Dark Legacy MUD Forum

What i said about Sri Lanka is contradictory. It would only make sense if these humanoid inhabitants are neanthertals. however, i have never heard of them existed any besides europe.

1. Evolution seems more likely to be accurate
2. Numerous
3. AS in IT, working on BS in physics/minor in mathematics
4. 21
5. I cannot state which is correct, if I could I would probably be omniscient and therefore prove creationism accurate, but evolution appears to be the more credible theory. Evolution seems to be the best logical solution that humanity has yet arrived at with the knowledge and resources available.

Creationism, on the other hand, rejects logic and wisdom, instead relying on the gullibility of children, humans' desire for acceptance, guilt over "sins", fear of "eternal torment", and other exploitable aspects of human nature.

I don't presume to label one theory as "accurate" and one as "innacurate"; for all I know there COULD be some sadistic god who deliberaltey creates flawed beings and then tosses them into an eternally burning lake of fire as punishment for those flaws, but I see no convincing reason to believe it is so.

question...


whats omniscient mean...

multiple sciences?

Lingolas

Thank you for adding some detail to my post, however it seems that you are not up to date on the lastest genitic research. A world wide study of human genitics has been conducted for a number of years, and the results have only recently been released. The common sense statement you made, "Homo Sapiens first appeared about 120, 000 years ago in a line of evolution; therefore it is not possible to have a common ancesstor at 60000 on the time line as suggested." Has been proven wrong, as many common sense explainations have been in the past. The study did offer several explainations as to how this unusal result came about. War, famine, and disease could have wiped out most bloodlines, as well as the common practice in the past of rulers haveing many wives and offspring of their line. Other surprises in the study show that 1 in 7 men from China are decendent from Gangus Khan, and that is not far back in history. In truth they do not know why we all seem to have a common male ancestor only 60,000 years in the past, but that is what the evidence points to.
Thank you also for making my point that humanoid people were living in groups before the biblical account in genesis, "Notice that these dates are way before the biblical acount in the genesis." although that was not your intent I think. I do not blame you for not delving to deep into the book of numbers and instead looking to other sources. I had to write out the seperate bloodlines side by side for a comparision, a long a tedious process.
The teeth that belong to a 500lb humanoid were first discovered in the middle east, they were not teeth from Homo sapiens neandertalensis as you suggested. However there is evedience that suggests we interbreed with them also. The lack of more evidence for this race suggest that they were few in number, and quickly died out, for the reasons you and I both listed. however you said "statistically speaking, such genes would have been eradicated millions of years ago before the apes." But I never suggested that they were an evolved species that existed that long ago, but rather a short lived abberation that was not geniticly viable.
Lastly you said "The bible is still unreliable because there is simply too much contradiction." But no more of a contradiction than science has been in its short history. The number of long held scientific truths that have overturned in my lifetime are too vast to recount here. In just the last week, a fossil was found of a otter-like mammal that lived at the time of the dinosaurs, vastly pushing back the time that larger mammals lived on this planet.And many discoveries have been made by using the bible as a guide to know where to dig. Also many of the so called Bible contradictions only seem to be contradictions due to taking qoutes out of text, lack of understanding, and lack of desire to research the bible texts by people who don't believe and only wish to find fault in it. As humans are prone to do, we color what we see by what we expect to see. Even the Big Bang theory has sicentific contradictions in it, but thats alright, its just a theory.
Instead of fighting about it, can't we all agree to disagree. After all, we will all know the truth soon enough, when we die. Untill then to each their own.

hey good job, that was good reading

that's the thing about theories, tomorrow there may be a better one

The blessing and curse of science. Whats truth today is tomorrow's blatant fallacy...


A more worrisome corollary is that medicine is a science.

aureal brought up a good point. Science has always been as much contradictory as the bible. I suppose choosing to believe in science is as much of a religion with a different set of rules. Instead of following rules set out by the bible, we choose to follow rules set out by scientists. I suppose people will believe what makes the most sense to them, that is either logic or the supernatural.

Who knows anything about the string theory?

Enough to make myself look like a fool if I got into a conversation with someone about real string theory.

I like the idea and think eventually it'll be proven when our science goes that far, but now the proofs of it are idiotic wrt there are numerous that are mathematically true.

I think part of the problem is with our school system, at least in the U.S. The differance between a scientific theory and a scientific law is glossed over at best. Theories are taught showing the evidence supporting it, but not the evidence against it. Logic as a course is not available till collage for most students. We underestimate the ability of our children to reason, and limit the scope of knowledge available to them. Yet after graduating high school we expect them to make informed decisions when it is their turn to lead the next generation. If you never question the way things are, they aren't likely to change.

Creationism is a theory:
Evolutionism is a theory:
You can even combine them for a theory that both are right.
The evidence is there to support any of the above, and many more views beside.
Look at the evidence yourself, and choose for yourself, or come up with your own theory as I have.

Given the rate at which technology and the world is changing, we need to give our children the tools they will need to deal with the problems in the future. I know, I am a real doom and gloom party crasher. But I believe that the more informed people are, the more likely it is that we can all find a way to coexist peacefully. Even if it means more homework.

The other part of the problem rests with the organized religions. Now this is a touchy subject, so I will not mention any specific religions here, so as not to offend. But many religious groups do not require any schooling or training to become a minister. Most of the ones that do require an education, only teach the distorted views of their own sects. Many preachers have never read the bible completly. I even know one minister of a large church who does not believe in God at all. He is a psychologest who thinks religion is a usefull mental crutch. As a minister he gets to use his degree, and does not have to worry about malpractice suits if he goofs. Of course his congregation is unaware of his personal beliefs.

These ill-informed preachers than pass on their distorted view to common belivers who swallow it hook, line, and sinker just because they are the minster the congregation look up to for guidence. To compound this problem, through out history, people in power have sought to use the bible as a means of controlling the common people. Just compare any english bible with the oringinal Greek and Hebrew versions for some interesting insight into this form of deception. Of course the people who did the King James translations said such changes were done so as not to confuse the less educated readers! After a few thousand years of this treatment, is it any wonder that many people have a distorted view of God and the bible.

My only suggestion is that everyone should make up their own mind. Read the bible without the pre-concived notions you were taught, if possible. If you have access to a transliteration version of the bible, use it. A transliteration version is one that has the oringinal Greek or Hebrew text, than a literial word for word translation below it, and the modren translation below that. Even if this does not open your eyes to new aspects of the bible, at least you can comment on it yourself, from your own knowledge, instead of spouting someones else's prejudical views.

The Bible is not the only means to understanding God and religion. The first people who wrote this stuff down used it only as a tool and it shouldn't be recognized as the be all and end all of religion.

Especially items from the Old Testament and alot of the metaphorical stories.

Thremp: I do not mean to slight other religons in this thread, but creationism as it is used in this thread, I took to mean the biblical view. So I stuck with the Bible. However personaly I encourage people to explore other religions. My father was Buddist, my mother followed her Native American beliefs, the rest of my family was stout Roman Catholic, so I have had a vaired background. Plus if we included other religions in this thread, my posts would become even longer, and I know you all don't want that. So in that vein, here is another short post for you all to consider.

The Big Bang Theory is a widely held belief about the origin of the universe because nearly all of the evidence points to it. Most people are familiar with the basics of it. Let me quote Secrets of Nature, The Birth of the Universe here. " Imagine all matter as one single mass, all light concentrated into one source...The universe as we understand it was born from a single initial point, began expanding, and slowly took shape." This point is refered to as a singlarity, and the region around it as a black hole. The theory is good, however the problems are in the details.

The Big Bang was started by the mother and father of all black holes, as it contained all of the mass and engery in the universe. Gee, it almost sounds like the defination of God I was taught as a child, omni-potent and omni present. Meaning unlimited power, and existing beyond time and space. All the engery in the universe was in this point, and as the universe did not exist yet, neither did time or space. In the begining was God.

Then for some unknown reason, the impossable happened and this singlarity exploded. Completly disreguarding the laws of science. For as everyone knows, nothing can escape the pull of a black hole, and this was the greatest black hole of all time and space. Gee, sounds like God said, Let there be light, and it was so. Right now that is as good an answer as you can get, cause science can not explain this point.

But now we come to the parts science can explain, sort of. As the universe expanded, quarks, protons, neutrinos, and electrons were formed during the first 3 minutes, later as temperatures fell the first atoms formed. no problem right? Wrong. If the expanding universe had continued unabatted, no matter could have formed, and the universe would be empty of all matter. Something had to hold back the expanding ball of energy, to allow the energy density to reach the point where matter would form. the timing and duration of this restraint on the expanding universe is critical. Yet it was accomplised with perfect timing to allow matter to form in the right proportions, to have the universe we know today. Science can not explain how the expanding universe was held in check breifly, only that it had to happen. Gee, sounds like God put the squeeze on creation, just for us.

