Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Knight Templar on October 09, 2002, 11:44:35 pm

Title: Theory
Post by: Knight Templar on October 09, 2002, 11:44:35 pm

I was in biology class the other day, we were discussing evolution and darwin and the likes and the inevitable question "I am *insert religous beleifs here* , i think this is blashpemy, can i be excused?" question came up, and responsivly i thought of darwin and evolution and how things evolved from the first single celled creatures.

So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now :shaking: ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments with each generation, having the weak links die out due to not mating. now creationism (Sp? context?) says that god created the animals in one day and that they did't evolve from single celled organisms. correct?

So my theory, if i remember correctly, went sometihng along the lines of; maybe God did create animals in a evolutionist fashion but explained it to early humans in a way they could understand. Lemme see if i could clarify.. lets say God created the Dog right? Well evolution says that the dog evolved from wolves which came form earlier forms which came from fish stuff or something (sorrry for my lignorance, work with me here) but it is known that there are wolves and dogs today, wolves were tamed and nutured by humans, so they becamse less fierce and such like the wolves, so when different races of wolves around the world were tamed, those wolves had already adapted to their individual enviroments, and with that, and cross breeding, there are many different types of dog today. But that didn't start till about 10,000 B.C. if i remember my hisrotry correctly, so essentially back in the time of Adam and Eve, there were no dogs, only wolves.  

now whiel writing this i was trying to keep some of my ideas from possibly conflicting while trying to get it out before forgetting it so hang in there.

What i am trying to get at is, that there very well could have only been single celled organisms in life with God there, and he gave them the essentials and knowledge and ability to grow and evolve and adapt to their surrondings as needed to stay alive and further their race. It evolved and evolved and did the whole process to where it is now the animal kingdom of the earth. Now you say "no, he created each animals" like i beleive it said in Genesis (i haven't read my bible in a long time, someone help me) well, think of it this way, if you were the a human, the very first human, didn't even kow shame enough to wear clothing ;7 , woudl you know about advanced molecular biology? Well the basis behind what i was theoriesing was that God could have explained it to where they would understand it. After all, even if they were all one, single celled organism at one time, he did create them, even before they evolved and changed into what he presented to Adam and Eve.

Now for the last item, you say "well in the bible it states that the earth was created in 6 days and  the animals in two days, (first the ocean life and then the rest) evolution takes millions of yeas"  Well i think , once again i think God used siplification so that the humans would understand him. He started off with the Ocean life, correct? well the first cells and creatures formed in the ocean, and then they adapted for land as they needed. As for the time discripency, God is Omnipotent (everywhere, anywhere , all the time, any time, all knowing, all powerful) right? so essentially, he does in fact exist out of time. i don't know the exact calculations and ai don't know if anybody could, but perhaps the 11 Billion years or so that the Universe has been around for, was only the equivilant of 6 days worth of work for God ( pondering what he wanted to make, and doing it ):p


Alright, that is my theory basically, i'm sure there are plenty of holes in it. Feel free to bring in objective commenting, poke holes if you any possible :D ;)

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A RELIGOUS DEBATE OR FLAME WAR  the last thing i want is for this to be closed in 4 hours

Title: Theory
Post by: Blue Lion on October 10, 2002, 12:08:17 am

I don't know what you'd expect this to turn into other than a religious debate.

Title: Theory
Post by: Knight Templar on October 10, 2002, 12:12:17 am

comments... wether or not it could be possible.



honestly i don't really care that much, i just wanted to see what people think.

Title: Theory
Post by: vadar_1 on October 10, 2002, 12:39:38 am

{post deleted} That was uncalled for, vadar.

Title: Theory
Post by: Bobboau on October 10, 2002, 12:46:50 am

"So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now  ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments ... correct?
"
no that is incorect, in an evolutionary system those organisms less suited to surivial and reproduction will not be represented in the next generation, there is no consus effort for improvement or adaption,
adaption is more of a byproduct of simple mater of fact things like
things that are better at living and reproduceing more do so but better that those that aren't as good, and thus there are more of them

Title: Theory
Post by: Knight Templar on October 10, 2002, 12:54:05 am

noted

Title: Theory
Post by: vadar_1 on October 10, 2002, 01:12:42 am

Quote

Originally posted by Bobboau
"So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now  ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments ... correct?
"
no that is incorect, in an evolutionary system those organisms less suited to surivial and reproduction will not be represented in the next generation, there is no consus effort for improvement or adaption,
adaption is more of a byproduct of simple mater of fact things like
things that are better at living and reproduceing more do so but better that those that aren't as good, and thus there are more of them

pfft, duh. Thats exactly why we are negativly evolving. Soon instead of the superhuman, we will have a race of scrawny nerds.

