I think it was Mark Twain who compared earth history to the Eiffel Tower.  The layer of paint at the top being human existence.  Surely all the rest was put their to support that layer of paint.

:)

Perhaps because He really wants to really know if we choose to except Him or not.  Maybe they are just distractions.  Another strange thought I've had before is what if the planets were Hell? 

At the risk of getting sidetracked into a discussion on Heaven & Hell - what actually goes there, anyway? Given that it's not part of a person's physical make-up (you don't lose weight immediately on dying as some part of your body flies off), it seems unlikely that either place exists in the physical world as we know it.  So we've got something we can't see or measure going somewhere we can't see or measure...

...and at the risk of seeming utterly pedantic, I'm sure you mean "accept", rather than "except" ;)

:)At the risk of getting sidetracked into a discussion on Heaven & Hell - what actually goes there, anyway? Given that it's not part of a person's physical make-up (you don't lose weight immediately on dying as some part of your body flies off), it seems unlikely that either place exists in the physical world as we know it.  So we've got something we can't see or measure going somewhere we can't see or measure...



True we can't measure it, but does that mean it doesn't exist?  You think science will eventually prove everything?  We don't know and we go back to deciding if there is a God or not.

True we can't measure it, but does that mean it doesn't exist?  You think science will eventually prove everything?  We don't know and we go back to deciding if there is a God or not.


Dante's writings are what most people base their perception of heaven and hell on.  The perception of God has changed throughout the centuries too.  Basing Religious beliefs on another person from days gone by has been known to have flaws.

You're applying logic - it never works..


I guess they don't call it "faith" for nothing!

True we can't measure it, but does that mean it doesn't exist? 

What is the difference between something that cannot be detected in any way, shape or form and something that just plain isn't there?


You think science will eventually prove everything?  We don't know and we go back to deciding if there is a God or not.

No, I don't think science will ever be able to prove everything - at least, not with the flawed and fallible brains we have.  But we have to make the best of the mental equipment inside our heads, and everything I see behaves exactly as it would if there were no guiding hand of God behind it.  The only conclusion I can draw is that if there is a God, he's behaving exactly as if there wasn't.. the simpler explanation is that there is no god.  The simpler explanation is *always* that there is no god.

I remember an article either from my alma mater's humor newsletter or from the Onion, where the headline was basically:

God appears before world: Millions of atheists sh*t pants

I thought it was funny :)

What is the difference between something that cannot be detected in any way, shape or form and something that just plain isn't there?


You have deleted the posibility of finding yourself an answer to that. 


 

When I do a science experiment, I set up some reagents in a test tube or culture dish and just kind of wait to see what happens.  Is it possible, however crazy it may sound, that "God" just started a science experiment one day 15 billion years ago and is waiting to see what happens?

*brain*

I remember an article either from my alma mater's humor newsletter or from the Onion, where the headline was basically:

God appears before world: Millions of atheists sh*t pants



Atheist: G-G-G-God...?
God: Yes, my son.
Atheist: Does this mean I'm going to...I mean, you know, am I the...the big D, like hafta...
God: WTF is your question, kid, get to it, I'm busy!
Atheist: Do I have to go to hell because I didn't believe in your divinity?
God: There is no hell.
Atheist: But you're real...and heaven is real?
God: Uh-huh.
Atheist: So all your worshippers with their acts of contrition and their guilt and their fear are...are...are...
God: Yes, wasting their time.
Atheist: Well, why don't you tell them they're wasting their time?
God: Because it's fun to watch on Sunday mornings.  Now run along, I've got some stars to pop around the back!

You have deleted the posibility of finding yourself an answer to that. 
Well, I've spent enough time looking for something that doesn't appear to be there: my mind isn't closed to the possibility, but I'm not going to start imagining stuff so that I can fool myself into thinking I've got the answer.


When I do a science experiment, I set up some reagents in a test tube or culture dish and just kind of wait to see what happens.  Is it possible, however crazy it may sound, that "God" just started a science experiment one day 15 billion years ago and is waiting to see what happens?

*brain*

So what odds He's still looking at a planetary petri dish in some other galaxy far, far away..and hasn't actually noticed the culture growing on this one?

When I do a science experiment, I set up some reagents in a test tube or culture dish and just kind of wait to see what happens.  Is it possible, however crazy it may sound, that "God" just started a science experiment one day 15 billion years ago and is waiting to see what happens?

*brain*

True,whats to say that God did not create Heaven and earth,then let evolution take over.

Well, I've spent enough time looking for something that doesn't appear to be there: my mind isn't closed to the possibility, but I'm not going to start imagining stuff so that I can fool myself into thinking I've got the answer.
So what odds He's still looking at a planetary petri dish in some other galaxy far, far away..and hasn't actually noticed the culture growing on this one?



so you're open?  I find this funny


There are billions of planets out there - it doesn't boggle the imagination that conditions are "just right" here, we're here rather than on one of the almost infinitely huge number of alternatives because this planet happened to have the right conditions.  Why would a creator waste all the effort of making the gas giants in our own solar system, let alone the billions upon billions of other stars, galaxies and planets which don't support life?

To say "things look like they were tailor-made for our kind of life, therefore they must have been" is to miss the point: if things (such as the "fine-tuned" constants) had been different, who's to say a whether a different type of life would have come about; if the history of our world is so special, why have the innumerable other worlds that aren't?
"Any time now" being at some point over the next 4-11 million years?  It would be vaguely surprising if the human race survives that long, the way it's going.


Notice the assumption that a creater wasted all their effort. 

so you're open?  I find this funny

Like any scientist, I am able to be swayed by evidence.  I keep an open mind on most things, but not so open my brains fall out.


Notice the assumption that a creater wasted all their effort. 

I suppose that does raise the question of why the creator created - but if we're supposed to be some kind of experiment/culture/living soap opera, why create such an overwhelmingly huge number of unpopulated planets, utterly incapable of supporting life?  The thought that humankind might be the motive, the aim of this creation is such colossal arrogance, given that we're such an infinitesimally small part of it all.

Like any scientist, I am able to be swayed by evidence.  I keep an open mind on most things, but not so open my brains fall out.
I suppose that does raise the question of why the creator created - but if we're supposed to be some kind of experiment/culture/living soap opera, why create such an overwhelmingly huge number of unpopulated planets, utterly incapable of supporting life?  The thought that humankind might be the motive, the aim of this creation is such colossal arrogance, given that we're such an infinitesimally small part of it all.




To keep the scientists employed.  Duh. ;D

And before you respond, please keep in mind that I'm being a complete smartass about it all. :D

^ Back up take your assumption out of your question.  There's a section to put your guess ( whats it called)

I've already gave you a thought on why the planets might be there.  

If you've decided that a creator cant be proven so you aren't going to consider it, that's your business.  

Good day

Is what happened not what we choose to believe in. Science proved this one.


Science has not conclusively proved the theory of evolution. Some scientists just write as it is absolute truth...there are a swag of equally eminent scientists that reject the theory.  :)

I personally favour creationism...yet am uncertain if I agree with the biblical timeframe.... :-\\

Science has not conclusively proved the theory of evolution. Some scientists just write as it is absolute truth...there are a swag of equally eminent scientists that reject the theory.  :)
Why do creationists continually misrepresent the scientific viewpoint?

No scientist will talk about "absolute truth" - that's what religious people believe in.  And show me a "scientist" who rejects evolution, and I'll show you someone for whom religion is the driving force, not science.  It's not a question of absolute truth: evolution has happened - unless you can come up with a better explanation for the fossil record; the best explanation for the evidence we see is that lifeforms have changed over the aeons to become what we see today.  To say anything else is to ignore utterly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, if you think evolution didn't happen, you must try and explain why God put all the fossils in place in the right geological strata to fool us all into thinking that it did.

Why do creationists continually misrepresent the scientific viewpoint?

No scientist will talk about "absolute truth" - that's what religious people believe in.  And show me a "scientist" who rejects evolution, and I'll show you someone for whom religion is the driving force, not science.  It's not a question of absolute truth: evolution has happened - unless you can come up with a better explanation for the fossil record; the best explanation for the evidence we see is that lifeforms have changed over the aeons to become what we see today.  To say anything else is to ignore utterly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, if you think evolution didn't happen, you must try and explain why God put all the fossils in place in the right geological strata to fool us all into thinking that it did.


I assume that we are talking about the evolution of Man here..... I guess we can talk until we are both blue in the face but I will have to wait until the so-called 'missing link' is found to change my mind... :-\\

I assume that we are talking about the evolution of Man here..... I guess we can talk until we are both blue in the face but I will have to wait until the so-called 'missing link' is found to change my mind... :-\\


I hate to get drawn into a crevo thread, but what "missing link" are you talking about?

Science doesn't assert that we descended from modern-day apes, it asserts that we share a common ancestor with modern-day primates, and over the past two million years, it's found dozens of species that didn't quite cut it.  Some of those species were probably our ancestors, some of them weren't.  Chimpanzees and other primates aren't our ancestors, they're our cousins, several hundred thousand times removed.

Please don't fall for the red herring that evolution requires the nonexistence of God.  It merely assumes it, and to be absolutely pedantic, it assumes only the noninterference of God in the evolution of intelligent lifeforms that inhabit this planet.

The Big Lie of the Creationism industry is that to accept the evidence of one's own eyes (observation) and to use one's capacity to reason (funny, since it's supposedly "God" who gave us these big brains with which we think :) is somehow to deny the existence of God, and that (in another logical fallacy) to deny creationism is to condemn oneself to this God's wrath.

I hate to get drawn into a crevo thread, but what "missing link" are you talking about?

Science doesn't assert that we descended from modern-day apes, it asserts that we share a common ancestor with modern-day primates, and over the past two million years, it's found dozens of species that didn't quite cut it.  Some of those species were probably our ancestors, some of them weren't.  Chimpanzees and other primates aren't our ancestors, they're our cousins, several hundred thousand times removed.

Please don't fall for the red herring that evolution requires the nonexistence of God.  It merely assumes it, and to be absolutely pedantic, it assumes only the noninterference of God in the evolution of intelligent lifeforms that inhabit this planet.

The Big Lie of the Creationism industry is that to accept the evidence of one's own eyes (observation) and to use one's capacity to reason (funny, since it's supposedly "God" who gave us these big brains with which we think :) is somehow to deny the existence of God, and that (in another logical fallacy) to deny creationism is to condemn oneself to this God's wrath.

Our common ancestor is, in fact, the red herring.  I'm publishing my feces on it next month!
8)

"Any time now" being at some point over the next 4-11 million years?  It would be vaguely surprising if the human race survives that long, the way it's going.


I would be amazed that humans (as we know them) will be around in 4-11 million years reguardless.  That is simply not how evolution works.

After all, the Homo genus of primates only evolved 7 mya with the evolution of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.  Heck, 11 mya the most advanced ape was probably Dryopithecus, and the chimpanzee had not even evolved yet.  Lucy (Australopithecus) is only removed from us by just over 3.2 my.

Expecting Homo Sapiens to still be around in that kind of time frame is rather arrogant.  Reguardless of what we do, our species will have gone the way of the dodo long before then.

Of course, most people have problems understanding such vast time frames.  And I have used the term "any time now" in here in the past, for the impending super eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.  For the last 17 my, this "hot spot" has moved from Oregon to Montana, leaving the Snake River Plain in it's path.  It erupts in a cycle of roughly every 620,000 years.  And at 640,000 years, it is overdue.

I am much more worried about a supervolcano driving us to extinction then ourselves.  The last major supervolcano event (Toba supevolcano, 75,000 ya) killed 60% of life on Earth, and drove humans to the point of extinction (less then 1,000-10,000 based on genetic information).

I would be amazed that humans (as we know them) will be around in 4-11 million years reguardless.  That is simply not how evolution works.

After all, the Homo genus of primates only evolved 7 mya with the evolution of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.  Heck, 11 mya the most advanced ape was probably Dryopithecus, and the chimpanzee had not even evolved yet.  Lucy (Australopithecus) is only removed from us by just over 3.2 my.

Expecting Homo Sapiens to still be around in that kind of time frame is rather arrogant.  Reguardless of what we do, our species will have gone the way of the dodo long before then.

Of course, most people have problems understanding such vast time frames.  And I have used the term "any time now" in here in the past, for the impending super eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.  For the last 17 my, this "hot spot" has moved from Oregon to Montana, leaving the Snake River Plain in it's path.  It erupts in a cycle of roughly every 620,000 years.  And at 640,000 years, it is overdue.

I am much more worried about a supervolcano driving us to extinction then ourselves.  The last major supervolcano event (Toba supevolcano, 75,000 ya) killed 60% of life on Earth, and drove humans to the point of extinction (less then 1,000-10,000 based on genetic information).

If we got another "Toba," at least we could stop bickering over global warming...and start bickering over who owns the last rotting grain store and the last tub of fresh water!
:o

I would be amazed that humans (as we know them) will be around in 4-11 million years reguardless.  That is simply not how evolution works.

Thing is, as a species we're doing our best to remove evolutionary pressures: with medicine and in vitro fertilisation of eggs, two of the major causes of "lack of fitness" have been removed.  In today's civilisation, a genetically different Homo species is unlikely to be accepted... that said:


Of course, most people have problems understanding such vast time frames.  And I have used the term "any time now" in here in the past, for the impending super eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.  For the last 17 my, this "hot spot" has moved from Oregon to Montana, leaving the Snake River Plain in it's path.  It erupts in a cycle of roughly every 620,000 years.  And at 640,000 years, it is overdue.

I am much more worried about a supervolcano driving us to extinction then ourselves.  The last major supervolcano event (Toba supevolcano, 75,000 ya) killed 60% of life on Earth, and drove humans to the point of extinction (less then 1,000-10,000 based on genetic information).

The next spur to a change in order to survive may well come from such an event.  But I don't see even something that calamitous as something that will wipe out humankind completely.


I assume that we are talking about the evolution of Man here..... I guess we can talk until we are both blue in the face but I will have to wait until the so-called 'missing link' is found to change my mind... :-\\

Which missing link were you thinking of exactly?  I know Foo Bar's already asked this question, but it's a fairly important one: the better you can define what you're looking for, the easier it is to be sure when you've found it.

Try and look at this from the scientific rather than the dogmatic viewpoint: what best explains what we can see, both around us at the moment and the fossil record that appears to go back hundreds of millions of years?  Does Genesis really provide an explanation other than to say "God did it", which is no explanation at all?

If we got another "Toba," at least we could stop bickering over global warming..
To be honest, that's one reason why the global warming debate seems so, well, petty: man-made global warming happens.. but the consequences of us reducing emissions are utterly negligible compared to a major volcanic eruption, and once you get to the supervolcano scale... it won't make an infinitesimal let alone a measurable difference what we've done beforehand.  Thing is, that sort of attitude would almost inevitably lead to a "in that case, let's **** the planet before it ****s itself" kind of behaviour.

Thing is, as a species we're doing our best to remove evolutionary pressures: with medicine and in vitro fertilisation of eggs, two of the major causes of "lack of fitness" have been removed.  In today's civilisation, a genetically different Homo species is unlikely to be accepted...


But most major changes in evolution come because of drastic changes in the planet.  Supervolcanoes, global climate change, NEO impacts, pandemics, and other theorized events such as the reversal of the polar field, solar flares, changes in earth tilt, and other events.

Our current evolution has occured in a relatively peacefull time in Earth's history.  Roughly 1 million years of little to no major events.  But statistically, our planet is comming due for many of these events to come again.  And the old adage still stands:  Adapt or perish.


The next spur to a change in order to survive may well come from such an event.  But I don't see even something that calamitous as something that will wipe out humankind completely.


But it will happen, and maybe sooner then you think.  99942 Apophis is still due to pass within 30.5 million miles (49 million km) from Earth.  This is below the orbit of most communication satellites.  And it will pass by again in 2036.  While it would have an estimated impact equalling 880 megatons (880,000,000 tons), this is still well below that that caused the KT extinction, an estimated 100 teratons (100,000,000,000,000 tons).  But most estimates still say that if the worst happens, over 10 million people would die directly from impace effects (impact itself, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc), and untold numbers would die from the effects of a 3-10 year "impact winter".  Estimates range from 500 million to 1.5 billion deaths from this.  5-15% of our population.

But thankfully, the odds are that it will pass us safely.  Current estimates say the chance of an impace is only 1 in 12.3 million. 

Personally, I expect mankind to become extinct within the next 500,000 years.  Either we will evolve into something else and "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" will dissapear as Neanderthol and Cromagnum man did, or a catastropic event will lead to our destruction.  And as creatures, we are still evolving.  As a general rule (even withot things like diet), we as a species live longer then we did 20,000 years ago.  We are also taller, and have greater mass (but with a lower body fat count on average). 

And the very things you cite that you claim keeps us from evolving (IVF) actually help keep us evolving.  Gene lines that would normally have become extinct are now allowed to flourish and reproduce into later generations.  This leads to greater genetic diversity, allowing even more evolution.

I don't know if you guys over in the States can see this (at least, not without finding a nice UK-based proxy), but well worth a viewing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hd5mf/Charles_Darwin_and_the_Tree_of_Life/

I don't know if you guys over in the States can see this (at least, not without finding a nice UK-based proxy), but well worth a viewing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hd5mf/Charles_Darwin_and_the_Tree_of_Life/




You definitely need to be UK-based - I heard that it can even detect proxy IP addresses. 

But it will happen, and maybe sooner then you think.  99942 Apophis is still due to pass within 30.5 million miles (49 million km) from Earth.  This is below the orbit of most communication satellites.  And it will pass by again in 2036.  While it would have an estimated impact equalling 880 megatons (880,000,000 tons), this is still well below that that caused the KT extinction, an estimated 100 teratons (100,000,000,000,000 tons).  But most estimates still say that if the worst happens, over 10 million people would die directly from impace effects (impact itself, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc), and untold numbers would die from the effects of a 3-10 year "impact winter".  Estimates range from 500 million to 1.5 billion deaths from this.  5-15% of our population.

Um...  I'm not sure where you got the orbit numbers from.  Most communication satellites orbit within a much closer distance than what you cited.  Low Earth orbiting ones are usually about 400 km from the Earth's surface.  Molniya orbits are much closer than that as well.

"In October 2005 it was predicted that the asteroid will pass just below the altitude of geosynchronous satellites, which are at 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

The orbit you mentioned is closer to that of the Earth's average distance to Venus when our planets are close to being aligned.

Um...  I'm not sure where you got the orbit numbers from.  Most communication satellites orbit within a much closer distance than what you cited.  Low Earth orbiting ones are usually about 400 km from the Earth's surface.  Molniya orbits are much closer than that as well.

"In October 2005 it was predicted that the asteroid will pass just below the altitude of geosynchronous satellites, which are at 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

The orbit you mentioned is closer to that of the Earth's average distance to Venus when our planets are close to being aligned.



And if that asteroid passes 400 km from Earth, we're toast--literally. 

If there's a once in 100,000 years volcanic calamity or we get nailed by a giant asteroid, all bets are off.  Al Gore and the environmentalists are saying we can still change our own activities enough to save ourselves from ourselves. 

John Cornyn and the deniers say we're in no danger at all.

Time LaHaye and the Armageddonists are saying, don't worry about it, the Lord is coming to save the righteous and punish the wicked.

I'm saying none of the above, and the future is...blub blub blub blub....

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/jarswim.gif

And if that asteroid passes 400 km from Earth, we're toast--literally. 


Sadly, no, it's not big enough, and a near-miss like 400 km is far enough away that it wouldn't be a problem.  At that kind of range, it'd also be close enough that Earth's gravity would most likely fling the thing off into nowheresville, never to bother us again.

I must admit that every time I hear of any rock in the 2+ range of the Torino Scale, only to be subsequently downgraded to a zero, my real-life reaction is exactly the same as Bob the Angry Flower's fictional reaction:

Asteroid 2030 (Warning: Comic strip contains a naughty word.)

A preventable impact by a rock big enough to wipe out a few tens/hundreds of millions of people, but not big enough to create an extinction-level event (just in case we screw up on deflecting it), would be the coolest thing that could ever happen to humanity.  Strong enough motivation that we'd all want to prevent it, ample time to make it happen, and 6 billion people, all of whom realize they've all got skin in the same game.