The next problem with the creation of matter is this. When matter is formed in this manner, it will consist of equal parts matter and anti-matter. We have proved this much in the lab. By rights, this squeeze that created matter should have made equal parts of matter and anti-matter, which would have wiped each other out, still leaving a universe devoid of matter and life. As we can plainly see, this is not what happened. Gee, again it seems that we must seek the answer to this in religion rather than science. Maybe God put all that anti-matter into the first normal size blackholes, cool move.

If, as the bible says, in the begining was God. Then it follows that the only building material for creation was God him(her)self. Thus all of this vast universe is but a part of God. And as we are made from the matter present in the universe, we are truely the sons and daughters of God. Open your mind to the concept that God could be something far greater than the limited view of God we grew up with. Or perhaps our ancesters knew this, and religion was the only way to express these truths to early man who lacked the scientifc understanding or the vocabulary to grasp such concepts. If memory serves me, ancient Greek had less than 500 root words, and Hebrew less than a thousand. Religion is mans attempt to understand the universe and his place in it. Science is mans attempt to understand the universe and his place in it. Religions that do not stand up to close inspection by believers die off over time, replaced by one that fits the obserable facts. Scientific theories that do not stand up to close inspection by other researchers die off over time, replaced by one that fits the obserable facts. The two fields are not that different. Science just does this process faster, we hope. The size and endurance of the worlds great religions, plus the number of other religions that converted to them over time, should suggest that they do a good job of explaining the universe and mans place in it for believers.

I could go on, but I have ranted long enough to bore most people, and out-rage the rest. Let me know what you think about this post. After all, its was supposed to make you think and question things.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

"I reject your reality, and subsitute my own." Myth Buster Adam Savage

first of all, it was a very nice post. I enjoy reading it very much. those that skip it should go back and read it.

2ndly, I found serveral claims that you made where I can potentially attack, but I would need to do more research and talk to some experts in the field of physics...like my physics professor. Nuitari, i believe physics is your field of study isnt it? what do you have to say about this?

I neglected to mention my other reference for this post "The Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawking" for those who wish to look into this more deeply.
Lingolas, I am glad you enjoyed the post, I knew it was going to be long, so I tried to make it interesting and not put readers asleep. I am also happy to hear that you wish to look closer, and talk to others about my post. I consider that a compliment.
I look foward to hearing Nuitari's response. I only have a few college level physics courses under my belt, although it is a hobby of mine. So I would enjoy hearing the opinion of someone more qualified in the field than myself.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

There are lots and lots of evidence supporting evolution. If one takes a biology for majors course with a 'good' professor, this will be taught properly.

Rather than lecturing extensively what evolution says, I'll just post some false statements commonly thought of about evolution:

1. Man evolved from ape.
False, man did not evolve from ape. The theory states that man and ape have a common ancestor. Those pictures you've probably seen where a little monkey walks and becomes a figure of a man are very inaccurate.

2. Evolution is just a theory.
This is one of the most misconceptions. Do you reject the gravity theory? How about the cell theory? Theories have lots and lots of evidence. The correct term for saying something is a guess would be a hypothesis, and today, we call evolution a theory. Science should not be a 'pick which theory is true' situation.

Look at past history of Galileo. Religion likes to 'make up' false facts about the unknowns. The church punished him for saying planets revolve around the sun. Science and technology advances and are able to fills in unknowns, then religion either admits defeat, or denies it. In most cases, it's the ladder.

Think why people go to church. Is it because they want to? Or was this traditional? People tend to reject information that threaten their identity without any thorough consideration.

Another un-likeable question is the question of which god? Is it the Baptist's God? Is it the Catholic's idea of a God? How about Jew's? Is it Buddha? Such mass religions existence should indicate something is incomplete.

Which do I support? The uneducated assumption with similar topic is that one must pick a side. Any unbias person can manage to incorperate both religion and science into their life. Neither science nor religion is currently able to fill in all gaps of knowledge.

However, science is still developing.

Thank you Jerardo You caught the main point I was trying to make. You said "Any unbias person can manage to incorperate both religion and science into their life." All I can add to that statement is, or at least allow that there is room for both, reguardless of personal beliefs. Unbias is the key point, it allows you to be objective, one of the keystones of science. However with humans, this is not allways the case.

You said that science is still devloping, that is true. I tried to point out that religion is still devloping also, the pace is just much slower, general speaking. Even establised religions do so. The oringinal holy texts may remain the same, but mans interpetation of them changes. You mentioned the main reasons for religions slow change, tradition, and "People tend to reject information that threaten their identity without any thorough consideration." Or in other words, they have a bias viewpoint. See above paragraph.

What happened to Galileo was a shame. On the other hand, for how many thousands of years have doctors and other healers, bleed people to death, all for good reasons. We all are human, and make mistakes. In all these cases, people disreguarded the evidence. Why, because they had a bias viewpoint. See first paragraph.

You hit on another subject I touched on. "Another un-likeable question is the question of which god? Is it the Baptist's God? Is it the Catholic's idea of a God? How about Jew's? Is it Buddha? Such mass religions existence should indicate something is incomplete." You Mean They Are Not The Same God. Gasp. Even in the strictist historical context, several religions and their many offshoots, all share the same God. They just fight over the details, and the correct way to worship. In a broader outlook, you could say that all or nearly all religions share the same God, they just fight over the details. The only thing that makes it a touchy topic is because many people have a bias viewpoint. See first paragraph.

It is hard not to be biased, it seems to be a human trait. I try not to be biased, and look at life objectively, I am a scientist at heart. But, I am human, so it is not an easy task, I fail at times, and I have even been known to be wrong. Science is very usefull, and has taught use much about the universe, and our place in it. But it can not explain everything at this time, or in the forseeable future. Untill it can, religion will fill that void for those people who seek answers to the questions science cannot answer. Or some other explaination. Just today on T.V., (wish I had wrote this down), some guy used some of the genetic evidence I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, and came up with a far differant conclusion. He believes that a race from outer space came here and geneticly modified humans to use as slaves. They did this because they needed gold to fix their polluted atmosphere. Now, where as I do not agree with him, the evidence can be interpreted to support genitic modification instead of cross breeding. Who am I to say if he is right or wrong. Besides, he is making far more money off his theory, than I am with mine. Let's be open minded and unbias in our viewpoints. See first paragraph.

That's just a few commonly known religions here in the North America. Of those I mentioned, only the Baptist's and the Catholics share the same God of what's known to be Jesus. Even then, they strictly share different ideas. For example, the Catholics worship the being the Virgin Mary as being one of the 'top ranked', however, the Baptists do not think much of her other than a tool whom humanly gave birth to Jesus to come to Earth. Thus, the Catholics come closer to having a "division" of power. The Baptist also believe that all those who claim to believe in Jesus go to heaven; some may find this irrational. There's also the subject of purgatory. These are just the few examples of their differences.

The Jews have a completely different god all together. They do not believe that Jesus is the "true" god.

Generally speaking, my strong point isn't the study of the numerous types of religions, nonetheless, their existence should make one question "why so many religions", "how do I know my relgion is right", "what makes other religions different", etc. These answers probably will not come easy to those who are not arrogant. Some may find satisfactory answers by doing thorough research on the history.

Strictly speaking, Three of the worlds main religions, and their many offshoots and sects, share the same God. The Hebrews, or using your term Jews. All christian religions, and yes that includes Baptist's and Catholics, plus way too many others to list here. And Islam, and its various sects.

The Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the savior promised to the Jews by God. The Jews, for the most part do not belive this. Although there is one Hebrew sect that does believe this, they just prefer to keep their old traditions. Several other Hebrew sects do believe that Jesus was a great teacher of the word of God, just not the savior. Some of the early Islamic sects also believed that Jesus was the savior promised to the world, but I am not sure if the current sects still believe this. See the section on how holy texts are reinterpeted over time in my earlier post. Yes these three religions have differances of opinion, but they still worship the same God. Also note. Jesus never claimed to be God, and got upset when such things were suggested. "Nay, do not call me good, for there is none that are good except God"

This extends to other lesser known religions as well. As a Native American, I may not worship the Creator in the same manner as a white man. Just because we chose to worship differently does not mean we worship a different God altogether. To each their own I say.

"Why so many religions" you ask. That is easy. Because there are so many different people, from different backgounds and enviroments, with differant value systems. As a Native American, I have differant values than a someone from an urban area. Both of us will have differant values than someone from a poor overcrowded country, ect. These differant values will affect how we choose to worship God. Different religions appeal to different people.

"How do I know my religion is right" That is a very personal question that only the individual can answer. If you are asking yourself this question, than perhaps your religion is not answering the issues that are at the core of your being, so you might want to look around. I spent a long time on this road of thought, but because it is so personal, my journey may not be of use to another.

Now not all religions worship the One God. There are some that worship more than one God, and some that do not have a God at all in the normal sense.

Do not get caught up and confused in the details of each sects beliefs, unless you truely wish to understand them, or wish to try and convert them.

