1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation - Evolution Continuum

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by (Q), May 12, 2004.

  1. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    IN THE BIBLE it is written that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that He made plants and animals "after their kind," and finally created man and "breathed into him the breath of life."
    This does not conflict with the discoveries of modern science.
    The theory of evolution postulates that all living things came into existence by chance, that living organisms like the amoeba and the jellyfish evolved into fish, and fish in turn evolved into animals such as the crocodile and the dinosaur and, further, that monkey-like creatures evolved into man.
    Did your life come about in this way?
    Are you the offspring of animals?
    This is the most important issue in your life, so let's consider it in the light of true science.



    1. How about the Giraffe's Neck?



    The Lamarckian theory states that "the giraffe's neck became longer as it tried to reach for the leaves on tall trees," and Darwinism claims that "over the generations the giraffes that could reach for leaves in tall trees managed to survive."
    But if the extension of the neck is requisite to the survival of the fittest in the evolutionary sense, then the baby giraffe and any other leaf-eating animals with short necks could not survive.



    Also, it is said that "...the longer the neck the sooner the discovery of, and the better the chance for escape from enemies."
    But on the other hand, long necks surely make them more conspicuous and readily visible to their enemies.
    So it is obvious that the giraffe's neck is not long as the result of evolutionary change, nor because it is most needful for survival.
    The sheep which cannot reach for tree leaves eats grass.
    Neither can the sheep become a giraffe through the process of natural selection.
    Now the Bible (God's Word) states that the original species of both plants and animals were made by God "according to its kind."
    This must be true.
    God made the giraffe a giraffe and the sheep a sheep from the beginning.


    2. Mutation Does not Produce Good Species.

    It is known that mutations occur at the rate of once or twice in one hundred thousand chances, and that in most cases they cause functional disability, demonstrating that repeated mutations result in retrogression and not in progression.
    Mutations can be produced by treating the genes with chemicals, drugs, or radioactivity.
    The nuclear radiation generated by the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the appearance of various abnormalities, physical impairment and still births.
    Also drugs like thalidomide have had ill effects on the fetus causing the birth of freakish babies with poor hearing and short arms.
    The results of many mutation experiments have shown that there is not a single case of a new species arising from mutation but only variants within the same species.
    The same can be said for mutations arising from accidents of nature.


    3. Total Absence of the "Missing Link" (Transition Stage) among Living Organisms.



    Evolutionists arrange their fossils in order and claim: "Both plants and animals gradually evolved from the simple to the complex."
    In other words, they contend that things evolved in the order A-B-C.
    If that were true, in the process of evolution there should be a medium stage between A and B, and between B and C, the "missing links" species AB and BC.
    But meticulous examination of the fossils has produced no discovery of any specimen in the transition stage.
    Moreover, such medial links are not found anywhere among present-day plants and animals.
    This also seems to validate the following words from the Bible: "The omniscient and almighty God created everything according to its kind."
    If evolution is true, there should exist creatures whose hands, feet, and eyes are in the process of development.
    But nowhere in the past or present are such organisms to be found.
    All living things seem to be complete and self-sufficient.


    4. Change of Species Impossible.

    Appearance of variations within the same species (A1 or A2) or (B1 or B2) is not evolutionary change, but it is absolutely impossible for species A to become species B.
    It is obvious from Mendel's Law of Heredity that there can be different varieties of dogs but a dog can never produce a cat.



    It seems that the theory of evolution has confused evolution and variation, or that it errs in believing that during the process of the development of varieties there might be deviation into a new species.
    Is not this a figment of imagination, rather than a scientific fact?
    A true scientist is a man with an attitude that humbly acknowledges the facts.
    Within the same species, there is a limit to the procreation of variations.
    For example, breeding a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but mules are sterile and between themselves they cannot bear offspring.
    Also a lion and a leopard can reproduce a leopon but it also remains sterile.
    This demonstrates the limitation of procreativity to the same species.



    In biological experiments, attempts have been made to unite an ovum of species A with a sperm of the closest resembling species B.
    It was found that it is impossible for the sperm to penetrate into the ovum, if the partners involved are of two different species.
    And the sperm dies even though it is implanted into the ovum after artificially removing its outer membrane.
    Even if a dog and a cat, or a cow and a horse are crossbred, there is no offspring.
    In this respect, the same is true in regards to man with a chimpanzee or a monkey.
    This is because the blood and the chromosomes are not the same.
    If there was a missing link it was not because of natural selection or adaptation by genetic engineering.

    5. Why the Similarities in Structure and Growth?

    Is not the reason for similarities in both plants and animals, that is, in their corresponding structures, physical organs and growth processes, due to the fact that they all have a common source?
    Similarity is no proof for evolution. By no natural change can a dog house transform into a one-story wooden house, then into a steel-frame structure and then finally into a ferro-concrete building.Furthermore, a one-story wooden house cannot be made from a dog house.
    Each one is made according to its respective kind and use.

    By modern science, we can definitely confirm the fact that the man's sperm and the woman's ovum are "unique to mankind."
    The human embryo can be identified as human embryo.
    At no stage of growth in man is there a respiratory apparatus like the gill of a fish.
    The piece of flesh in the embryo which resembles a gill develops into the auditory canal, the ear drum, the inner ear and ossicles.
    If you check the transformation you'll expect a spine to eliminate excrement if we were to believe evolutionists. That philogenesis to onthogenesis argument is absurd. We could well be more linked to pigs and chickens or rabbits than chimps!


    All the one hundred eighty so-called vestigial organs in the human body which the early evolutionists claimed to have found, have been identified as vital and necessary hormone glands of the body by modern science.
    These are evident facts derived from studies in the fields of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology and eugenics.


    6. Absence of Evolutionary Progress.

    According to the theory of evolution, man evolved through the following chain of stages over a long stretch of time: unicellular organisms (amoeba, etc)- invertebrates (jellyfish, sea anemone, etc)- amphibians - reptiles - mammals- man.
    But if such is the case, then how can we explain the existence today of amoeba, jellyfish and fish which are not going through evolutionary development?
    Recently, a fish fossil, supposedly fifteen million years old, was found in Yamagata Prefecture (Japan), and when it was compared to a living specimen of the same variety, hardly any change was found.
    This is proof that there is no "evolutionary process" even after "fifteen million years".
    The long-fin lungfish Coelacanth, renowned as a fossilized animal, was said by evolutionists to have become extinct some ninety million years ago at the time when fish were evolving into land animals.

    But recently quite a few of this variety of fish were caught off the coast of Madagascar.
    This again confirms the fact that the lungfish has always been a lungfish and that it was created "after its kind."
    Even in the realm of plants, why is it that there is no alteration in the leaves of the existing maiden-hair tree, or of grapes when compared to leaf-fossils of these plants which are claimed to be several hundred million years old?


    7. Noah's Flood.

    In the Jurassic Period, the global climate was mild and there are evidences that there was lush tropical vegetation even at the south pole.
    However, the earth's temperature dropped suddenly, making it unbearable for the dinosaurs, which then died abruptly because of the cold and thus became extinct.
    The evolutionists do not know the cause of this phenomenon.
    Not only the Bible gives an explanation of this catastrophe. The legends of Dilmun also explain about this, etc.


    The book of Genesis gives the account of the world-wide "great flood."
    The earth's surface up until that time was relatively even; the atmosphere was probably overlaid with a thick layer of moisture ("the waters above the firmament").
    So the climate of the whole earth, as in a greenhouse, was mild throughout the year.
    There are no annual rings in Paleozoic era trees because of the absence of temperature changes, demonstrating the prevalence of a mild climate throughout the year.
    Also, the thick layer of moisture which covered the atmosphere served as a filter, absorbing and deflecting harmful cosmic rays which bombard the earth from outer space.
    This may be an explanation for the long lifespan of the men in the Bible who lived before the flood.
    It takes about five thousand seven hundred and thirty years for radioactive isotope Carbon-14, used in dating objects, to lose half of its radiation.
    Before Noah's flood, the amount of isotope Carbon 14 was small because it was absorbed and deflected by the waters above the firmament.
    Thus, if the atmospheric condition before Noah's flood is overlooked, there will be an outlandish error in the results of chronological measurement using this method.
    The reason is obvious: the presence of isotope Carbon 14 was low from the beginning of time.
    For this reason, we find the evolutionist's dating as against the Bible chronology to be extremely prolonged, and this, of course, is an erroneous calculation.
    The supposition that with the stupendous lapse of time there might occur evolutionary progress is likewise false.
    With the sudden collapse of the tremendous amount of "waters" that shrouded the earth's atmosphere together with the eruption of the subterranean waters, the greenhouse effect in the earth's climate was eliminated, and extreme cold set in at the north and south poles where the benefit of the sun was reduced by the slanting and weakness of the sun's rays.
    This resulted in the sudden freezing of many plants and animals in these areas.
    Besides this, much of the giant tropical flora and fauna of the earth was buried beneath the sediment of the flood.
    These became lignite, coal and petroleum, transformed by the action of geothermal heat, and they are now being exploited by men.
    It is difficult to explain these phenomena if we disregard the catastrophe of the great flood.
    As we know, dead animals and plants left alone and exposed to the elements disintegrate and turn into dust.
    At the time of the flood, the earth's temperature fell abruptly and the crust of the earth shrank and became distorted.
    Rugged terrain resulted.
    High mountains and deep seas appeared as the waters receded (see the Bible - Psalm 104:8).
    Today, fossils of sea shells can be found on high mountains. And the Grand Canyon and other numerous rock formations throughout the world give many indications of the occurrence of the flood.


    8. Earth Strata and Fossils

    According to the theory of evolution, the older the stratum, the more simple the forms of the organisms discovered in it, and the more recent the strata, the more complex the organisms discovered in them.
    However, it can also be claimed that most of the fossils and the various strata were formed of buried creatures and sediment that settled during and after the Great Flood (of Noah's time) that covered the whole earth.
    The many layers of the belt-like strata give evident proof of this.



    In the lowest stratum we find many fossils of plants and animals normally living on the ocean bed, and as we advance to upper strata we find first fish, then amphibians, and then land mammals.
    No doubt humans and animals with higher intelligence fled to higher elevations as the flood waters advanced, and it was from there that they were swept away by the swelling waves and currents, and thus buried in the relatively upper strata where we now find them.
    Thus, the strata do not necessarily reveal the progress of evolution.
    We must also keep in mind that the fossils of living things will not be formed unless those organisms are buried alive, or at least shortly after death.
    If dead organisms remain in water or exposed to air, they will soon disintegrate and decay.
    The traditions of the Great Flood have been found in the cultures of many widely separated races and languages.


    9. Regarding Primitive Man.

    The so-called "primitive man," such as the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon man, has a larger skull capacity than modern man. He stands erect and is not in any way inferior to man of today.
    Even among contemporary men people of varying skeletal shapes can be found. Perhaps they were the ones who were taken from the gods to be genetically "formed" as the Bible says in Hebrew. Because it doesn't say "create" (barah). This is also explaiend in detail in Sumerian account as I said before.
    Progress in civilization and culture will be readily acknowledged, but it is also noteworthy that there are building skills found in primitive civilizations which are superior to those employed today.
    Recently it was discovered that the fragments of fossils of the Java man, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus are skeletal remains of large monkeys.


    10. Life from Lifeless Matter?



    In recent years, with the great progress in molecular biology research, it has become clear that life cannot be generated from a lifeless substance even with the passage of hundreds of millions of years.
    This fact is obvious even from Pasteur's experiments.


    11. From the Laws of Science.

    Supposing man made a cell, if it is left alone, with the passing of time, it will disintegrate and return to its original component elements.
    This happens in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy), which states that, "Bodies of complex structure gradually deteriorate into simpler forms."
    Thus, even the laws of science do not validate the evolutionary progress of matter but its regression.




    12. Sexless Forms to Sexual Forms - Why?

    Why do cells, through the process of simple cell division, increase by two's four's, and eight's etc.?
    Also, how does sexless reproduction change into sexual reproduction?
    In order to effect production of offspring by union of a male and female, it is necessary for the male and female reproductive organs to evolve fully into child-bearing capability, simultaneously and close to each other.
    If such a transformation were possible for both sexes at the same time, then evolution is nothing short of a miracle.


    13. The Intricate and Exquisite Cell.



    When a cell is viewed through an electron microscope, it is astounding to see that the structure of the cell is as complex and exquisite as a lively metropolis.
    In the core are the DNA (nucleic acid) chains, and for man, this is 1.5 meters long.
    The chains twist in a spiral, and are parallel; they are constructed in ladder-like steps, and over 5,000,000,000 varied genetic codes are contained in the steps.
    5,000,000,000 is equivalent to the number of letters contained in a thousand complete sets of encyclopedias.
    It is more than the world's population. Imagine it!
    All this is found in the nucleus of the cell which can be barely seen through a microscope.
    It is clear from this that it is impossible for even a cell to have evolved or come about by mere chance.
    In your brain there are 100,000,000,000 nerve cells and even one of these is more complex and more exquisitely made than an electronic computer.
    Furthermore, they all work in coordination and in mutual relationship to each other.
    Indeed, your brain is a wonderful organ.


    14. Renewal of 1,200,000,000,000 cells in the Human Body.

    Your body is made of a vast multitude of cells - approximately 60,000,000,000,000 - of varied characteristics.
    Of these, 2%, or about 1,200,000,000,000 cells, are freshly produced, the old ones being destroyed and discharged from the body, daily.
    No scientist can make even one single cell.
    Who produces the new 1,200,000,000,000 cells every day and causes you to live?
    It is none other than the almighty and omniscient God, the same who gives the Laws making the physicist to believe in at least the weak anthropic principle.
     
  2. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    Copy and paste can be misconstrued as plagiarism.
     
  3. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    God made the giraffe a giraffe and the sheep a sheep from the beginning.

    How do you know this?
     
  4. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, if a someone refuses to check the NAMES of the people who are quoting science, let it be. I'm not quoting films to give credibility, I'm using the names of the SCIENTISTS. Films are just an example and don't laugh too loud because great scientists like Carl Sagan, Asimov, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkins do care about science fiction based upon science. If you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, how on Earth are you gonna understand evolution or science??? Please, instead of using rethoric and words against me , use DATA and INFORMATION. Too much obliged! Scientists don't write "anecdotes" Mr. I'm quoting since you ask quotings. I already gave several and you who make no mention of no particular information demand ME to give you extra info???????? Do you think I 'll have to write every single reference just to satisfy your ignorance. Then again a stupid general remark "there are mountains of evidence". I let the reader decide if you are giving that much evidence. I don't laugh at you.... I pity you. You always have to respect your enemy. The links are not stupid. Stupid is the one who doesn't read or consider that everything against his ideas is nonsense. The links also provide more names of authors and books just in case an occasional reader wants to inform himself (herself) , definitely not your case. You are using your liver rather than brain. Relax, take it easy, take a deeeeeep breath...anc continue. Please, remember you're the defender of SCIENCE and not a traditionalist religious leader......HE-HE-HE!
     
  5. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    inca

    You copy and paste a lot of material yet make no comments yourself. Why should we bother responding?

    For example, you copied a statement in regards to entropy, yet I can't help but feel you know nothing about entropy, or the laws of thermodynamics.

    The conclusion drawn is seriously flawed, yet I doubt you would understand why. And I don't think it worthwhile to explain to you why it is flawed considering you made no effort yourself to create your own arguments. I also doubt you would understand the answer in the first place.

    Try not to get over your head too much.
     
