The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
In my opinion Religion is a load of bollards, made up by some men who knew some parlour tricks and fancied a bit of power. Science may not have all the answers yet, but at least the answers it does offer are believable.
For example, any scientist would tell you that the universe was created several billion years ago in the Big Bang. If, however, you asked a religious man, he might tell you that God created the universe around 5000 years ago, and it took him six days. Or he might tell you that the universe was contained in a giant egg, and then it hatched (this at least is more believable - the hatching of the universe COULD have been the Big Bang). Alternatively, he will tell you that the universe was put together from the belly-button fluff of a giant.
Now, I ask you: which of these four stories sounds more belivable?
See my point?
For example, any scientist would tell you that the universe was created several billion years ago in the Big Bang. If, however, you asked a religious man, he might tell you that God created the universe around 5000 years ago, and it took him six days. Or he might tell you that the universe was contained in a giant egg, and then it hatched (this at least is more believable - the hatching of the universe COULD have been the Big Bang). Alternatively, he will tell you that the universe was put together from the belly-button fluff of a giant.
Now, I ask you: which of these four stories sounds more belivable?
See my point?
Okay i'm sorry but i couldn't be bothered about reading that MASSIVE post! lol, anyway, i;ve had this argument before with RE teachers but i shall forward my view again!
Religion is something that people use to make them feel comfortable with the things going wrong in their lifes. Take my mum for example, she had cancer and she instantly turned to her religion and prayed. WHat would she have done without her religion, probably gone insane or cryed constantly?? probably, so in a way religion is a good thing for people to have in their lives even if its true or not.
However, religion also causes much grief in the world too! Take India and Pakistan, they CLAIM to be fighting for some terratory but the wars roots lead back to their religions arguing with each other! This i feel is a very stupid and pointless argument as no one is ever going to win! I doubt it will ever be proved no matter which religion you belong too.
A question now. If someone believing in the Jewish faith, what will happen to them if the Christians prophecy comes true? will Jews so happily turn to Christianity or will they be rejected by the Christians god because they didnt believe in him??
Thanks for listening to me, thats if you did! ;)
Religion is something that people use to make them feel comfortable with the things going wrong in their lifes. Take my mum for example, she had cancer and she instantly turned to her religion and prayed. WHat would she have done without her religion, probably gone insane or cryed constantly?? probably, so in a way religion is a good thing for people to have in their lives even if its true or not.
However, religion also causes much grief in the world too! Take India and Pakistan, they CLAIM to be fighting for some terratory but the wars roots lead back to their religions arguing with each other! This i feel is a very stupid and pointless argument as no one is ever going to win! I doubt it will ever be proved no matter which religion you belong too.
A question now. If someone believing in the Jewish faith, what will happen to them if the Christians prophecy comes true? will Jews so happily turn to Christianity or will they be rejected by the Christians god because they didnt believe in him??
Thanks for listening to me, thats if you did! ;)
Edgy wrote:
> Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an
> endless cycle of big bangs.
This is one of the most overused theories by the public! The fact is that scientific evidence now points to an open universe, and than the closed "cycle" of big bangs was just some theory that a scientist came up with ages ago and people still quote almost as a fact.
The only way to prove there was one before
> that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel
> as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look
> directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of
> years ago...
1) All points in the Universe are equally as far away from the "centre". I think what you means is to just look sooooo far back that the light we see is from the old Universe?
2) Which is impossible because, when the old universe collapsed (supposing it existed) there was no space for that light to travel through!
_____________
Now, back to the laws of thermodynamics.
Even though all matter wishes to break down into its constituant parts, this does not at all rule out evolution. The breakdown of matter takes place over billions upon billions of years- not a SINGLE proton has decayed within the lifetime of the Universe (the lifetime of a proton is 10^10 years).
Now, evolution, as we're talking about it, is split into 2 bits:
1) The formation of the first ever life form (ok, so this isn not part of evolution, but it's got tangled up in our argument)
2) Life actually evolving into multi-cellular organisms.
If (1) happened as a combination of elements dues to, say, a lightening strike, then (2) MUST follow. After all, we now have one cellular life... how did bigger things come about?
Now, King of Such would argue that (1) did not happen as a combination of elements under some conditions like, say, lightening. He points to the fact that dozens of attempts to make life as such have not worked in labs/
Well of course not! The Earth had existed with conditions similar to those when life was thought to form for MILLIONS of years. Now, in millions of years don't you think it is possible that, in a freak one in 10 million years event, lightening hit the exact right molecules in the right place at the right time.