The disscussion of the different religions deserves its own thread, as it is to vast a subject to share room with the topic of this thread. If you or others wish to talk about this in detail, than a new thread should be started for this topic.

I use to believe in evolution when i was younger but that was before i got to see some of these so called "Facts".. There are so many you can see for yourself on a website called http://www.drdino.com i think not sure.. But when i seen some of his infomation and the facts he had i just had to check on them

Hes right, Carbon dateing is not reliable, volcanic rocks taken from a moutian that they knew blew 100 years ago dated to be 6000 years old , Lots of other crap like that .. btw its not him that did it , he has schools, collages and companys doing this stuff that just dont make the reports public (MIT,harverd so on)

I believe what he says where he says Evolution should not be taught in schools only because it has nothing really to do with learning the human body in biololdy(sp?) They still have facts in the school books which were proven WRONG 100 years ago but they keep printing it because they dont want to cast shadows of doubt on this Thery there baseing everything on, If in fact we came from mud we dont have to answer for our crimes and have no one to judge us but ourselfs and the goverment .. If we came from a god we would have to answer to him and obey him not the nation..its all about control

Its funny i am saying this because i am not sure what i believe, all i know is that evolution is nothing but a lie and people are covering it up and i dont like that , i dont claim to know where we came from but its not that .. check the site and watch his movies he makes way to much sense ..its scary

He says Evolution is a religion and i believe it .

Alright, that crosses the line. Religion is one thing, but blatantly regarding well known scientific theories as false is quite another.

Yes, evolution is a theory. Not "just a theory." If you are saying that, then GRAVITY is "just a theory" as well. There is huge piles of evidence that supports evolution, the most important of which is that scientists and humand SEE it, every day. If you want examples I can give you limitless ones.

There comes a point when you need to seperate religion and science. Evolution is taught in school because it is the explanation of how lifeforms change over time. Evolution is NOT an explanation as to how life originated, or anything like that. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Denying the existance of evolution is incredibly ignorant. How do you think dog breeds came to be? Selective breeding, isolating traits.

You simply cannot deny evolution. A common misconception is that humans "evolved from apes". No. Only somebody with little to no understanding of evolution would say that. The correct thing to say would be that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as apes. No species is any more evolved than the other.

Go read up on evolution. It is not untrue, and it is not fake. Having a religion is fine, normal, and good for your spirtual and emotional well being. But denying science at the same time is not healthy at all.

Even if evolution IS wrong, which it probably isn't, making an effort to study and correctly understand life and the universe is far more laudible than abandoning critical thinking and assuming that a fairy tale your parents told you is automatically true. Evolution is our best effort to understand how we came to be as we are now, Creationism is a myth that survives by indoctrination of young children and their inevitable and neccessary belief of whatever their parents tell them.

Children believe Santa Claus is real until their parents or someone else they trust tells them otherwise. Children believe the Easter Bunny is real until their parents or someone else they trust tells them otherwise. If their parents and society didn't tell them those figures were imaginary, they would continue believing in them for all of their lives. If their parents and their social peers consistently told them later in their childhoods that God wasn't real, they wouldn't believe in him either.

Getting off topic a little, has anyone been watching Southpark, i guess they decided to wage war on Tom Cruise and his scientology (freaks)

Did anyone happen to catch the last part of the episode where they had tom cruise in the closet and he wouldnt come out? I missed the last half of it, and wondered how they finished it.

You're confused. Evolution is fact. When I take mexican dirt weed and produce AK-47 with it my "Weed" has evolved. What is dubbed the "Theory of Evolution" is a bunch of skeletons that they pieces that people and monkies came from a common ancestor.

I suggest you realize what the argument is talking about before talking about how you're the pinnacle of 5 billion years of evolution.

I am not one to debate this subject , Before you stand your ground on this matter you should check out kens site and Tapes if you can find him .. What will it hurt?,

Please rememeber some of these "Facts" you Claim to have for evolution were chances are lies still written in your texts books , Go to a high school and LOOK for your self and see that proven wrong theroys are still listed in there books , Such asgills on a baby in its early stages of life is a sign of our fish ansestry or what ever , Look it up on the net the nation sicence int or what ever STATES that its WRONG, Along with other things they dont tell publicly or try to even fix ..

Ken destorys the religion of evolution with facts, paper works and lots of data from books even from other evolutioists, Hes not the one going "Beilieve just because i do " he gives more true info then the goverment so far and i believe him more because i checked myself

I already looked at his site. It's garbage. He failed to 'destroy' the important fact of evolution which is: we observe it on a daily basis. I told you, if you want examples, I will start listing limitless ones.