  6. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Q: something to add to the issue but your ego? No? It's no surprise at all. It's all in the genes, Mr. When you see -and trust- evolutionist writing in an issue that "Australopithecus or whatever being fabricated the arrow" you trust that not cos you have witnessed the thing. That's for sure cos I know many things that you even see by television or video tapes or photographs you hesitate or just don't believe. All of us. We live in cynical and skeptic world. So, you trust because the idea pleases you. You wanna eliminate the "god" word of your personal dictionary cos you think of yourself His presence is no longer needed and indeed you're smart wise a...s. That's nothing but ego. I can question you right now several issues about science starting with bone fragments and ending in gravitons or "nothingness" of the universe or Big Crunch-Big Rip-Big Bang and you and any other evolutionist would shut up cos there are no answers but contradictory theories against each other. So, you prefer to ACCEPT the "evidence" of your liking even if you don't know that evolutionist archeologist didn't find the ape bone in the strata you imagine or even if he joined with another piece of bone km away in Java island and after said it belonged to the same animal. But you're not seeing anything. The fact is genetic proves and has always proved there's a map of all millions of animal species and though they are constructed with the same elements or some similarities, they are separated themselves and there's a limit which is sterelization. Even in species who are "relatives" this always happened. Hence if there's a genetic design there was no evolution in a step by step progression (slow or fast according to evolutionists own desire whenever they please). Using the same argument of the arrow who was designed by intelligent creature whether you can only guess how, when or why, I assume the same thing about DNA in our Earth and I agree like physicist whose names I have mentioned (whether any idiot can say is not relevant or is "anecdotic") in the anthropic principle of the Earth & Universe as well. Yet, now that you know my point of view and I already know yours, DO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EVOLUTION? It's perfectly clear religion doesn't require evidence. Yet, if evolution is science we urge the "mountains of evidence". Is not enough when somebody says "it's a fact" , "we have mountains of evidence", that is bla-bla-bla. If evolutionists don't have evidence so it's a "mano a mano" struggle between two faiths.
     
  7. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And no, I'm not quoting and make no comments. I made in the last 2 posting some quoting and I added my comments and so I have done in many pages. The anthropic principle in fact involves the knowing of thermodynamics. When you say that I don't know YOU'RE JUDGING AND ASSUMING. And when you say it's not worthy to discuss the issue with me is a subtle way to admit YOU DON'T KNOW THE HECK ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS and wanna escape from the discussion. If you wanna ran away from me cos you don't have the brains and wanna use that an excuse to get out from the debate, who you think is loosing? Me the one who's not allowed the chance to discuss the subject with Omnipotent Mr Q Unknown? Clap-clap-clap. I defy and challenge your pseudo-knowledge about that thermodynamic issue and let's see how deep the rabbit goes. You did exactly the same before; you were arguing and then vanished to write your eloquents "questions" . Keep on, I beg you.
     
  8. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,379
    Ratings:
    +825
    Shakyamuni Buddha answered the question of (variously) "who made the world?" or "Where did the world come from?" by answering that this wasn't the important question. The important question is what you do with the life you have now. If this question (creation vs. evolution) were to be conclusively and absolutely answered beyond a shadow of a doubt by this time next year, how would it change your life and what you do every day?
     
  9. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    oh trust us we can tell the difference between your cut and paste and your genuine comments... you tend to ramble and insult and carry on...

    as for asking Q if he was there to witness any of the scientific finds... I would assume from this then that you were there to see god make the animals and everything with your own eyes?

    the pot and the kettle remember?

    as for the list post above...

    lamerkin is outdated and discarded
    Lungfish, monotremes, and the dukier...
    sex allows us to mix genes to make better 'mutations'
    Dinosaurs survived the Jurassic by almost 100 million years... eaven in cold places...
    if clams got to the tops of mountians because their were no mountains untill during the flood... then how were the 'advanced' animals able to climb higher up to escape the flood and be burried in higher strata?
    life from lifeless matter... like god makeing us from dirt?
    and we already went over mutation as a good thing so that argument is bunk...

    wa:-do
     
  10. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In your statement "as for asking Q if he was there to witness any of the scientific finds... I would assume from this then that you were there to see god make the animals and everything with your own eyes? " the answer is NO. Of course not, what I tried to say is evolutionists and any people trust many things without having to see or witness a fact but assuming by the context, the indirect evidences.
     
  11. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Engyo: You gotta a good point here. In my case I don't wanna use the information to my glory. Nobody knows me, I use a nickname, I'm not gonna make a fortune or fame, I'm not writing a book. My point is some fellows here who are star dust like myself are feeling so cocky because they think they know. Yet the people who had more knowledge (and we are in doubt with them because of that) everytime they knew more, they were more humble. Newton was a Freemason who wrote more about God and Creation and against trinity than his writings about science. He sent a friend of his to measure Great Pyramid in Egypt in order to use that information to make the calculations of the dimensions of our planet !!!!!! Einstein was someone who believed in pantheism but wrote personal letters to a friend using the Hebrew name of God; physicist Ramanujan believed the Hindu goddess from Namakkal inspired him with math formulas; Michio Kaku admits physicist don't have the slightest clue why some math number codes appear in their formulas "magically"; Mendeleiev discovered the table of elements but trusted in the formulas of the Creator; even Stephen Hawkins dares to discuss about God but this people here who are unknown amateurs make fun of the divine idea. Nobody has to believe me nor scientists (some of them I quoted by name). But I believe an eventual reader can judge better and put the things in balance and wonder, why would those bright minds think about God or divine power rather than materialistic evolution?
    Mr Wolf wrote AGAIN about surviving of dinosaurs. This has nothing to do with the coming of the dinosaurs in first place nor evolution. Mutations are explained by experts in that field and I already quoted that in the similar issue. Mutations never add information to the point a specie creates a new one completely different by mixing genes.
    No, nobody says there were no mountains in pre-Flood times. They were just smaller. Mountains became higher after those events, specially in the Himalayas and Andes. The question itself demonstrates how ignorant is the one who asks cos the Bible (and Sumerian account) describe the ark on Ararat.
    Matter was not made out of dirt. In fact NASA discovered it was used CLAY as the Bible and other myths explain.
     
  12. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/822
    www.sitchin.com
    (last part of that last link).
    Now, don't aske me to provide more information or links. I have provided enough. If you don't believe or your skepticism is so close to cynicism that's your own business. Do your research, do your homework, investigate, invest time, read books and sites and then get back.
    Someone asked me about thermodynamics. Well, it can be explained in 3 ways the 3 laws:
    1) You can't win (you can't get nothing for nothing cos matter and energy are conserved).
    2)You can't get out without winning or loosing (you can't get back to the same state of energy cos there's always an increasing of disorder, entropy always rises)
    3) You can't abandon the game (cos zero is absolutely unreachable).
    SO WHAT??????
     
