The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is just my opinion on some stuff. Which side do you favor - scientific or religious route? Foreword: This, which I am about to type isn’t science-fiction nonsense. Much of what is written is based on scientifically proven fact, and the rest is my opinion. Using a combination of the two, a reasonably non-contradictory explanation can hopefully be created. Right.
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
Page:
Ant wrote:
> This topic has helped me reach the million word count too, YAY!
----------
I think this entire thread was just a ploy so Ant could get his word count up!
> This topic has helped me reach the million word count too, YAY!
----------
I think this entire thread was just a ploy so Ant could get his word count up!
Sibs wrote:
> but in assembleys he always seems to talk
> of how we should live our lives for God, live our lives to his will,
> as if we have no free will or something.
Is this school in a commune?
> but in assembleys he always seems to talk
> of how we should live our lives for God, live our lives to his will,
> as if we have no free will or something.
Is this school in a commune?
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> "It's because people can't be bothered to work out their own
> theories, and just accept that this is right, because scientists say
> so."
>
> That's where religion came from
>
> Don't forget, people used to think the world was flat. To say anything
> against that theory was considered blasphomy. Now, do religious people
> TODAY think the world is flat? No, they don't, because that old theory
> has been proved wrong. Religion is simply the ideas of people
> thousands of years ago, and I personally feel it is sad that people
> today live their lives by something that some people sat down one day
> and wrote. Look at how we see the Greek/Roman/Egyptian gods as
> "myths" and not "truth". Not even the Greeks etc
> believe in their old religion, and that is how the world will be in a
> few more hundred years. The bible is bound to be shown as fake sooner
> or later
>
I have to say that Mr Mojo here has a very valid and in my opinion, genius point. He basically took the words out of my mouth here - of course, there's going to be more weighing on the Scientific side of things because there is actual *evidence* to back up their theories 99% of the time, where the same can hardly be said about Religion, it requires a little thing called faith, something that is fading with Religion these days, but understandably so. After all, I don't believe ANYTHING until I have definitive proof, unless it's something trivial, of course 80)
What a contradiction, eh? :p
> "It's because people can't be bothered to work out their own
> theories, and just accept that this is right, because scientists say
> so."
>
> That's where religion came from
>
> Don't forget, people used to think the world was flat. To say anything
> against that theory was considered blasphomy. Now, do religious people
> TODAY think the world is flat? No, they don't, because that old theory
> has been proved wrong. Religion is simply the ideas of people
> thousands of years ago, and I personally feel it is sad that people
> today live their lives by something that some people sat down one day
> and wrote. Look at how we see the Greek/Roman/Egyptian gods as
> "myths" and not "truth". Not even the Greeks etc
> believe in their old religion, and that is how the world will be in a
> few more hundred years. The bible is bound to be shown as fake sooner
> or later
>
I have to say that Mr Mojo here has a very valid and in my opinion, genius point. He basically took the words out of my mouth here - of course, there's going to be more weighing on the Scientific side of things because there is actual *evidence* to back up their theories 99% of the time, where the same can hardly be said about Religion, it requires a little thing called faith, something that is fading with Religion these days, but understandably so. After all, I don't believe ANYTHING until I have definitive proof, unless it's something trivial, of course 80)
What a contradiction, eh? :p
It's taken me ages to read through this lot and wow what a complete load of rubbish has been written here.
Yes I am a Christian and I believe that God created man etc etc.
I have also spent time researching what people call "the truth" behind the bible.
To start with - nowhere does it say that the earth is about 5000 years old. Man has been living on this planet for "a few" thousand years - that is all. The earth has been around for millions of years as we know. On the first day he created the earth - how long is one of Gods days ? 1 minute, 1 million years - we do not know and it does not matter.
Whatever happened to the earth before man is irrelevant. God decided that man would inhabit the earth and set around making it how he wanted it for us. wether this was a gradual thing by our understanding or an instant thing we do not know.
What science is doing nowadays is proving the bible - not disproving it. What we musn't do is take some things to literally, take Noah's Ark for instance. Scientists around the globe know that at some stage there was a massive flood, probably caused by the collapse of the Bosporous mountains which allowed millions of gallons of water to flood from the Black sea, whihc we know was once much higher that it is today, and flood the "biblical lands" . This is one theory that scientists are using to explain a proven biblical event. There are ancient texts and books from around the world that all indicate a massive flood at some time.
Darwins theory of evolution has now been totally rubbished by the scientific community. Everything about it has been proved to be flawed and for those who go on about the fossil record where is all the evidence of the supposed "missing link". How come we have found so many bones of early apes etc but have been unable to find bones that can prove this one theory ? Maybe it is because the missing link never actually existed ?
On this point science has shown that if man had indeed been evolving for so many eons then the population of the planet should be considerably higher than it is today.
Mojojojo said that people used to think the world was flat - yes they did, but they certainly didnt get that from the bible. The bible itself states that the earth is curved and evidence from many of the scrolls found in the dead sea and other very early writings also confirm that prior to the birth of Jesus man knew that the earth was indeed round.
Alot of what people have been writing here are based on things that they have been told and read etc mostly written by people who have not bothered to actually carry out any substantial research into the matter.
Science is a gift given to us by God along with many other things, we choose wether to use these things for good or bad.
Yes I am a Christian and I believe that God created man etc etc.
I have also spent time researching what people call "the truth" behind the bible.
To start with - nowhere does it say that the earth is about 5000 years old. Man has been living on this planet for "a few" thousand years - that is all. The earth has been around for millions of years as we know. On the first day he created the earth - how long is one of Gods days ? 1 minute, 1 million years - we do not know and it does not matter.
Whatever happened to the earth before man is irrelevant. God decided that man would inhabit the earth and set around making it how he wanted it for us. wether this was a gradual thing by our understanding or an instant thing we do not know.
What science is doing nowadays is proving the bible - not disproving it. What we musn't do is take some things to literally, take Noah's Ark for instance. Scientists around the globe know that at some stage there was a massive flood, probably caused by the collapse of the Bosporous mountains which allowed millions of gallons of water to flood from the Black sea, whihc we know was once much higher that it is today, and flood the "biblical lands" . This is one theory that scientists are using to explain a proven biblical event. There are ancient texts and books from around the world that all indicate a massive flood at some time.
Darwins theory of evolution has now been totally rubbished by the scientific community. Everything about it has been proved to be flawed and for those who go on about the fossil record where is all the evidence of the supposed "missing link". How come we have found so many bones of early apes etc but have been unable to find bones that can prove this one theory ? Maybe it is because the missing link never actually existed ?
On this point science has shown that if man had indeed been evolving for so many eons then the population of the planet should be considerably higher than it is today.
Mojojojo said that people used to think the world was flat - yes they did, but they certainly didnt get that from the bible. The bible itself states that the earth is curved and evidence from many of the scrolls found in the dead sea and other very early writings also confirm that prior to the birth of Jesus man knew that the earth was indeed round.
Alot of what people have been writing here are based on things that they have been told and read etc mostly written by people who have not bothered to actually carry out any substantial research into the matter.
Science is a gift given to us by God along with many other things, we choose wether to use these things for good or bad.
nh wrote:
> Darwins theory of evolution has now been totally rubbished by the
> scientific community.
When was this? It certainly wasnt mentioned in biology, where there is a topic which is exclusively connected with darwins work.
> Darwins theory of evolution has now been totally rubbished by the
> scientific community.
When was this? It certainly wasnt mentioned in biology, where there is a topic which is exclusively connected with darwins work.
That's because alot of what is being taught in school's nowadays is unfortunately out of date. Darwins theories are one of those things.
The book Darwins Black Box by Michael Behe goes into a lot of the detail in the flaws of his theory. The main crux is that none of his original "survival of the fittest" theory is actually backed up by any scientific data. His book is just that - theory. and it falls flat mainly due to the 'irreducible complexity' associated with the biochemistry at a molecular and cellular level.
Ive copied this bit for you :
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
Darwin himself stated
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwin issued his theory long before the irreducible complexity of life at a biochemical level was understood and it is difficult to believe that, given his above statement, even he could support his theory today.
It is for historical reasons that his theories are still taught today.
The book Darwins Black Box by Michael Behe goes into a lot of the detail in the flaws of his theory. The main crux is that none of his original "survival of the fittest" theory is actually backed up by any scientific data. His book is just that - theory. and it falls flat mainly due to the 'irreducible complexity' associated with the biochemistry at a molecular and cellular level.
Ive copied this bit for you :
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
Darwin himself stated
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwin issued his theory long before the irreducible complexity of life at a biochemical level was understood and it is difficult to believe that, given his above statement, even he could support his theory today.
It is for historical reasons that his theories are still taught today.
No but Natural Selection is fact, not fiction.
Natural selection means the healthiest and strongest survive, it does not mean that if an elephant is born with two trunks then all future elephants will have two trunks.
Go and look at this site
www.darwins-theory-of -evolution.com (remove space)
plenty of info for you there.
Go and look at this site
www.darwins-theory-of -evolution.com (remove space)
plenty of info for you there.
I know what natural selection is, i got an A in my higher prelim.
I'm not disputing that, I am just stating that natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.
Darwinism is taught at schools still because they have to teach the kids something, it would be better to not cover a subject I would have thought, than to teach something over which there is so much doubt.
Darwinism is taught at schools still because they have to teach the kids something, it would be better to not cover a subject I would have thought, than to teach something over which there is so much doubt.
Page: