More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[GreenAndBlue]

Science has proven we have a god

Proving the universe had a beginning has proven that.

Logic knows that is the fact that proves this.

Again, this freakish magical voodoo does not belong in a science thread.

Science says we have a beginning

That proves science says we have a creator The beginning means no evolvement from something else

With humans evidence is very strong against its own no evolvement Humans were pre wired to advance thru life cycles steps and instead of evolving upwards we advance from each life cycle of added inventions

Science now says the invention of writing has occurred several times independent of each other but many times the inventions are added to other inventions to push humans to become gods of the universe

No other life form was pre wired in the same way as humans

Humans were prewired to advance to control the world and the universe

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Evolution is dis proved by only 1 life form went on a journey to dominate all of the trillion life forms

Proves human had a different created purpose

What dominated the dinosaurs?

Humans created after the dinosaurs which turned into birds as their genes mutated when big pressure came thru Astroids strikes

 

[toobfreak]

Science has proven we have a god
Proving the universe had a beginning has proven that.

I'm a scientist and I believe in a God but I'm not aware that science has PROVEN we have a God.
Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause. Some people prefer to see that as a personal rather than impersonal force.
Personal Force = Living intelligent Conscious Being with a plan.
Impersonal Force = random chance, statistical opportunity and roll of the dice. WE are here because everything had to be this way for us to be here.

Science also implies we had a beginning because if we roll back time, everything seems to come together. But did it have a start, or was it a rebounding universe? Still, it had to come from something and somewhere. That something was "God."

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Science has proven we have a god
Proving the universe had a beginning has proven that.

I'm a scientist and I believe in a God but I'm not aware that science has PROVEN we have a God.
Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause. Some people prefer to see that as a personal rather than impersonal force.
Personal Force = Living intelligent Conscious Being with a plan.
Impersonal Force = random chance, statistical opportunity and roll of the dice. WE are here because everything had to be this way for us to be here.

Science also implies we had a beginning because if we roll back time, everything seems to come together. But did it have a start, or was it a rebounding universe? Still, it had to come from something and somewhere. That something was "God."

That is the proof

A beginning is the proof

Logic is what understands if evidence is proof or not

The top atheist of 50 years changed because of the evidence. Anthony Flew of Great Britain

And how humans have advanced over every single life form proves the plan

Humans to become gods of the universe by adding life cycle advancements

Humans are designed to harness all the power of the universe

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science says we have a beginning

That proves science says we have a creator The beginning means no evolvement from something else

No it doesn't. And no it doesn't.

 

[james bond]

I'm a scientist and I believe in a God but I'm not aware that science has PROVEN we have a God.
Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause. Some people prefer to see that as a personal rather than impersonal force.
Personal Force = Living intelligent Conscious Being with a plan.
Impersonal Force = random chance, statistical opportunity and roll of the dice. WE are here because everything had to be this way for us to be here.

Science also implies we had a beginning because if we roll back time, everything seems to come together. But did it have a start, or was it a rebounding universe? Still, it had to come from something and somewhere. That something was "God."

Science doesn't prove, but comes up with best theory. We have the universe, Earth, and everything in it and the best theory was God created it as described in Genesis. This is what scientists believed before the 1850s. However, the evidence was conveniently tossed aside by the secular/atheist scientists in order to get rid of the best theory, so evolution and evolutionary thinking and history can take its place. One cannot argue God as creator nor the theories from the bible anymore or else they could lose their jobs.

I would think the answer is to get creation science be able to be taught in schools again, and allow for creation as a valid theory to argue against evolution.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm a scientist and I believe in a God but I'm not aware that science has PROVEN we have a God.
Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause. Some people prefer to see that as a personal rather than impersonal force.
Personal Force = Living intelligent Conscious Being with a plan.
Impersonal Force = random chance, statistical opportunity and roll of the dice. WE are here because everything had to be this way for us to be here.

Science also implies we had a beginning because if we roll back time, everything seems to come together. But did it have a start, or was it a rebounding universe? Still, it had to come from something and somewhere. That something was "God."

Science doesn't prove, but comes up with best theory. We have the universe, Earth, and everything in it and the best theory was God created it as described in Genesis. This is what scientists believed before the 1850s. However, the evidence was conveniently tossed aside by the secular/atheist scientists in order to get rid of the best theory, so evolution and evolutionary thinking and history can take its place. One cannot argue God as creator nor the theories from the bible anymore or else they could lose their jobs.

I would think the answer is to get creation science be able to be taught in schools again, and allow for creation as a valid theory to argue against evolution.

What scientists believed centuries ago or what Genesis says, carries little weight with me. I mean, just who wrote Genesis anyway? I'm not trashing the Bible, mind you, but it is rather simplistic, child-like, vague, obscure and contradictory in many technical regards. Much of it is literal, but much of it is metaphoric. I much prefer Vedic Science, the original religion from which all others are based from 5,000 years ago, and the concept of the Garbhodakasayi Vishnu manifesting from withon the Causal Ocean. They actually predict the atom, the layers of the universe, quantum theory and much that science is only now "discovering."

 

[james bond]

What scientists believed centuries ago or what Genesis says, carries little weight with me. I mean, just who wrote Genesis anyway? I'm not trashing the Bible, mind you, but it is rather simplistic, child-like, vague, obscure and contradictory in many technical regards. Much of it is literal, but much of it is metaphoric. I much prefer Vedic Science, the original religion from which all others are based from 5,000 years ago, and the concept of the Garbhodakasayi Vishnu manifesting from withon the Causal Ocean. They actually predict the atom, the layers of the universe, quantum theory and much that science is only now "discovering."

Moses wrote Genesis according to tradition. The author isn't identified, but was assumed to be Moses because of the same time periods.

It is all literal and the Bible explains 'the atom, layers of the universe, quantum theory and much that science is only now "discovering."' It doesn't predict it because it isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.

To relate it to the topic, if God didn't create humans as evolution states, then monkeys would have to have evolved from tailed to tailless monkeys. Where is the evidence for that? We do not even see tailed monkeys go from tailed to tailless monkeys today.

 

[toobfreak]

Moses wrote Genesis according to tradition. The author isn't identified, but was assumed to be Moses because of the same time periods.

I have a 100 year old Bible and I'd be curious to look to see if it confirms that. I'd be curious to know how Moses knew about the creation of the universe.

It is all literal and the Bible explains 'the atom, layers of the universe, quantum theory and much that science is only now "discovering."' It doesn't predict it because it isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.

Not sure where all of that is explained in the detail of the Puranas or the Srimad Bhagavatam, but I find parts of the Bible confirmed by archeological evidence and other findings, but other parts appear metaphorical. perhaps best described as the people could in their time.

To relate it to the topic, if God didn't create humans as evolution states, then monkeys would have to have evolved from tailed to tailless monkeys. Where is the evidence for that? We do not even see tailed monkeys go from tailed to tailless monkeys today.

Sure we do. That is one of the metaphors. Sure God created man, but not literally on the spot as we are today, we evolved and the author of Genesis described man's being on Earth as best he could. God made man. He was jumping over gaps he couldn't possibly know. He was not attempting to write a book on paleoanthropology. We evolved from hominids through australopithicene through Paranthropus to Homo Erectus. A good place to start understanding the evolutionary process is to read Alfred Wallace's book The Malay Archipelago. Darwin stole from Wallace his ideas while in Malaysia corresponding to confirm his own theories and take credit for it all. Actually, originally, Wallace got his credit too, but not being a university bred scholar like Darwin, he was slowly written out of the historical record over time.

 

[james bond]

I have a 100 year old Bible and I'd be curious to look to see if it confirms that. I'd be curious to know how Moses knew about the creation of the universe.

. Moses didn't know. God knew, so Moses wrote down what he told him. I'm curious now. Just how do you think the Bible came to be? Is it non-fiction and historical? Is it like an autobiography?