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 01:55:05 am

Quote

{edited}

;7

Quote

"So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now  ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments ... correct?
"
no that is incorect, in an evolutionary system those organisms less suited to surivial and reproduction will not be represented in the next generation, there is no consus effort for improvement or adaption,
adaption is more of a byproduct of simple mater of fact things like
things that are better at living and reproduceing more do so but better that those that aren't as good, and thus there are more of them

That's actually the same thing; the ecosystem as a whole adapts to its surroundings by replacing the weak parts of it. :D

Quote

pfft, duh. Thats exactly why we are negativly evolving. Soon instead of the superhuman, we will have a race of scrawny nerds.

That is the superhuman. :D

Title: Theory
Post by: Knight Templar on October 10, 2002, 02:02:31 am

hmmm.. twilight is certainly upon our fair race ;)

 (damn shakepsear... nobody talks like that anymore  it's just not useful)

meh, i've had alousy day, night' .

Title: Theory
Post by: diamondgeezer on October 10, 2002, 04:23:36 am

As I have mentioned before, I reckon it was aliens wot dun it

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 06:20:12 am

So you don't spend hours wondering, I edited those posts. If you have beef with that, PM me.

Back to topic, I recently heard a scientist explain how the 6 days of creation can be corraborated (sp?) with the however-many billions of years dictated by evolution. Basically, basing things on how time slows down the faster you go - relative time, that is - you can have the universe created in 6 days (relative time), over the period of however-many billion years, "absolute" time. And of course, the reason for the high velocity that is causing the time distortion? The Big Bang. :D

I can get more specific information - even formulas, CP - if anyone's interested. It was in a book I have.

Title: Theory
Post by: wEvil on October 10, 2002, 06:29:00 am

the universe was 5 billion years old by the time our solar system formed - while its only an estimate its a quite widely accepted fact.

SO unless you're saying the solar system is far older than we think it is (I.E, it formed during the supercooling phase of the rapid inflationary model of the universe, which it couldn't have because it was too hot for anything more complex than a few oxygen/magnesium atoms by then), it still has trouble standing up to scrutiny.

However, post up a few excerpts - i'm interested in reading them :)

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 07:11:29 am

Quote

Originally posted by wEvil
the universe was 5 billion years old by the time our solar system formed - while its only an estimate its a quite widely accepted fact.

SO unless you're saying the solar system is far older than we think it is (I.E, it formed during the supercooling phase of the rapid inflationary model of the universe, which it couldn't have because it was too hot for anything more complex than a few oxygen/magnesium atoms by then), it still has trouble standing up to scrutiny.

However, post up a few excerpts - i'm interested in reading them :)

No problem. First of all, the book is "The Science of God", by Gerald L. Schroder.

I was going to type some stuff out of his book, but I found that he has some good articles on his website (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/), such as this:

[q]

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
• The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
• The fourth day - one billion years.
• The fifth day - one-half billion years.
• The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
[/q]

As for the happenings on each day, I'll make up the table he has in the book and post in in a few minutes.

Title: Theory
Post by: diamondgeezer on October 10, 2002, 07:27:01 am

See? Aliens gave us our religious texts, henceall the complicated maths and astronomy.

Go von Daniken w00+!

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 07:33:40 am

DG: :lol:

Here's that table I promised - B.P. stands for Before Present:

{EDIT} Weird - I dunno why there's so much blank space before the table, sorry. :doubt:

{EDIT #2} Fix0r3d.

The Six Days of Genesis
Day number	Start of day (years B.P.)	End of day (years B.P.)	Main event(s) of the day
			Bible's description	Scientific description
One	15,750,000,000	7,750,000,000	The creation of the universe; light seperates from dark (Gen 1:1-5)	The big bang marks the creation of the universe; light literally breaks free as electrons bond to atomic nuclei; galaxies start to form
Two	7,750,000,000	3,750,000,000	The heavenly firmament forms (Gen. 1:6-8)	Disk of Milky Way forms; Sun, a main sequence star, forms
Three	3,750,000,000	1,750,000,000	Oceans and dry land appear; the first life, plants, appear (Gen. 1:9-13)	The earth has cooled and liquid water appears 3.8 billion years ago followed almost immediately by the first forms of life; bacteria and photosynthetic algae
Four	1,750,000,000	750,000,000	Sun, Moon, and stars become visible in heavens (Gen 1:14-19)	Earth's atmosphere becomes transparent; photosynthesis produces oxygen-rich atmosphere
Five	750,000,000	250,000,000	First animal life swarms abundantly in waters; followed by reptiles and winged animals (Gen. 1:20-23)	First multicellular animals; waters swarm with animal life having the basic body plans of all future animals; winged insects appear
Six	250,000,000	approx. 6,000	Land animals; mammals; humankind (Gen. 1:24-31)	Massive extinction destroys over 90% of life. Land is repopulated; hominids and then humans

Title: Theory
Post by: Kazashi on October 10, 2002, 07:39:27 am

Quote

Originally posted by Sandwich

I was going to type some stuff out of his book, but I found that he has some good articles on his website (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/), such as this:

[q]

15 billion or six days?

*snip*
[/q]

As for the happenings on each day, I'll make up the table he has in the book and post in in a few minutes.

Damn bastard stole my theory! That's rather annoying....and that table which just popped up as I was proof reading just adds to it :mad:

On second thoughts, if I'm not the only person who thinks of the universe and its interpretations in this way, it must have something going for it.

Title: Theory
Post by: Styxx on October 10, 2002, 07:40:51 am

Nice article you have there, and a nice reference table too. Good way to relate creationism and evolution too, even though I can't say I fully agree with the concept of God.

:)

Title: Theory
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 10, 2002, 07:51:38 am

Quote

Originally posted by vadar_1


pfft, duh. Thats exactly why we are negativly evolving. Soon instead of the superhuman, we will have a race of scrawny nerds.

there is no such thing as negatively evolution. :p

if scrawny nerds have the better survibility rate then scrawny nerds is what we'll get.
Same goes for superhumans

:p

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 07:58:42 am

Quote

Originally posted by Styxx
Nice article you have there, and a nice reference table too. Good way to relate creationism and evolution too, even though I can't say I fully agree with the concept of God.

:)

He has some articles on the site about evolution, too - I haven't read through them yet, though.

Title: I believe in God....
Post by: Star Dragon on October 10, 2002, 08:02:19 am

It's just that I'm glad he's not a modler...

God - "Hey guys I got these great models I've been working on... Real Planets!"

Community - "Great! when will we be able to download it?"

God - "Oh in a day or too..."

Community - "Awesome!"

wait a sec... that's like 8 billion years!!!
:(

Title: Re: I believe in God....
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 08:39:07 am

Quote

Originally posted by Star Dragon
It's just that I'm glad he's not a modler...

God - "Hey guys I got these great models I've been working on... Real Planets!"

Community - "Great! when will we be able to download it?"

God - "Oh in a day or too..."

Community - "Awesome!"

wait a sec... that's like 8 billion years!!!
:(

:lol:

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 08:41:00 am

Well, the thing is that these things mentioned in the Bible (or any other religious text) are so incredibly obscure that they could be interpreted as just about anything. (which is a lucky thing for the religious guys) Who knows, perhaps it is an account of how god created a computer game in that period. :D

Quote

if scrawny nerds have the better survibility rate then scrawny nerds is what we'll get.

That's because they do! :p :D

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 08:46:40 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
Well, the thing is that these things mentioned in the Bible (or any other religious text) are so incredibly obscure that they could be interpreted as just about anything. (which is a lucky thing for the religious guys) Who knows, perhaps it is an account of how god created a computer game in that period. :D



That's because they do! :p :D

Meh, you wanna refute, then refute - don't just stand there and say that anything can be interpreted in any way you want - on an absolute sense, everything is obscure. :doubt:

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 08:48:26 am

Hey, if you want to make this a religious debate, I will be happy to oblige. :D ;7

Quote

Meh, you wanna refute, then refute - don't just stand there and say that anything can be interpreted in any way you want - on an absolute sense, everything is obscure.

Not just anything; the religious texts in particular, and I think you know that well.

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 08:52:10 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
Not just anything; the religious texts in particular, and I think you know that well.

Ok then, how do you de-obscure something and discover what it truly means? You plug in a hypothesis, a set of datum, or whatever, and follow that until you can prove it wrong - or right.

So using the above hypothesis, let's start. :D

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 08:53:43 am

The problem is, you have about a hundred other distinct hypotheses that work just as well. :p :D

Title: Theory
Post by: Kamikaze on October 10, 2002, 09:00:32 am

Although I don't have time to read all of Knight Templar's stuff I can see that he seems to be making the same mistakes as my peers.

Firstly evolution is not caused by a need to adapt, it just ssems like it. THe word "adapt" and "evolve" are abused in modern culture. Anyway, instead of adapting evolutiong is when a little change here or there (random mutations) happen to make a species survive better.
These then mount to form a distinction we call "species", just a large set of differences. In fact you and me are different "species", but the difference is so miniscule we don't recognize it as a "species" difference.

btw: don't try to interpret the bible anyway.. if some cosmic being beyond our existence wrote it we won't understand it anyway :nod:

My religious friend/idiot/whatever thinks that evolution is "adapting" and also that species are things that can reproduce with each other and only each other ... odd

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 09:01:07 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
The problem is, you have about a hundred other distinct hypotheses that work just as well. :p :D

So why does the Bible correlate so well with the scientific facts, when the Bible came along a few thousand years before people knew the Earth was round?

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 09:06:05 am

For every correlation with scientific facts, you also have ten things that are completely against science. :p

The simple fact is that people cling to religion not at all because it makes logical sense -  all attempts to rationally justify it understandably fail - but because of a general mental resistance to change, the temporary removal of uncertainty and of course the purposes of an ultimate government.

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 09:10:41 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
For every correlation with scientific facts, you also have ten things that are completely against science. :p

Trying to keep this centered around the whole creation/evolution/origin-of-the-universe debate, what in that framework doesn't correlate?

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 09:12:14 am

uh...the concept of "creation," for one thing. :p (you cannot "create" something out of absolutely nothing)

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 09:21:54 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
(you cannot "create" something out of absolutely nothing)

Agreed. Although I'm sure we differ in that I believe that God is certainly capable of such a feat, I also believe that God did not create the universe through what would be termed, no mater how far our knowledge goes, "magic" (remember _that_ discussion? :p) - I believe He followed the physical rules governing our space/time.

But this whole thing is not something I'm trying to shove down anyone's throat, forcing them to accept the statement or be burned at the stake - hardly. I am simply presenting an intruiging correlation of Science with the Bible concerning "the beginning". Take it as you will; personally I find it fascinating. :D

Title: Theory
Post by: Levyathan on October 10, 2002, 10:11:29 am

Quote

Originally posted by Kamikaze
These then mount to form a distinction we call "species", just a large set of differences. In fact you and me are different "species", but the difference is so miniscule we don't recognize it as a "species" difference.

Not really. A species is defined as a set of individuals which have the ability to reproduce creating a fertile offspring.

Title: Theory
Post by: Carl on October 10, 2002, 10:23:42 am

it's amazing how often i hear of people coming up with this excact same "new" theory. it's nearly as old as darwin himself.

Title: Theory
Post by: Galemp on October 10, 2002, 01:19:10 pm

What I find amusing is that the entire branch of medical science is working against evolution. Doctors are giving all the people with diseases, genetic defects, bad genes etc. a chance to procreate and pass down genes which otherwise would have been lost in Natural Selection.

Oh, and by practicing abstinance, you are furthering the extinction of the human race. ;7

Title: Theory
Post by: wEvil on October 10, 2002, 01:28:03 pm

Quote

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
Oh, and by practicing abstinance, you are furthering the extinction of the human race. ;7

Which is actually a good thing, everything considered.

Title: Theory
Post by: Bobboau on October 10, 2002, 01:30:19 pm

no this is compasion, wich before we were so good at keeping people alive was one of our best surival instincts, enableing you to gain and retain allies, and/or mates, and  also good at giveing you're childeren a better chance at survival/reproducton.

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 01:30:38 pm

Quote

But this whole thing is not something I'm trying to shove down anyone's throat, forcing them to accept the statement or be burned at the stake - hardly. I am simply presenting an intruiging correlation of Science with the Bible concerning "the beginning". Take it as you will; personally I find it fascinating.

That is perfectly fine. :D (it only annoys me when people start to claim that their religion is more rational than science :p; not talking about anyone here)

Quote

Not really. A species is defined as a set of individuals which have the ability to reproduce creating a fertile offspring.

That would include the whole universe, though. :D

Quote

Oh, and by practicing abstinance, you are furthering the extinction of the human race.

abstinence is good; it is the reasoning behind it that I do not like. :p We will have cloning soon enough, though. :D

Quote

no this is compasion, wich before we were so good at keeping people alive was one of our best surival instincts, enableing you to gain and retain allies, and/or mates, and also good at giveing you're childeren a better chance at survival/reproducton.

The children will eventually evolve into something else anyway though in most cases, so it would not really make a difference. :p :D

Title: Theory
Post by: Bobboau on October 10, 2002, 01:37:35 pm

"That would include the whole universe, though. "
how so?