  13. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    :drink:
    I don’t know about you but I don’t feel intellectually intimidated by a name of “authority” like physicist Stephen Hawkins, specially cos some statements don’t seem to be naïve or childish but really IMBECIL for a man knowing math as he does in his Brief Story of Time, the example of monkeys hammering in typewriters machines, -the bigger part will be litter but occasionally, by mere CHANCE, they will type one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
    Shakespeare’s complete works do have the sonnets pretty much the same size. The initial verse of sonnet 18 is well known: “Shall I compare you to a summer’s day?” which follows the usual 14 lines and ends:
    “So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, so long lives this, and this gives life to thee”.
    There are 488 letters in the sonnet. Ignoring the spaces between words (like the Bible Code)the chance to type by chance 488 letters and produce this sonnet is 1 in 10 follow by 690 zeros! The enormity of this scale can be notice if we consider after Big Bang there’s 15 billion years, that means only 10 follow by 18 zeros (seconds).
    Hence, to write by chance one of Shakespeare’s sonnets it’s required all the monkeys PLUS all the animals of the Earth type in typewriter machines MADE BY ALL IRON OF THE UNIVERSE in a period of time EXCEEDING ENORMOUSLY THE TIME SINCE BIG BANG, even so, the odds are minimum. Trying one chance by second, even a simple sentence with 16 letters demands 2 millions of billion years while the Universe only exists 15 billion years ago…to eliminate all possible combinations.
    In XIII Century, Namanides quoted a commentary about Genesis written 600 years before, explaining BEFORE the existence of our universe TIME DIDN’T EXIST. This is due to what is written in Genesis 1:5: “There was an afternoon and morning, day one”. IT WASN’T WRITTEN “FIRST DAY” as stupidly translated in most of the Bibles, because the use of “first” would implied a series already existing of days in a “continuum” of time when truly there was no time before that “DAY ONE”. There was no “before” and not even “after”, there was nothing linked to that day. The subtle difference was not noticed in Jerusalem Bible when we read “first day”, something not happening in Vulgata version translating “Jactunque est vespere et mane, DIES UNUS” in Latin. That day was unique as “day one”. With impeccable logic in all the rest of days of Genesis’ week, are used the ordinal term: second, third, fourth, etc., because from the day two it was already established a series of days, the creation of the universe brought with itself the concomitant creation of time. Hence, commenting about Genesis, both Maimonides and Namanides arrived to the same conclusion and interesting idea: before the creation of the universe, space didn’t exist neither time. The creation of the universe brought not just the time in which it flows but the space in which it expands. I already explained the blackness and vacuum was “ruach elokim” expansive inflation or superhole paying attention to Hebrew words.
    In that sense, Hebrew idea wasn’t giving a mythical cow, or “nothingness” opening, or primitive supermaterial linked to a divinity limited to matter existence like Greek gods. Not even in Plato or Aristoteles times their gods could create matter. They were limited by the matter of the Universe and depending on it.
    Five hundred years ago, kabalists understood Moses saying God filling eternity, shrank and in that God’s Big Crunch –tsim tsum- there was universal Big Bang expansion. God chose 10 dimensions or aspects to form the universe and included into our universe. 10 times is written “God said” in chapter 1 of Genesis. Kabalists thought only 4 from 10 dimensions are physically measurable while other 6 contracted in submicroscopic dimensions during the 6 days of Creation. So, what Kaku explained in his book HYPERSPACE without saying a word of what I do explain here comes to modern society CENTURIES LATE, I regret to say! The scientists reference to the original space of a “grapefruit” is just a renewed version of kabalists “mustard seed space”. Even in Naimonides times he was aware of Hebrew meaning of the creation STARTING IN THE AFTERNOON AND ENDING IN THE MORNING. Christians ignore the fact, the word “morning” is “boker” in Hebrew and means “distinguished, capable to be distinguish, ORDERED” while “afternoon” is “erev” meaning “confused, mixtured, DISORDERED”. Therefore, what Genesis was saying all the time is creation started in the chaotic entropy of the “afternoon” ending in the quantified order of the “morning”. Usually Christians don’t know either the meaning of the word “yown” translated as “day” and the fact Genesis is talking about simultaneous times using different clocks cos the sequence of events is not the same EVERYWHERE. In Exodus 31:17, Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 we clearly see not only the difference between creative days and THE DAY in which both heaven and Earth WERE MADE from a primordial substance. Then AFTER when energy from photons dropped to 3000 K degrees, the electrons could have stable orbits around helium and hydrogen nucleus and the photons not only liberated from universal matter (SEPARATED IS THE TERM USED IN THE JEWISH TORAH IN GENESIS BOOK) but also became visible. This fire was in the water and there was water in the fire, not separated as we know in our dimension. It was neo-kabalist brothers Wacholsky did in SFX in one of MATRIX movies making the fire have the attributes of water. More than 99% of Universal mass is under the form of hydrogen and helium, two of the slightest elements of the universe. That is known. But how many of you know when Genesis mentions the Earth was empty and vague it’s used the Hebrew words “tohu” and “bohu”? The most important physicist of particles in fact use the initial T and B (from ToHu and BoHu) as the two main blocs of formation of all matter. The pressure of forces of Big Bang literally did a fussion of this T and B into hydrogen and helium. So much of Hawkins’ expertise!
     
  14. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And about the brain: 100 billion cells in the gray mass. Each with 50.000 neuron connections to other brain cells. It receives over 100 million separate signals from total human body EVERY SECOND. If we learned something new every second of our lives (perhaps with implant of chip silicon in the "future" and again that would be man made, no natural adaptation or accident)...if it were the case, it'd take 3 million years to exhaust the capacity of human brain. That's the conscious part though, but people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, devise plans, imagine the future without knowing they are doing so. So here we are, wonder of wonders, the only ones on Earth with full capacity of consciousness trapped in a body living the same as unconscious swan or parrot and a lot LESS than a giant turtle in Galapagos reaching between 150 and 200 years old!!! No plan for the evolution. It set the motor of a Jumbo or Concorde in a bike and the battery of a radio as motor of the airplanes! Absolutely nonsense unless many myths (not just the Bible) is right saying somebody turn off something in ourselves and we're f%*&#% up! Like buying a new hi-fi-set or flat tv liquid screen adaptable to DVD, video tape, tv channel, awsome sound from several speakers and "someone" unplugs something and then you are, watching black & white programs without sound and only to stare Bush-Alfred Newman Mad's face talking some lies to the public....Let's face it, for the scientists is easier to explain why we should've keep on living rather than dying. Many atheistic people laugh all their lives and when they have to face the terrible pain and death of someone close or even themselves they start NOW to think about the life and all magnificence of the things they took for granted as watching in colors, tasting, etc. Let'em laugh.
     
  15. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    actually its Ms Wolf to you.... you gotta' learn to read the bits under the names... oh, gender neutral one....

    so you know physics better than Stephan Hawking eh?... you must, to be able to call the man an Imbicile....

    the chimps writing shakespere is an old analogy to chaos therory and probibility... I'm sorry if the analogy is over your head... most people find it amusing... Duglas Adams did when he included it in his books.

    as for us being the only species with the capability to plan... ever watch lions or any pack animals hunt? They obviously plan ahead and work together for a future goal... who chases first, who do they attack, when to attack, who eats first when its all over...

    verry little that man does is truely unique in the animal kingdom...

    wa:-do
     
  16. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    No.Hawkins is not an imbecil. He said an imbecility quoting an analogy trying to prove chance is what stablishes the things in the universe. Quoting Douglas Adams in that sense knowing enough math should've alerted him against using that "analogy". The fact that he didn't show how can a person goe beyond his mind to believe what he WANTS to believe. In I say more, it wasn't the first time Hawkins did exactly that, MRS. He was skeptical about Thorne's ideas about wormholes but he proposed the theory even more fantastic than him that instead of contacting present with past we could contact with infinite number of parallel universes. This is also physicist Michio Kaku's point of view in his "Hyperspace", chapter 11 under the title "Project for a Time-Machine".
    Animals, my dear, already have a program in their brain most of the time. Have you seen a cat covering its excrement on asfalt? The offspring of many animals have been kept from their parents and eventually they already know by "instinct" many things. Not all things of course. Yet this argument of yours has nothing to do with evolution.
     
  17. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And I didn't say we are the only beings with skill to plan. If I have said that, it would mean I never watched foxes or lions and predators. I said and say again, we are the ones who have consciousness about life, laws of the universe, existence. Between one thing and the other, there's a distance between here and Orion.
     
  18. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    sounds like it to me... maybe you better be more carefull in how you phrase things?

    again... how do you know humans are the only ones with these things?

    who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
    ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss...
    Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest...

    what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case...

    evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by...

    wa:=do
     
  19. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    I Dunno.

    by inclination I am drawn to the creationist point-of-view to the exclusion of the evolutionary process. But even so, Evolution could be true. I wish I was more familiar with both sides(and all that is inbetween) of the argument. In my current state of ignorance concerning this subject I feel to go either way would be indoctrination.

    :roll:
     
  20. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I'm probably an EC. Sometimes I think religion is ahead of science. Evolution maintains life began in the ocean. Several places in religion there is reference to the ocean being the womb. From the Vedanta, the salt doll enters the Ocean and is dissolved in the Ocean. This could be interpreted as "when our body dissolves we return to Universal Conciousness, the beloved and I are one."
     
Loading...