Not sure where all of that is explained in the detail of the Puranas or the Srimad Bhagavatam, but I find parts of the Bible confirmed by archeological evidence and other findings, but other parts appear metaphorical. perhaps best described as the people could in their time.

I think you will find all of it is confirmed by archeological evidence and other findings. The parts that are metaphorical are mostly in the prophecies.

Sure we do. That is one of the metaphors. Sure God created man, but not literally on the spot as we are today, we evolved and the author of Genesis described man's being on Earth as best he could. God made man. He was jumping over gaps he couldn't possibly know. He was not attempting to write a book on paleoanthropology. We evolved from hominids through australopithicene through Paranthropus to Homo Erectus. A good place to start understanding the evolutionary process is to read Alfred Wallace's book The Malay Archipelago. Darwin stole from Wallace his ideas while in Malaysia corresponding to confirm his own theories and take credit for it all. Actually, originally, Wallace got his credit too, but not being a university bred scholar like Darwin, he was slowly written out of the historical record over time.

Your above isn't clear to me. In Genesis, it clearly states in chapter 2 that on the day the Lord God formed man from the dirt of the ground and blew into his nostril the breath of life and man became a living creature. We know that humans cannot create life. We cannot create a blade of grass. We cannot create a protein. Only life begats life.

What do you mean by "Genesis described man's being on Earth as best he could?" What do you mean "He was jumping over gaps he couldn't possibly know. He was not attempting to write a book on paleoanthropology." How do you know that from the Bible?

 

[Hollie]

I'm a scientist and I believe in a God but I'm not aware that science has PROVEN we have a God.
Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause. Some people prefer to see that as a personal rather than impersonal force.
Personal Force = Living intelligent Conscious Being with a plan.
Impersonal Force = random chance, statistical opportunity and roll of the dice. WE are here because everything had to be this way for us to be here.

Science also implies we had a beginning because if we roll back time, everything seems to come together. But did it have a start, or was it a rebounding universe? Still, it had to come from something and somewhere. That something was "God."

Science doesn't prove, but comes up with best theory. We have the universe, Earth, and everything in it and the best theory was God created it as described in Genesis. This is what scientists believed before the 1850s. However, the evidence was conveniently tossed aside by the secular/atheist scientists in order to get rid of the best theory, so evolution and evolutionary thinking and history can take its place. One cannot argue God as creator nor the theories from the bible anymore or else they could lose their jobs.

I would think the answer is to get creation science be able to be taught in schools again, and allow for creation as a valid theory to argue against evolution.

ID'iot Creationism has repeatedly been rejected from the public school syllabus because it is nothing more than religious fundamentalism.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

How many more times do christian fundamentalists need to be told that partisan religious dogma is not science?

 

[toobfreak]

I have a 100 year old Bible and I'd be curious to look to see if it confirms that. I'd be curious to know how Moses knew about the creation of the universe.

. Moses didn't know. God knew, so Moses wrote down what he told him. I'm curious now. Just how do you think the Bible came to be? Is it non-fiction and historical? Is it like an autobiography?

Not sure where all of that is explained in the detail of the Puranas or the Srimad Bhagavatam, but I find parts of the Bible confirmed by archeological evidence and other findings, but other parts appear metaphorical. perhaps best described as the people could in their time.

I think you will find all of it is confirmed by archeological evidence and other findings. The parts that are metaphorical are mostly in the prophecies.

Sure we do. That is one of the metaphors. Sure God created man, but not literally on the spot as we are today, we evolved and the author of Genesis described man's being on Earth as best he could. God made man. He was jumping over gaps he couldn't possibly know. He was not attempting to write a book on paleoanthropology. We evolved from hominids through australopithicene through Paranthropus to Homo Erectus. A good place to start understanding the evolutionary process is to read Alfred Wallace's book The Malay Archipelago. Darwin stole from Wallace his ideas while in Malaysia corresponding to confirm his own theories and take credit for it all. Actually, originally, Wallace got his credit too, but not being a university bred scholar like Darwin, he was slowly written out of the historical record over time.

