Shyone Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Your kidding right? You see them unconnected? Why do you think Astronomy and biology are connected? Please explain how they are? Well, Tap, in this particular situation the Big Bang is said to have started life, and evolution is that continuing of those mutations of life. The big bang didn't "start life" any more than it started you. Your biological father fucked your mother. It should be plain as day. Now, you can stretch that and say that somewhere in the ancient past your prehuman ancestors descended from single celled organisms that are basically complex chemical reactions in the slime, but that just leads to abiogenesis. It's a long stretch to the big bang. Do you start every story you tell your children with "There was a very big bang..." How about "Once upon a time..." It works just as well, and the stories are a lot shorter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Your kidding right? You see them unconnected? Why do you think Astronomy and biology are connected? Please explain how they are? Well, Tap, in this particular situation the Big Bang is said to have started life, and evolution is that continuing of those mutations of life. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! The Big Bang is NOT, repeat NOT, how life started! It is not said to have started life! The Big Bang is a theory about the beginning of the DEAD MATTER Universe. Not Life. Just stuff. Dead stuff. Hot, cold, wet, dry, STUFF. Like rocks. And stars. Not life. *pant, pant* OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Example. One religion may be vibrate in the cleansing of unrighteousness from the Earth by any means possible because that religion didn't have ethical morality built into their bylaws, and then there may be one religion that did have this ethical morality built into their bylaw. The difference would be extreme between these two religions. Agree? I don't understand you. Not at all. I'm not Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Pagan. I'm an atheist. "cleansing of unrighteousness" means what? Means nothing to me, and I'd rather you didn't try to explain it to me. The best effort to transform earth via religion was made when religion was powerful, and beliefs were absolute (kind of like you). It was called the Inquisition. Flexible ethical morality, that allows for judgements based on agreed upon parameters, makes for a good system of morality and justice. There must be room for society to change. Without that flexibility, laws against adultery, homosexuality and working on the Sabbath would not only still be illegal, but would still carry the death penalty. Luke 14:26 is immmoral. You can twist the hell out of it until it sounds like going to Disneyland, but it's still immoral. And to the extent that Jesus claimed to support the law and didn't, he lied. And to the extent that he actually does support the OT, he is no better than the slave mongering near-eastern wanna-be god Yahweh. His morals do not make him God, for good or bad. He was a man with male DNA who literally died, and he didn't come back to life any more than any other biblical story figure. I think in Luke for this instance was still in explanation of the story told a few verses back of the people that wanted a raincheck on God's supper, and then the master of the house told the servants to tell anyone to come in if they want, to go get them from the streets. IMO, Jesus was implying that one must sacrifice their 'image' or self righteousness and join the supper, instead of denying it. As result, those that do attend may actually hate their brother or mother in retrospect to the struggle of having to dismember from their former ways and self to join God and His will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Not life. *pant, pant* OK? Davka, take deep breaths. In, out. It's just a discussion on a computer. Evolution at some point will need a beginning, and it's end is always continual. What was the beginning of the evolution process then? I have always understood it to be connected with the Big Bang and after the Big Bang, Earth and it's biological state started to evolve. Right? If that be the case, then the Big Bang is connected to evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Your kidding right? You see them unconnected? Why do you think Astronomy and biology are connected? Please explain how they are? Well, Tap, in this particular situation the Big Bang is said to have started life, and evolution is that continuing of those mutations of life. The big bang didn't "start life" any more than it started you. Your biological father fucked your mother. It should be plain as day. Now, you can stretch that and say that somewhere in the ancient past your prehuman ancestors descended from single celled organisms that are basically complex chemical reactions in the slime, but that just leads to abiogenesis. It's a long stretch to the big bang. Do you start every story you tell your children with "There was a very big bang..." How about "Once upon a time..." It works just as well, and the stories are a lot shorter. So then, it is okay to say that our common ancestor of humans and apes was created by God since there is no other connections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 ... the Big Bang is said to have started life, and evolution is that continuing of those mutations of life. Abiyoyo I bow to the life you carry. But I think this is a misinterpretation of what phenomona the theory of the Big Bang addresses and what phenomena pertain to the emergence of life on Earth, and the evolution which followed. Big Bang - one theory (which I am skeptical of) Abiogenesis - (another, different set of theories) Evolution - (still yet another different set of theories) That's what I'm seeing. I do to legion. My deal is why are they separate. Let's just come out and say that science says God doesn't exist If they combined all three in the 'explanation of life on Earth'; then people will most likely start to think on their own and say, " That is a lot of maybe's. But separating them keeps everything under "Different and completely unrelated" scientific studies, ...therefore keeping the tension low. That's my conspiracy theory anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 That's my conspiracy theory anyways Well gracious Abiyoyo, despite what many may think on any side, I believe the primary aim of science is first and foremost about the creation of models. If as a side-effect of new understandings, old understandings are diminished then isn’t this simply learning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 ... the Big Bang is said to have started life, and evolution is that continuing of those mutations of life. Abiyoyo I bow to the life you carry. But I think this is a misinterpretation of what phenomona the theory of the Big Bang addresses and what phenomena pertain to the emergence of life on Earth, and the evolution which followed. Big Bang - one theory (which I am skeptical of) Abiogenesis - (another, different set of theories) Evolution - (still yet another different set of theories) That's what I'm seeing. I do to legion. My deal is why are they separate. Let's just come out and say that science says God doesn't exist If they combined all three in the 'explanation of life on Earth'; then people will most likely start to think on their own and say, " That is a lot of maybe's. But separating them keeps everything under "Different and completely unrelated" scientific studies, ...therefore keeping the tension low. That's my conspiracy theory anyways There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you (or someone who understands it) could write a book and call it the "Grand Unified Theory of Everything." Just as all life is interconnected, it is not inappropriate to consider species or varieties or individuals. It isn't necessary to consider everything all at once when considering part of something. To put it differently, if any one of these theories is not correct, it doesn't make god real. The big bang, in particular, is irrelevent to abiogenesis or evolution. It's a branch of science that may have room for spooks and mystery and not affect medicine and farming. Same with abiogenesis. But fuck with evolution and you are marching headlong into ignorance that could kill people by throwing out the good science that makes antibiotics stay ahead of the curve, vaccines, hereditary diseases, mutations, and potential cures for hundreds of diseases. I don't really care if Chthulu spat flames and caused the big bang. I think it's a silly idea, but it doesn't matter to me. If you want to keep some creation Deity that was alive for a split second 13.7 billion years ago, be my guest. If you think aliens planted a cell in some ancient sea, more power to you. I think that there are better explanations for abiogeneiss, but who cares. I do care when I see people trying to stop research because it violates the bible. Book burning is a cousin to this kind of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Davka, take deep breaths. In, out. It's just a discussion on a computer. Evolution at some point will need a beginning, and it's end is always continual. What was the beginning of the evolution process then? I have always understood it to be connected with the Big Bang and after the Big Bang, Earth and it's biological state started to evolve. Right? If that be the case, then the Big Bang is connected to evolution But it is NOT the case. The Earth formed about 9.5 billion years after the Big Bang. The Earth is one of a few million billion planets orbiting a million billion stars. The formation of stars and planets is an ongoing process, and is in the realm of astronomy and astrophysics. So far, we have not gotten anywhere near life or evolution. Stars do not "evolve" in the sense of the Theory of Evolution. It just occurred to me that the common usage of the word "evolution" might be what's causing the confusion here. Maybe this will help: ev-o-lu-tion n. 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane. 2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research. 3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. 4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions. 5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine. 6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater. 7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc. 8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8). 9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade. 10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill. It is the third definition and ONLY the third definition which is relevant to the Theory of Evolution. That's why Evolution requires life, which was not present at the Big Bang. Evolution only started after life began. That was about 3.5 billion years ago, a few hundred million years after the Earth formed. The study of how life began is NOT covered by the Theory of Evolution. It is related, just as the manufacture of internal combustion engines is related to automobile racing, but they are not the same thing. The study of the origin of life is called "abiogenesis," which is a fancy word meaning "the beginning of life from non-life." This also has nothing to do with the Big Bang, which did not create life. The study of abiogenesis is fascinating on its own. But it is not the study of Evolution, or of the beginning of Space/Time. These are separate areas of study. So. The universe did not "Evolve." Earth did not "Evolve." Amino acids did not "Evolve" into complex protein chains. The first we can safely say that life began to Evolve was after the formation of the first single-celled organism. You can, if you wish, believe that God began the process of Evolution, and that He continued to use Evolution to shape plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens. This is an idea called "guided evolution," for which I have some respect. But please, please, please get your facts straight about the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. I have the flu, and this is making my head hurt. Pretty please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Taph's version of guided evolution: So basically 9.5 billion years after god created the universe he created earth in this our insignificant galaxy out of all the billions upon billions of galaxies and in an insignificant arm of that galaxy in an insignificant solar system of that arm of the galaxy. Then about 3.5 million years ago god decides to something with earth. So while he's fiddling around with earth starting out with simple cells moving to complex cells he thinks up the plan of salvation for man that he is going to create someday. Perhaps he needed the practice after creating cells moving onto fish than mammals. Fast forward to the dinosaurs, god gets tired of them and kills them off except for the small avian ones, he obviously liked them. So around 200,000 years ago god creates modern man. He creates Neandrethals too, perhaps as a prototype or they obviously rejected his plan for salvation. So, god creates Adam and Eve. Though, Eve is a bit older than Adam. Eve is born around 150,000 years ago and Adam doesn't show up until 80,000 years ago. God must have created Adam with a thing for older women. Many human males have inherited this as it explains modern man's attraction to MILF's. The End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts