your reply.

Since you asked for a fact and not proof, which is an important distinction to make, I'll give you one. One fact that supports humans and other primates sharing a common ancestor is that human chromosome 2 is what you get when you fuse chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b. At some point in mankind’s past, we had 24 chromosome pairs. Two of them fused, so we now have 23.

reply to post by iterationzero


I thank you for your input on the theology of time. Your answer of “At some point in mankind’s past, we had 24 chromosome pairs.” is quite interesting to note in light of the fact that neither you nor anyone can verify the time in this mankind’s past that you refer to. Your theology of fusion is well known and is also just theory.

You seem not to be able to distinguish theology from facts and have not convinced me that God was a monkey and as a monkey has created a monkey in His image and after His likeness only for that monkey to evolve into a life form superior to His own. I guess it makes a lot of sense to an evolutionist but it certainly does not make sense to me. Of course I am just jesting because I realize that as an evolutionist you have no such creator to create a monkey. I guess the monkey either evolved from another life form or just happened from nothing. But that is another phase in your theological science for you to ponder. I hope that one day you will realize that as you work backwards in time that you will realize that something produced all of your biological material including yourself. When you find that starting point, then you will realize that you have wisdom.

Out of this conversation you have not proven your theory of evolution of a man from a lesser life or no life and therefore it is theological evolution just as it was fond in the Scopes trial. Thank you for your time and I enjoyed your intellectual input. I remain your friend and wish you the very best in life. You are a gentleman and a brilliant person.
Seede

reply to post by Seede

You're not actually interested in having an honest discourse about factual information. You’re arbitrarily setting your personal burden of proof so high that no amount of evidence will satisfy you, giving you the rationalization you feel you need to reduce everything to theology. The difference, however, remains -- there is objective evidence to support evolution, there is no objective evidence to support creationism. This can be seen in your necessity to try and relegate evolution to something that happens to every living thing on Earth… except us. Based on your comments in previous posts, if I had presented this same information as “Species A” and “Species B”, you wouldn’t have had a problem with it. It’s only once we move the information into the context of human evolution that it somehow becomes suspect and not really science.

And of course it makes sense to you -- you're working backwards from your conclusion, namely that a literal interpretation of the Bible must be the correct one, and cherry picking which objective evidence is valid and which isn’t based on that. Science works in the opposite direction. Your conclusion regarding the results from the Scopes trial is just as backwards. Evolution wasn’t found to be inherently theological in the Scopes trial, Scopes was found to be guilty of violating the Butler Act, which made the teaching of any origin of mankind other than the Biblically literal one illegal. Again, the science behind evolution wasn’t on trial, the teaching of that science was.

Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by Barcs

 

I thank you for your time and wish you the very best in your quest for your scientific proof of existence. Your game of cat and mouse has proven to us that you have nothing to offer except your limited knowledge of some biology which is basic grade school antics. It is not suitable for us to gloat at the ignorance of another human but only to wish you the best in life and pray that you will eventually understand the true God. I now retire from this thread with the offer of friendship and hope that you will one day understand that God is not a mutation of ones imagination but a God who loves you just as He loves everyone. Shalom --

You said you'd retire from the thread, then posted 2 posts later. You have to understand that I have no problem at all with your personal beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't expect to tell a bunch of people they are wrong about scientific studies and data without providing some sort of evidence. Acknowledging scientific facts, doesn't make god a monkey. It makes god amazing. My only quest is for knowledge, my friend. I have beliefs as well, but I admit they are beliefs and don't try to push them on others or debunk modern science to justify it. But yes, please insult my intelligence and then pray for me.

The holy script from Genesis 1:26 says, "Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness". First of all, who's they? You see if god was truly a single entity, that's not what he would say.

reply to post by Barcs


an interview i did

Creation


If we were created, then we are a digital being, on a digital planet and in a digital universe!


Does evolution exists?


It has to; if we are digital then who ever created the universe would have evolved.


Is it possible we have evolved?


It is more likely that we were created, than we evolved. I base this answer not through religious belief but on a mathematical basis. Based on
probability, it is much more likely than we were created, instead of evolved. However it is possible that we have evolved.


Are you saying we were created?


I am saying despite what a scientist may tell you, it is more likely that we were created and not just a little bit more likely either.


If were not digital, could we have still been created?


The short answer is No, the long answer is No as well. If we assume we are created then we are definitely a digital being. If we are not digital then there is no creator.


But I definitely feel non digital!


It is very hard to believe that we are digital, everything we experience feels very real to us. But it is possible for our universe to be digital. It is possible for us to create our own digital planet through the means of mathematics using a computer; it is also possible for us to create a digital being through the means of mathematics using a computer. So a possible theory is that if we can create digital life, then we could be digital life ourselves.


But we don’t have the technology to create intelligent digital life do we?



If someone were to fund a project to create intelligent digital life, within a few years we could have created a digital person that was as intelligent as a 5 year old child. While 5 year olds may not be deemed intelligent it is certainly possible for us to create a digital person through complex mathematics that we would deem intelligent!


So if we were created, why were we created?


A religious person may say that God created us out of the goodness of his heart; some may say that this is a giant experiment. However if the universe is digital it must serve a purpose and to understand the universe’s purpose takes a lot of theorizing.


So can you name a possible reason for our existence?


It’s hard to know where to start, but one thing we know is that if we were created then the creator would have spent many hours creating us. If we are digital then in order to create a particular plant for example, it would take a mathematician many hours to design, it would also need to be programmed
to only grow under certain circumstances. In our world, time more often than not cost’s money. So perhaps this computer was built in order to make the creator money!


How could the creator make money from us?


One can only theorize about this subject, but one can look at what we suspect. In religion it is common to pray to a God silently using your own thought. If the creator can hear your mind voice then it is possible for the creator to hear what you say out loud. It is also possible for the creator to be able to see what you are seeing as well, as long as we assume we are digital. If the creator’s being was willing to watch our being for entertainment purpose, then the creator could make money from us. The entertainment theory is the only way that the creator can make money from us as a digital being.


Why would the creator, create religion?


This could back up a religious person’s belief that God does something out of the goodness of his heart. History’s books aren’t very detailed about the trials and tribulations of the average person before religion. But after religion was introduced people knew the difference between wrong and right and this improved society. It’s hard to say exactly why the creator, created religion. However we as a being have benefited more from religion than anything else throughout our species history.


It has been proven though that the creator lied! Why?


The creator had a job to do, and that was to create a religion. If we look at the best way of getting a message through to somebody in many cases it would be more affective to lie than to tell the truth. Our species lie’s to one another regularly in order to make a point. If the creator, created our planets main religions then the creator’s method worked very well. In the 21st Century there are more religious believers than there were 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.

edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong

It seemed more like you were asking, if evolution is wrong, then please tell us how we got here. We would all like to know something solid grounded that explains how we got here. I for one have studdied the supernatural and paranormal all of my life, and was pretty shocked at something I found. I never believed in religion or the bible, and you couldn't get me to pick up the book to save my life. There were just to many stories I heard about things that don't add up. Back in college in 1993 someone passed me a watchtower handout that was explaining the ezekiel chapter, and reading this made no sense at all. I was interested in grabbing a bible to see what I would get from that same section, and it was clear that god was visiting us, down to earth in a chariot, or space craft. I was shocked, and put the book down until the last couple years.

The preface of the english version clearly states that the book is a SUPERNATURAL read and of course mainstream religion and science have overlooked this. Right now there is a little man with a big eraser in the process of erasing that section from the bible. But it's ok, it turns out, the whole book is like this. I have over 30 years of experienced interest in these subjects and decided to try to read it from that perspective and it blew my mind. Not only does it all make sense but I was able to figure out where we dropped the ball and picked up magic, imaginary friends and miracles. We had been reading it wrong is all.

I believe we were abducted and brought to earth, and there are a multituid of sources that hold facts that support this, and even in the bible itself clearly states we are from another planet. The bible does concur with both Zecharia Sitchin, and even the findings of our DNA by Lloy Pye. Erich von daniken might have admitted to some wrong doing, but it looks like his information was correct overall. The assam tribune publishes an article on Dec 12th ,2010 stating that our mtDNA shows humans to be well over 200,000 years old. Most of us believe god placed us here 7,000 years ago so I'm just missing over 193,000 years of my lineage. This could add believe to both the possibility of us not being from earth as well as evolution. Either way, it looks more like god did NOT create us when the bible claims.

There is however one weird possibility in all of this. Zecharia believes we were miners for gold and that god was an astronaut, and that we were a genetically engineered species. Sadly there seems to be oodles of material to back this up. It's looking like we were made. Is it possible that when god made us, it was through a microscope? Even stranger is that he might have started with DNA from an existing race, and modify it to his liking. This might explain how he created us 7,000 years ago, while our DNA says we are over 200,000 years old.

I have spent months looking at all of this including evolution. Some of the things that are tossing me off track with evolution is the lack of continuity, while the theory of intervention has 100% continuity. It's hard to go back to biblical times and see if we were abducted but at the same time there is no valid excuse on why we don't have oodles of proof, and oodles of bones to support the evolution theory. Probably the biggest is the lack of proof of transgression, and those bones as well.

I think something that is constantly throwing people off is our need to adapt. I have given much though in the observation. It turns out, adapting is ALL we do to live here. The problem is that adapting is not evolving. It's just the opposite, we aren't evolving. I could give thousands examples of adaptation, that might only make up 10% of the picture. At the same time I could give about a dozen reasons to say there are aliens in the bible while we might only know say 20 things about them. It's overwhelming.

Thanks for your thoughts. Please do not misread questions as an attack.

Was we, Humans the only creatures transported here from elsewhere?

I would think if we were genetically engineered to be miners we would at least have better night vision.

Evolution shows we share a common ancestor with the modern apes so I will ask if you can explain why these alien mine owners transported those here as well?

The 'Gods/Visitors/Seeders' would be hugely technically advanced being a given why did they produce such inefficient and easily damaged workers as humans?

Why design us with free will and aggression for such a menial task?

I will not respond to there not being 'oodles of evidence' as you have obviously dismissed the abundance of it and so there will be little use doing so.