Your above isn't clear to me. In Genesis, it clearly states in chapter 2 that on the day the Lord God formed man from the dirt of the ground and blew into his nostril the breath of life and man became a living creature. We know that humans cannot create life. We cannot create a blade of grass. We cannot create a protein. Only life begats life.

What do you mean by "Genesis described man's being on Earth as best he could?" What do you mean "He was jumping over gaps he couldn't possibly know. He was not attempting to write a book on paleoanthropology." How do you know that from the Bible?

The Bible was written over a very long time by a multitude of people describing stories that in many cases were long before their time.

Where is the archeological evidence for the parting of the Red Sea.

Genesis was a metaphor for a 4 billion year long process, simplified so that early man could understand it. Life came from dust in the form of simple cells which over billions of years evolved into eukaryotes, then plants, then animals, and finally into higher animals like man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

 

[toobfreak]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

Agreed. You can only know what you can know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

Agreed. You can only know what you can know.

Yep. Some questions we may not be able to answer, because there may have been a "causal break" at the beginning of our universe's timeline. What happened before that, as far as we know, can never be discerned.

 

[toobfreak]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

Agreed. You can only know what you can know.

Yep. Some questions we may not be able to answer, because there may have been a "causal break" at the beginning of our universe's timeline. What happened before that, as far as we know, can never be discerned.

True. I have a lot of background in astronomy and astrophysics and when one cogitates the puny insignificance of people even to the size of the Earth let alone to the scale of the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE, it is both amazing that we even know what we know, and at that, I have some doubts about a few things science measures as being "fact" or just an illusion of how the universe presents things to us on scales more fantastic than our imagination can truly grasp.

If you never saw this in my earlier thread it is very much worth watching full screen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

Agreed. You can only know what you can know.

Yep. Some questions we may not be able to answer, because there may have been a "causal break" at the beginning of our universe's timeline. What happened before that, as far as we know, can never be discerned.

True. I have a lot of background in astronomy and astrophysics and when one cogitates the puny insignificance of people even to the size of the Earth let alone to the scale of the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE, it is both amazing that we even know what we know, and at that, I have some doubts about a few things science measures as being "fact" or just an illusion of how the universe presents things to us on scales more fantastic than our imagination can truly grasp.

If you never saw this in my earlier thread it is very much worth watching full screen.

Yes, i love that video. Here is one for you:

Incredible animation shows just how big supermassive black holes can get

 

[toobfreak]

Maybe a better statement would be to say that Science tells us the universe had an Original Cause.

* only as far as we can ever tell. Which is not the same as asserting it had an "original cause".

Agreed. You can only know what you can know.

Yep. Some questions we may not be able to answer, because there may have been a "causal break" at the beginning of our universe's timeline. What happened before that, as far as we know, can never be discerned.

True. I have a lot of background in astronomy and astrophysics and when one cogitates the puny insignificance of people even to the size of the Earth let alone to the scale of the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE, it is both amazing that we even know what we know, and at that, I have some doubts about a few things science measures as being "fact" or just an illusion of how the universe presents things to us on scales more fantastic than our imagination can truly grasp.

If you never saw this in my earlier thread it is very much worth watching full screen.

Yes, i love that video. Here is one for you:

Incredible animation shows just how big supermassive black holes can get

Nice. I never saw that one. I knew all of that but it is still nice to visualize. I'll have to share that with my group. On a technicality though, the lady in the video has one thing wrong, those black holes they show were really the event horizons. The actual singularity in all of them should still be smaller than a pin. I gotta go, but one last thought: my personal opinion is that black holes are actually a nexus for concentrations of dark matter, the REAL source for gravity and mass in our universe. Our universe is really a shadow universe for the real stuff, which is what we call Dark Matter. And I believe pivotal and key to the creation, beginning, existence or eventual fate of our universe, whatever that really is. Gotta go.