"The children will eventually evolve into something else anyway though in most cases, so it would not really make a difference. "
not if they get eaten by a saber tooth cat that you and you're tribe could have fought off but didn't becase you didn't care about them

Title: Theory
Post by: CP5670 on October 10, 2002, 01:43:36 pm

Quote

how so?

The whole universe is made up for various parts that all reproduce over time. (even something like a rock breaking into pieces is reproduction) Actually, the universe is a large organism in itself as well. :D Basically, there are no discrete distinctions between the organisms in the universe.

Quote

though in most cases, so it would not really make a difference. "
not if they get eaten by a saber tooth cat that you and you're tribe could have fought off but didn't becase you didn't care about them

I didn't even know that such an animal exists/existed. :p Anyway, what I meant was that they will evolve into something new over some millions of years anyway; that cannot be stopped no matter what we do. (of course, that "something new" can be different from what you might be thinking of :D)

Title: Theory
Post by: Top Gun on October 10, 2002, 03:06:22 pm

From a Scientific/logical point of view the Bible is a foul concoction of contradictory crap. From a sociological/anthropological point of view it's a valuable resource. Logically speaking the only path is agnosticism as there is niether any reliable evidence for a creator, neither can it ever be disproved, it's ignorant and arrogant to assume either way.

Title: Theory
Post by: Carl on October 10, 2002, 03:31:20 pm

really? cause i've read the entire bible and nothing i saw contradicted anything.

Title: Theory
Post by: Kamikaze on October 10, 2002, 04:16:26 pm

The definition of god itself is contradicting...
God is omnipotent
God can create (anything)

correct?

Well then "can god create a rock it can't lift?" - it can create anything.. however it won't be omnipotent if it can't lift it

 also why would a god need morality (as it seems it does) when there is no higher being to compare to? (or even equal beings..)

Title: Theory
Post by: Carl on October 10, 2002, 04:25:58 pm

answer to your first question: you're thinking in the box. remember, God isn't confined to the laws of physics.

and the second question doesn't even make sense.

Title: Theory
Post by: Stryke 9 on October 10, 2002, 04:34:22 pm

*sigh* This tired, sad old argument again...

Honestly, I think the whole omnipotent-God thing is a cop-out. If you believe in an all-powerful god, you essentially never have to think, because everything happens because he says so, anything CAN happen, there need not be any underlying cause and effect, people are too stupid to understand the universe, go watch TV- there's nothing you can possibly do for God that he can't already do himself with no effort at all. It's an irrefutable claim, but then again so is the theory that Hitler was an artificial cyborg built by aliens from the planet Zontar in order to take over the Earth and soften up humanity for the invasion.

Also, it takes a hell of a lot of the fun out of life. It's something fantastic, to go out in the world, see all the infinitely complex structures around you, working together perfectly with their world, and to realize that this all came about on its own. The idea that the world is the sandbox of a celestial toddler is a depressing concept indeed. There's no "miracle" to a universe with a God who can do anything, whenever he likes, however he likes. Things just happen, under such a theory, and it's just as concievable that people could lift off the ground and fly about as that they'll continue walking down the street, strictly terrestrial, if you believe in an almighty God. I find it MUCH more interesting to rule a Lord out of the picture, and see the way things work without some big man in the sky calling the shots- and they do, they absolutely do.


'Course, if there was any concrete evidence OF a Supreme Being, I don't think I'd worship him anyway. What kind of sadistic, vile being could be infinitely powerful, create an entire universe, and fill it with such a high degree of misery? If the Bible's to be believed, in fact, at times he personally intervenes to create more of it. And He wants to be PRAISED??? The sick bastard, I'd sooner go to hell than toady up to THAT.

Title: Theory
Post by: diamondgeezer on October 10, 2002, 04:58:07 pm

Question for the Christians out there: How come worshiping the Great Beardy One is the only true religion, but worshiping the lil' grey dudes is a cult?

Title: Theory
Post by: Knight Templar on October 10, 2002, 05:02:22 pm

lil grey dudes?

Title: Theory
Post by: Stryke 9 on October 10, 2002, 05:04:15 pm

Because it's hard to have a decent respect for any myth commonly featured in bad computer games and paranoiac TV shows.





Wait a minute, forget I said that...:D

Title: Theory
Post by: Levyathan on October 10, 2002, 05:12:08 pm

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
The whole universe is made up for various parts that all reproduce over time. (even something like a rock breaking into pieces is reproduction)

:lol: :lol:

Nice one!

Title: Theory
Post by: Sandwich on October 10, 2002, 08:51:11 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Knight Templar
lil grey dudes?

{EDIT} Huh? This is locked? :wtf: