Silly Question

MooseJam

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, there doesn't seem to be an advanced search. I always wondered where dinosaurs stood in Christianity, the fact that there were big lizards walking the earth for 400 million years before we humans turned up, how does christianity account for Tyrannosaurus Rex ? Is the whole notion denied as falsehood, which would be pretty strange as I've stood in front of the big guy's bones or were they created by God and he watched them plodding around for a few hundred million years untill he got bored with them and then made us ?

Rev Hellfire

It all depends on how you interpret the bible.
The mainstream Christian churches for example the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches both accept the principles of evolution and current scientific thinking.

Then you have the more fundamentalist Christian sects that adopt a strictly literal interpretation of the events described. They have created a puedo-science ( intelligent design) which matches their beliefs that has been rejected the main body of scientific community and as noted above the main churches.

On the topic of intelligent design the Vatican had the following to say:
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

The Anglican Church also rejects the notion as well. I suggest you look up the musing of Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne among others to get contemporary Anglican thought on this subject.

More musing here

There’s a huge circular thread on this subject here.

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

I always wondered where dinosaurs stood in Christianity, the fact that there were big lizards walking the earth for 400 million years before we humans turned up, how does christianity account for Tyrannosaurus Rex ? Is the whole notion denied as falsehood, which would be pretty strange as I've stood in front of the big guy's bones or were they created by God and he watched them plodding around for a few hundred million years untill he got bored with them and then made us ?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

There’s a huge circular thread on this subject here.

Hmm. Speaking as one of the perpetrators of the huge circular thread, I can outline the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position fairly easily - they believe that all dating is incorrect, that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with man, that Noah took them onto the Ark (or possibly didn't, depending). However, are you perhaps asking the far more interesting question as to how non-YEC Christians deal with the question?

I know the Rev has outlined the positions of the various mainstream churches pretty clearly, but are you asking "given mankind is so special, how come God was prepared to wait for so long for us to evolve"? Which leads on to, "what did he do in the interval - was he getting popcorn or what?".

I would be very interested to hear how non-YEC Christians do resolve this one!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote:

I know the Rev has outlined the positions of the various mainstream churches pretty clearly, but are you asking "given mankind is so special, how come God was prepared to wait for so long for us to evolve"? Which leads on to, "what did he do in the interval - was he getting popcorn or what?".

I would be very interested to hear how non-YEC Christians do resolve this one!

Good question. The smart arse answer might be that "long" is not really much of an issue for an eternal deity. The other issue would be if you accept the evolution of man, then at what point did he get a soul, if animals don't have them?

Dades

To be fair, apart from Young-Earthers I can't see why dinosaurs would be an issue for Christians.

Is it just because they aren't mentioned in the bible? Large lizards that became extinct long before man have no relevance to the stories the bible tells. The fact that there's no mention of ring-tailed lemurs in the bible doesn't raise many eyebrows.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

To be fair, apart from Young-Earthers I can't see why dinosaurs would be an issue for Christians.

Is it just because they aren't mentioned in the bible? Large lizards that became extinct long before man have no relevance to the stories the bible tells. The fact that there's no mention of ring-tailed lemurs in the bible doesn't raise many eyebrows.

More because "what's the point?". If humanity is the point, why waste billions of years getting to the action? Why have dinosaurs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Scofflaw wrote:

More because "what's the point?". If humanity is the point, why waste billions of years getting to the action? Why have dinosaurs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't mean there there is no point, rite?

Almighty God creates what He wills - that's why, and that's a good enuff as a reason.

Dades

Hmmm. (@ scoff)

But if mainstream Christians accept evolution then the dinosaurs were just part of that lengthy process that "culminated" in man finally emerging in Gods image.

Maybe I just feel there a hundred more obvious questions than wondering about the dinosaurs.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't mean there there is no point, rite?

Would be better to understand it though.

Almighty God creates what He wills - that's why, and that's a good enuff as a reason.

Hardly. And too easy an answer to boot. In any case we surely should be able to question the reason(if there is indeed one at all), especially if it's not clear in the texts. The idea of a deity that demands obedience without us asking questions with the brains that the same deity gave us is hardly logical afterall.

The Atheist wrote:

Maybe I just feel there a hundred more obvious questions than wondering about the dinosaurs.

Yep and we don't want to add any more to a certain nearby thread on this subject...:D

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

The idea of a deity that demands obedience without us asking questions with the brains that the same deity gave us is hardly logical afterall.

I agree. You have brains so if there's something you don't know, ask for it.
But there are all the answers - you're just not looking into the right book I think.

Wibbs

The "right" book is the problem for many. There is much disagreement on that even by people within the same faith. That goes for all faiths. Science too. Science at least has the advantages that 1) it generally evolves more and 2) It suggests we may at least be able to understand everything.

Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't mean there there is no point, rite?

No, but it might mean the point originally assumed is incorrect.

The Judo/Christian churchs assumes that God created Humans as special creatures above other animals. This is reflected in the Bible.

There are a number of problems with that assumption, as has been pointed out.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

The "right" book is the problem for many. There is much disagreement on that even by people within the same faith. That goes for all faiths. Science too. Science at least has the advantages that 1) it generally evolves more and 2) It suggests we may at least be able to understand everything.

Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions.

1) This scientific evolution, no matter how many zillion years it may continue (probably not more than till a moment when our Sun dies anyway), still cannot explain the basic and yet very important questions mentioned in 2).

2) Well that scientific suggestion is pure rubbish. Obviously, science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

Anybody escaped death? I don't think so. Anybody would love to escape death? Oh yes, they would, a lot of them. Rich, famous, etc. they don't wana leave all the shiny stuff behind.

Rev Hellfire

You're rantting.

But as regards your answers:
1) This scientific evolution will continue long after our sun has failed. As for human evolution, well that depends on if we are still confined to this solar system or not.

2) Why we are born and why we die can be explained quite easily by science.
As for the meaning of life, well life's sole purpose is to continue. Birth and death are directly connected with that. Also there doesn't have to be some grand reason behind it all.

robindch

> I can outline the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position fairly easily

I think it may be more accurate to say that YEC's are absolutists who can't entertain the notion that anything in their interpretation of their own holybook is inaccurate in any way. Consequently, anything which disagrees with this interpretation is, de facto, wrong and YECism becomes a simple exercise in self-aggrandising and inept nit-picking, rather than any constructive enquiry into the origin of species. As we can see from the creationism thread... :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

1) This scientific evolution, no matter how many zillion years it may continue (probably not more than till a moment when our Sun dies anyway), still cannot explain the basic and yet very important questions mentioned in 2).

2) Well that scientific suggestion is pure rubbish. Obviously, science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

Anybody escaped death? I don't think so. Anybody would love to escape death? Oh yes, they would, a lot of them. Rich, famous, etc. they don't wana leave all the shiny stuff behind.

Of course, science can't answer the questions in (2), but that may be because there are no answers. Clearly, you don't think this is possible, but then, I suspect that may be an essential feature of theists. Most atheists would accept that there are no "answers" other than the ones you supply yourself.

Anyway, that doesn't really address the question - if mankind is the point, what was the point of the dinosaurs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die

As RevH says, yes, science can explain. In short, we were born because our parents had sex, while we die because our bodies slowly fail over the course of a lifetime, for reasons which are stil being researched.

> (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

As with your question a few days back about a just god, you're asking a question before you know whether the question is meaningful to ask in the first place. ie, that there is a "meaning of all this". Why should there be one?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I can outline the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position fairly easily

I think it may be more accurate to say that YEC's are absolutists who can't entertain the notion that anything in their interpretation of their own holybook is inaccurate in any way. Consequently, anything which disagrees with this interpretation is, de facto, wrong and YECism becomes a simple exercise in self-aggrandising and inept nit-picking, rather than any constructive enquiry into the origin of species. As we can see from the creationism thread... :rolleyes:

Whatever its other faults, the YEC position on dinosaurs is at least consistent - humanity are the point, and there was no waiting around through millions of years of dinosaurs to get to humanity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course, science can't answer the questions in (2), but that may be because there are no answers. Clearly, you don't think this is possible, but then, I suspect that may be an essential feature of theists. Most atheists would accept that there are no "answers" other than the ones you supply yourself.

Anyway, that doesn't really address the question - if mankind is the point, what was the point of the dinosaurs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well the point of dinosaurs was maybe a simple one - so that you can have another source of food ti pick up or to make friends with dinos, especially cos they're so cute little animals.

Why are animals around anyway? What would we eat except the grass if there weren't any animals.

PS And I don't except some zillion vegetarians to attack me now...

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die

As RevH says, yes, science can explain. In short, we were born because our parents had sex, while we die because our bodies slowly fail over the course of a lifetime, for reasons which are stil being researched.

> (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

As with your question a few days back about a just god, you're asking a question before you know whether the question is meaningful to ask in the first place. ie, that there is a "meaning of all this". Why should there be one?

Well if there is no good reason behind all this, then why are we bothered to spend our time talking like a bunch of grannies? Obviously, we're just wasting time.

Of course there is a reason behind all this, a big one, however your incapability to find one is making you say what you say.

babyvaio

And BTW, your theories cannot explain why is it that only human race is so different to other creatures? I mean, there's a big difference between us. Animals don't ask themselves these kinda questions - but we do. Some have the answers, some don't.

Now wouldn't you think that we must be living like animals if we don't care about the big reason? It's like saying an animal comes to this world, eats, sleeps, fights, multiplies, etc. then it dies. If you apply this to a human race, then you're basically saying that people are in fact animals and nothing more.

How come?

I don't see science, arts, etc. and other stuff in animal world that clearly separates us from animals. Can you deny that? If you can, then how come that you can put our life cycle on the level of an animal? Hmmm...

Dades

You use the term "animal" in an almost derogatory form.

We are all creatures that live on this rock in space. Sure we are different to all the others, but only in the same way a flea is different to an elephant. We're just more evolved.

The animal world has a lot to teach us.

As a matter of interest, babyvaio, what is the reason for living in your opinion?

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

You use the term "animal" in an almost derogatory form.

We are all creatures that live on this rock in space. Sure we are different to all the others, but only in the same way a flea is different to an elephant. We're just more evolved.

The animal world has a lot to teach us.

As a matter of interest, babyvaio, what is the reason for living in your opinion?

You wouldn't understand anyway cos you're an atheist.

BTW Please don't tell me that mind/intellect/intelligence evolved?
We are not smarter that people who lived way back in time, we just have more information and knowledge, but our core intellect is the same.

Dades

babyvaio wrote:

You wouldn't understand anyway cos you're an atheist.

I really should change my username. Then maybe I'd understand.

babyvaio wrote:

We are not smarter that people who lived way back in time, we just have more information and knowledge, but our core intellect is the same.

Was it always the same? Even when we walked on our knuckles like... [spit]... animals?

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

We are not smarter that people who lived way back in time, we just have more information and knowledge, but our core intellect is the same.

Depends on what you mean by "way back in time"

Are brains are significantly different than early humans anncestors who lived 200,000 years ago.

Also the human brain is stimulated by information and knowledge, and knowledge is accumlative. The more knowledge you study, the better the human brain becomes at certain tasks. So our increased level of knowledge would put us at an advantage compared to say an Eyptian living 4000 years ago.

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

As a matter of interest, babyvaio, what is the reason for living in your opinion?

I had to open a new thread but not on this sub-forum, but here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51778480#post51778480

Now I know you might not agree with it, but just be an open glass for a few minutes and think about what you read (in other words get rid of your evolution prejudices - if you can that is....)

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

You wouldn't understand anyway cos you're an atheist.

Oh please, thats the most childish comment I have seen posted on Boards i.e. in a long time. I hate to say this but surprise surprise, some of the most informed christian I know are actually Atheists.

BTW Please don't tell me that mind/intellect/intelligence evolved?

Sorry to burst your bubble but thats exactly what happened, and still is happening.

We are not smarter that people who lived way back in time, we just have more information and knowledge, but our core intellect is the same.

No, we are different. Its called evolution.

babyvaio

The Atheist wrote:

I really should change my username. Then maybe I'd understand.

Was it always the same? Even when we walked on our knuckles like... [spit]... animals?

First of all, you can't prove that we walked like you say we did, and secondly, yes, our intellect never improved, but by using it people discovered new things/inventions/whateveryoumaycallthem by observing, researching, etc.

Before the fate/belief there is knowledge. You can't have belief without certain knowledge. Even if you are an atheist, you have to have some knowledge and then either you choose to believe or not.

I hope that makes sense, if you, I'll clarify it for you. But to make is sure, even you base your evolution belief on certain knowledge, right? Or no?

Of couse you do.

To have faith in something without knowledge is a nonsense, it's like saying well I don't know what's behind this hill, however I believe that there a bunch of elephants, 2 donkeys and my gran'ma. Now you tell me that a person like that would be only guessing what's behind the hill, right?

So are you only guessing all the stuff about evolution or you do actually have the required knowledge? If the first, then you making a nonsense statements, if the second, then you have a faith (non necessarily the correct one).

babyvaio

Asiaprod wrote:

Oh please, thats the most childish comment I have seen posted on Boards i.e. in a long time. I hate to say this but surprise surprise, some of the most informed christian I know are actually Atheists.

Hey Asia man, long time no see!

That doesn't prove anything except that they disbelieved in the Bible or the Church (probably because they found numerous contradictions in the Bible and probably because they weren't happy with the official Church).Why don't you ask them to give you the reasons?

Asiaprod wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble but thats exactly what happened, and still is happening.

No, we are different. Its called evolution.

Then why don't you prove it to me:

1. That it happened
2. That it's still happening

robindch

> Of course there is a reason behind all this, a big one, however
> your incapability to find one is making you say what you say.

So, your reasoning is "There is a meaning to life because I think there has to be one and the meaning is the one that I say"? Not very convincing at all...

Why not have a deeper stab at answering that question, rather than just slagging me off?

Rev Hellfire

babyvaio wrote:

1. That it happened
2. That it's still happening

I know we can bring this horse to water, but not make him drink.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As for examples of contemporary evolution you need only look at the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics as organisms evolve to counter them.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

First of all, you can't prove that we walked like you say we did,

You can show we evolved from monkey like ancestors a lot better and easier than you can show we didn't.

There is a difference between something not being proved, and you rejecting that proof.

If you wish to believe we were all spontaniously created a few thousands years ago thats fine, but I wonder how you reconcile the fact that if this is true God must have also spontainoiusly created a whole load of dead fossils to make it look like we evolved slowly over hundreds of thousands of years.

babyvaio wrote:

I hope that makes sense, if you, I'll clarify it for you. But to make is sure, even you base your evolution belief on certain knowledge, right? Or no?

The theory of evolution is entirely based on knowledge. Thats the point.

babyvaio wrote:

So are you only guessing all the stuff about evolution or you do actually have the required knowledge?

We have the required knowledge, for most of it.

Some bits science doesn't know how they work, but for most of it we do.

babyvaio wrote:

If the first, then you making a nonsense statements, if the second, then you have a faith (non necessarily the correct one).

No, we have knowledge, as you just spend the last 3 paragraphs explaining.

Faith is belief without knowledge, based on a feeling. Feelings can, and a lot of the time are, wrong

Theory is belief with knowledge, based on evidence. Evidence, or interpritation of evidence, can be wrong but when examined under scientific methods this is a lot less likely than a feeling being wrong.

This is why much more weight is put in scientific theories than feelings on subjects some people may have.

Evolution is not faith, it is a theory.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

You can show we evolved from monkey like ancestors a lot better and easier than you can show we didn't.

Let's say for a moment we agree on chimp to human theory.

Now, what happened to universe? It evolved from a chimp-universe or?
And chimp-universe evolved from chimp-chimp-universe? BTW, I'm using the word chimp so that we all understand I mean the evolved universe.

Now, let's go further.

Universe came out of nothing, didn't it? Or it was created out of nothing? Or it evolved our of nothing? Then came out = created = evolved.

So I'm asking you - are you saying that universe evolved or? If so, evolved from what exactly? Or you mean, it was there in the infinite past?
If so, how can you disprove the already confirmed big-bang theory?

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

Hey Asia man, long time no see!

Indeed it is my man, just trying not to get Brian too mad at me:). I am also happy to see you are still going strong and stirring up such great debates, just do me a favor and stay away from creationism. As you can see a Hundred plus posts on the creation thread and we are still getting nowhere with our Genesis friends.

That doesn't prove anything except that they disbelieved in the Bible or the Church (probably because they found numerous contradictions in the Bible and probably because they weren't happy with the official church . Why don't you ask them to give you the reasons?

Why, I am an Atheist, I know the reasons myself, I did used to be a Catholic so I do think I can see both sides.

As to evolution and proof, I will leave you in the good hands of my peers here, Wicknight, Scofflaw, Robindch and the Atheist to enlighten you on this one:) I will only but-in if I think I have something meaningful to say.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

I had to open a new thread but not on this sub-forum, but here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51778480#post51778480

Now I know you might not agree with it, but just be an open glass for a few minutes and think about what you read (in other words get rid of your evolution prejudices - if you can that is....)

Its kinda hard to take the discussion with you seriously when you over load the discussion with your own predudices.

"For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position. Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them."

I am a disbeliever and I can assure you my purpose in life is not to collect and amass great wealth or power. I don't over indulge in eating or drinking and I don't take drugs. I would love to over indulge in sex but that one seems a bit beyond my control at the moment.

Your argument is flawed because you assume two things

1 - There must be a meaning to life.

2 - Any meaning to life that is different to yours is by default negative.

My position is that there is no universal meaning to life, there is no meaning beyond what we make ourselves.

The purpose I have assigned myself in life is to be happy in my skin, to attempt to make others happy, to provide for myself and (in the future) my family, and in the wider scheme of things, to help my fellow man. Friends and family are very important to me, as is love and companionship.

I am also an atheist, how has no belief in, or (more importantly) fear of, gods.

If you only view those who do not accept your particular outlook in life as petty selfish hedonistic egotistical meglomaniacs how do you expect to have a serious converstion with them. People don't assume you are a religous nut case do they?

Rev Hellfire

The universe can not have evolved since it is not a living entity. Clearly you do not understand the basic principles of evolution.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

Your argument is flawed because you assume two things

1 - There must be a meaning to life.

2 - Any meaning to life that is different to yours is by default negative.

1 - Correct

2 - Correct (BTW but it's not my meaning, just to make sure that you don't get me wrong, did you see MY SIGNATURE on that link or?)

Wicknight wrote:

If you only view those who do not accept your particular outlook in life as petty selfish hedonistic egotistical meglomaniacs how do you expect to have a serious converstion with them. People don't assume you are a religous nut case do they?

You said that, not me. Right?

babyvaio

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The universe can not have evolved since it is not a living entity. Clearly you do not understand the basic principles of evolution.

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

Rev Hellfire

You are a troll I am right aren't I.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Now, what happened to universe? It evolved from a chimp-universe or?

Ok, do you actually understand what the theory of evolution is?

Evolution is the gradual adaptation of a series of replicating entities to the challanges of their enviornment, through replication errors (in the case of life this is mutation) and natural selection based on fitness to face said challanges.

Evolution applies to life forms on Earth. Thats about the limit of it. The principles of evolution can be applied to other things, such as genetic programming. But the universe didn't "evolve". Neither did the Earth "evolve"

babyvaio wrote:

Universe came out of nothing, didn't it?

I have no idea what the universe "came out of". No one does.

babyvaio wrote:

Or it evolved our of nothing?

The universe didn't evolve.

babyvaio wrote:

So I'm asking you - are you saying that universe evolved or?

No.

The principle of evolution doesn't apply to the universe, as we understand it.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

God I hope you are a troll, otherwise it is a pretty damning mark on the standard of science education in public schools ... :rolleyes:

The universe is not a life form. For a start it doesn't replicate itself. It also doesn't consume matter for the process of growth or energy. It doesn't responde to stimuli, nor does it show any form of structured organisation.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

1 - Correct
2 - Correct

So, as I said, your (or the argument you posted to) is deeply flawed.

babyvaio wrote:

(BTW but it's not my meaning, just to make sure that you don't get me wrong, did you see MY SIGNATURE on that link or?)

If you don't agree with the article why did you link to it and tell everyone to go read it ....

I'm begingin to think you are a troll. Where is the mods when you need one

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

Lets turn this the other way round, so you are telling us the earth is alive. Can you prove to us it is alive? What does being alive mean to you?

MooseJam

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It all depends on how you interpret the bible.
The mainstream Christian churches for example the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches both accept the principles of evolution and current scientific thinking.

cheers for the link, I will check it out, your post is the most informative having flicked through all replies, I didn't know the mainstream churches accepted evolution, I assume their idea, never having looked into it more, is that God knew the result of evolution would be us, he knew when he planted the seed so to speak that it would result in humankind, well why did he plant the seed , why not skip the trailers and get to the main event, why not just make US.

Dades

MooseJam wrote:

why not just make US.

For a moment I thought you'd said "why not just make the US". :eek:

Of course some would argue he did...

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

cheers for the link, I will check it out, your post is the most informative having flicked through all replies, I didn't know the mainstream churches accepted evolution, I assume their idea, never having looked into it more, is that God knew the result of evolution would be us, he knew when he planted the seed so to speak that it would result in humankind, well why did he plant the seed , why not skip the trailers and get to the main event, why not just make US.

Oh good. It is the more interesting question, then. The YEC position is really quite dull, and already has a thread. Well, more of a rope, at this stage...

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Sorry guys, I don't have to prove anything - you have to prove the evolution theory though

BTW Good luck with that!

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Sorry guys, I don't have to prove anything - you have to prove the evolution theory though

BTW Good luck with that!

It has already been proven. Quite well infact. The neo-darwin theory of evolution is one of the most accepted and well established theories in modern biology. In fact the vast majority of modern biology is based on it, and would work if it wasn't true.

Your turn. Prove life has purpose, and that there is a God ..... its ok, take your time, no rush ... :rolleyes:

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

The universe is not a life form. For a start it doesn't replicate itself. It also doesn't consume matter for the process of growth or energy. It doesn't responde to stimuli, nor does it show any form of structured organisation.

How, just how do you know that it doesn't replicate? Are you standing on its boundaries so you can say that?

Wouldn't you say that start, galaxies, cluster, etc. are being replicated? No, you probably wouldn't. Me neither 'cos it's not important to know.

It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized? Isn't it? Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet. Wouldn't you call that a perfect organisation? BTW you yourself used these words any form if structured organisation, now don't blame me.

BTW universe is growing, expanding, that's a well known scientific fact. Or maybe it isn't? Well maybe not on Earth, maybe on there are scientists on MArs that have different proofs....:rolleyes:

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

It has already been proven. Quite well infact. The neo-darwin theory of evolution is one of the most accepted and well established theories in modern biology. In fact the vast majority of modern biology is based on it, and would work if it wasn't true.

Your turn. Prove life has purpose, and that there is a God ..... its ok, take your time, no rush ... :rolleyes:

Would you be able to see someone's footprints in the desert or in your own garden? Well if did, you would most probably conclude that someone was in your garden or no?

Now look up in the sky and imagine for a second that all those zillions of clusters of galaxies are somebody's footprints (not literally of course).

Are you saying you would believe that someone left his footprints or shoe trails in your garden but you wouldn't believe that somebody must have done something to make this universe appear with all the stars, etc.?? Hmmm...

BTW, I didn't get you on the big bang theory - you don't believe that it happened that way or? :eek:

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

1) This scientific evolution, no matter how many zillion years it may continue (probably not more than till a moment when our Sun dies anyway), still cannot explain the basic and yet very important questions mentioned in 2).

Why not? Go back in time and people couldn't explain many things in nature, thunderstorms, tides the movement of the heavens etc and ascribed their actions to god(s). We may never understand everything(not in our current form*), but at least science makes the attempt to try.

2) Well that scientific suggestion is pure rubbish. Obviously, science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

As was pointed out to you yes it can, from a purely scientific point of view. After that sprituality is up to the individual IMHO.

Anybody escaped death? I don't think so. Anybody would love to escape death? Oh yes, they would, a lot of them.

Not yet, but it's not out of the realms of possiblity to increase lifespan massively. We've done it with many animals(fruit flys, nematodes etc). It's a bit of a scale up, but not impossible. In fact we cheat death al the time nowadays. Things that would have killed people 50yrs ago don't now.

Rich, famous, etc. they don't wana leave all the shiny stuff behind.

Equally the poor hardly want to leave anything behind either by dying.

Well if there is no good reason behind all this, then why are we bothered to spend our time talking like a bunch of grannies? Obviously, we're just wasting time.

Maybe talking like grannies(?) is the purpose. Maybe you're wasting time living, most wouldn't agree, religious or not. Sounds too much like a death cult vibe for my liking.

Of course there is a reason behind all this, a big one, however your incapability to find one is making you say what you say.

Why would a God give someone that incapability to understand the truth? Makes no sense. It sounds awfully arbitary and cruel if true.

You wouldn't understand anyway cos you're an atheist.

Brilliant logic there and rude to boot. I wouldn't accuse you over not knowing because you're a theist. I will debate you but wouldn't assume your ignorance, even with a comment like that.

BTW Please don't tell me that mind/intellect/intelligence evolved?/First of all, you can't prove that we walked like you say we did/
So are you only guessing all the stuff about evolution or you do actually have the required knowledge?

I'm not being funny here, but please take advice from this agnostic here. Read more books. Open your mind. Believe it or not it won't stop you believing. It may help. Any faith corrupted by knowledge isn't worthy of the name. All religious texts tell their followers to aquire knowledge(especially your own BTW).

then you have a faith (non necessarily the correct one)

That's the dangerous view right there, no matter the source.

Wicknight wrote:

Its kinda hard to take the discussion with you seriously when you over load the discussion with your own predudices......

Good post. Especially the fear of Gods bit. Fear based systems of control can be the most damaging.

God I hope you are a troll, otherwise it is a pretty damning mark on the standard of science education in public schools

Maybe not. I've personally met this kind of view, from all backgrounds(usually "educated" funny enough) more often than is comfortable.

* We may in the future become more than we are now, either through natural evolution or more likely through evolving ourselves artificially. Who knows.