Now, after we reach that step, how do we get the humans with eyes, limbs and complex brains? People seem to think that genetic "mutation" means that suddenly, out of the blue, an organism develops an eye. This is not at all the case. What does happen is that, due to genetic mutation (usually caused by DNA being mutated by radiation like alpha particles) a cell is mutated so that it becomes sensitive to light.
With such a cell the organism clearly has an advantage over those without. It doesn't need a brain to gain the advantage- the use of the cell will be impulsive. Thus this cell survives, and more and more organisms with more and more light sensitive cells come into existance.
Now, I don't think anyone in these forums could possibly try to contemplate the true magnitude of time scales involved in evolution. But it certainly isn't unsound.
Sonic
> Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an
> endless cycle of big bangs.
This is one of the most overused theories by the public! The fact is that scientific evidence now points to an open universe, and than the closed "cycle" of big bangs was just some theory that a scientist came up with ages ago and people still quote almost as a fact.
The only way to prove there was one before
> that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel
> as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look
> directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of
> years ago...
1) All points in the Universe are equally as far away from the "centre". I think what you means is to just look sooooo far back that the light we see is from the old Universe?
2) Which is impossible because, when the old universe collapsed (supposing it existed) there was no space for that light to travel through!
_____________
Now, back to the laws of thermodynamics.
Even though all matter wishes to break down into its constituant parts, this does not at all rule out evolution. The breakdown of matter takes place over billions upon billions of years- not a SINGLE proton has decayed within the lifetime of the Universe (the lifetime of a proton is 10^10 years).
Now, evolution, as we're talking about it, is split into 2 bits:
1) The formation of the first ever life form (ok, so this isn not part of evolution, but it's got tangled up in our argument)
2) Life actually evolving into multi-cellular organisms.
If (1) happened as a combination of elements dues to, say, a lightening strike, then (2) MUST follow. After all, we now have one cellular life... how did bigger things come about?
Now, King of Such would argue that (1) did not happen as a combination of elements under some conditions like, say, lightening. He points to the fact that dozens of attempts to make life as such have not worked in labs/
Well of course not! The Earth had existed with conditions similar to those when life was thought to form for MILLIONS of years. Now, in millions of years don't you think it is possible that, in a freak one in 10 million years event, lightening hit the exact right molecules in the right place at the right time.
Now, after we reach that step, how do we get the humans with eyes, limbs and complex brains? People seem to think that genetic "mutation" means that suddenly, out of the blue, an organism develops an eye. This is not at all the case. What does happen is that, due to genetic mutation (usually caused by DNA being mutated by radiation like alpha particles) a cell is mutated so that it becomes sensitive to light.
With such a cell the organism clearly has an advantage over those without. It doesn't need a brain to gain the advantage- the use of the cell will be impulsive. Thus this cell survives, and more and more organisms with more and more light sensitive cells come into existance.
Now, I don't think anyone in these forums could possibly try to contemplate the true magnitude of time scales involved in evolution. But it certainly isn't unsound.
Sonic
Edgy wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Religion didnt invent the big bang theory science did and science
> has
> now proved that there was more then one big bag in the universe
> there
> was a series of them. Nuff Said!!!
>
> Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an
> endless cycle of big bangs. The only way to prove there was one before
> that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel
> as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look
> directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of
> years ago...
Yes true but they do know about the bigbang that started it all for us as the kobi satelite proved in the form of microwaves . Also they tried an experiment in Tomorrows World which work for once where the produced a spark in a vacumn from nothing
> davyboy wrote:
> Religion didnt invent the big bang theory science did and science
> has
> now proved that there was more then one big bag in the universe
> there
> was a series of them. Nuff Said!!!
>
> Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an
> endless cycle of big bangs. The only way to prove there was one before
> that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel
> as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look
> directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of
> years ago...
Yes true but they do know about the bigbang that started it all for us as the kobi satelite proved in the form of microwaves . Also they tried an experiment in Tomorrows World which work for once where the produced a spark in a vacumn from nothing
davyboy wrote:
> Religion didnt invent the big bang theory science did and science has
> now proved that there was more then one big bag in the universe there
> was a series of them. Nuff Said!!!
Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an endless cycle of big bangs. The only way to prove there was one before that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of years ago...
> Religion didnt invent the big bang theory science did and science has
> now proved that there was more then one big bag in the universe there
> was a series of them. Nuff Said!!!
Nope, they said there's the possibility that we may be part of an endless cycle of big bangs. The only way to prove there was one before that would be to invent the Universes most powerful telescope, travel as far away as possible from the center of the universe, and look directly at the center to see the light from those many billions of years ago...
PinkPig wrote:
> Why does the topic have to be "Science V. Religion"? In my
> opinion, both are ultimately unrelated topics. Science explains
> precise details about the world that we are in, both nothing about
> it's true origins. What is life? Why did the "Big Bang"
> take place? Where did time and space come from? Why is the universe
> here? None of these questions are explained by any scientific
> "proof". Therefore, in my opinion, there HAS to be a God.
Nohing against whatever your beliefs are, but the fact that Science can't explain everything at this precise moment in human times, doesn't mean there has to be a god.
Gods have been created as 'easy answers' to things throughout human history.
The Greeks and Romans had many Gods. The God of War was always watching down on us with his red-eye in the night sky (Mars), God of power (or Thuder) Zeus, Goddess of love - Athena, all these used to explain how things came about.
At the same time, a new explanation came along. Instead of multiple Gods, there was only one God, the God which we think of today. This God was infinitely powerful, could do whatever he pleases, and to not believe in this God (especially after the first millenium AD) was a really terrible thing indeed. Throughout Europe especially, people had been turned into mindless drones who lived and worshipped a name in a book - whether Catholic or Protestant (of which some only heard of through the church anyway due to a lack of being able to read). The church was a way of controlling people, using a simple idea to control simple minds.
This so called God cannot tell us why we are here, cannot tell us why the Universe exists. We just are, and it just does, and mankind, with or without each persons own beliefs will probably never find out the answers to these questions.
> Why does the topic have to be "Science V. Religion"? In my
> opinion, both are ultimately unrelated topics. Science explains
> precise details about the world that we are in, both nothing about
> it's true origins. What is life? Why did the "Big Bang"
> take place? Where did time and space come from? Why is the universe
> here? None of these questions are explained by any scientific
> "proof". Therefore, in my opinion, there HAS to be a God.
Nohing against whatever your beliefs are, but the fact that Science can't explain everything at this precise moment in human times, doesn't mean there has to be a god.
Gods have been created as 'easy answers' to things throughout human history.
The Greeks and Romans had many Gods. The God of War was always watching down on us with his red-eye in the night sky (Mars), God of power (or Thuder) Zeus, Goddess of love - Athena, all these used to explain how things came about.
At the same time, a new explanation came along. Instead of multiple Gods, there was only one God, the God which we think of today. This God was infinitely powerful, could do whatever he pleases, and to not believe in this God (especially after the first millenium AD) was a really terrible thing indeed. Throughout Europe especially, people had been turned into mindless drones who lived and worshipped a name in a book - whether Catholic or Protestant (of which some only heard of through the church anyway due to a lack of being able to read). The church was a way of controlling people, using a simple idea to control simple minds.
This so called God cannot tell us why we are here, cannot tell us why the Universe exists. We just are, and it just does, and mankind, with or without each persons own beliefs will probably never find out the answers to these questions.
Why does the topic have to be "Science V. Religion"? In my opinion, both are ultimately unrelated topics. Science explains precise details about the world that we are in, both nothing about it's true origins. What is life? Why did the "Big Bang" take place? Where did time and space come from? Why is the universe here? None of these questions are explained by any scientific "proof". Therefore, in my opinion, there HAS to be a God.
Some people argue that religion is outdated and irrelevant. But these people have usually not looked at all the facts. Looking at things logically, scientific theories are just as crazy as religious ideas. Scientists manage to use evidence about the world around us to back their ideas up, but this is not proper evidence. All science relies on the fact that what our sense's tell us correct. Why should it be?
If God does exist, and I believe that He does, then he has created a logical world, which makes sense on it's own. That is where science has come from, and it's a vital part of the world we live in. However, I believe that most scientists go wrong in assuming that science is a "competitor" to religion. I believe in the Big Bang, but ALSO in a creator God.
When I say that I believe in God, I don't mean the Christian God. Nor do I mean any other religion's God, but instead, a being that has created us. I can't give any more details than that. Is He still around? Who can say? But I don't believe that this should have any effect on our behaviour.
Despite being brought up as a Christian, I do believe that many of these ideas, particularly strict Catholic ideas, are out of date. Reading the bible, for example, we find many sections saying that "Women should not work in a house of law". Why? Because that was accepted at the time. These sorts of ideas, and many others, including painful punishments and death sentences, are things that religious believers today do not usually want to be related to. To me, this shows that religious texts have been written as tools for the period, rather than the eternal, infallible scriptures that some people see them as.
Whatever my position on God, I believe in the basic moral and philosophical principle that it is always right to do the most loving thing in a circumstance. If this goes against any particular religion, then so be it, particularly in cases like abortion. The most loving thing to do is not always the action mentioned in the bible, or in a religions background, but whatever it is that makes sense today.
Today, I feel that this has serious implications. For example, many people celebrated the defeat of Argentinia in England's match recently. That's great. But the idea of "Revenge" on the country is unfair and injust. It would be much better, forgetting religious ideas, to say "Bad luck mate, better luck next time".
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
P.s. There is always a little more toothpaste in the tube
Some people argue that religion is outdated and irrelevant. But these people have usually not looked at all the facts. Looking at things logically, scientific theories are just as crazy as religious ideas. Scientists manage to use evidence about the world around us to back their ideas up, but this is not proper evidence. All science relies on the fact that what our sense's tell us correct. Why should it be?
If God does exist, and I believe that He does, then he has created a logical world, which makes sense on it's own. That is where science has come from, and it's a vital part of the world we live in. However, I believe that most scientists go wrong in assuming that science is a "competitor" to religion. I believe in the Big Bang, but ALSO in a creator God.
When I say that I believe in God, I don't mean the Christian God. Nor do I mean any other religion's God, but instead, a being that has created us. I can't give any more details than that. Is He still around? Who can say? But I don't believe that this should have any effect on our behaviour.
Despite being brought up as a Christian, I do believe that many of these ideas, particularly strict Catholic ideas, are out of date. Reading the bible, for example, we find many sections saying that "Women should not work in a house of law". Why? Because that was accepted at the time. These sorts of ideas, and many others, including painful punishments and death sentences, are things that religious believers today do not usually want to be related to. To me, this shows that religious texts have been written as tools for the period, rather than the eternal, infallible scriptures that some people see them as.
Whatever my position on God, I believe in the basic moral and philosophical principle that it is always right to do the most loving thing in a circumstance. If this goes against any particular religion, then so be it, particularly in cases like abortion. The most loving thing to do is not always the action mentioned in the bible, or in a religions background, but whatever it is that makes sense today.
Today, I feel that this has serious implications. For example, many people celebrated the defeat of Argentinia in England's match recently. That's great. But the idea of "Revenge" on the country is unfair and injust. It would be much better, forgetting religious ideas, to say "Bad luck mate, better luck next time".
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
P.s. There is always a little more toothpaste in the tube
I agree with you entirely nh. Anyone who uses logic should be able to arrive at a sensible conclusion. :)
cookie monster wrote:
> nh wrote:
> Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
>
> No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various
> atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning.
No - it hasn't been proven, it has been theorised which is different and the theory is part of the theory of evolution.
During the lightening storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the
> elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen.
As above..
As we know these are found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These
> conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
Yes we can design numerous kinds of experiments in laboratories and with the knowledge that we have gained and enough trial and error we can eventually come to the desired goal. What we are doing is creating new compunds etc using the designed techniques. This does not in any way offer proof for evolution but shows that we can create a variety of different compounds from basic molecules to more complex structures.
Anyway Cookie - I thought you and I had agreed to disagree ?? :)
> nh wrote:
> Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
>
> No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various
> atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning.
No - it hasn't been proven, it has been theorised which is different and the theory is part of the theory of evolution.
During the lightening storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the
> elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen.
As above..
As we know these are found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These
> conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
Yes we can design numerous kinds of experiments in laboratories and with the knowledge that we have gained and enough trial and error we can eventually come to the desired goal. What we are doing is creating new compunds etc using the designed techniques. This does not in any way offer proof for evolution but shows that we can create a variety of different compounds from basic molecules to more complex structures.
Anyway Cookie - I thought you and I had agreed to disagree ?? :)
Page: