Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

Originally posted by DarkSide
the existence of your god,which is a figment of your imagination.

You received a warn for this statement.

Let's not reduce the point of this forum to another den for faith bashing. The real issue here is the organized effort (conspiracy) to replace the teaching of science with religion and/or philosphy. It's possible to focus on the issues without insults.

In any case, evolution does not preclude the existence of a God. Evolution and abiogenesis are not parts of the same theory. Many creationists believe that God used evolution to create, and to be frank, I must ask: who are you to judge the Christian God or question the Christian God's plans, methods, or workings?

It's quite a double standard to speak about how perfect scientific laws are and then say that God couldn't create something as perfect as evolution. Perhaps it's because you're all caught up on Bible specifics, such as "there was no death before original sin," but to be frank once again, I must say that this makes no logical sense and is contrary to everything that we know about the ancient world - and we know a LOT.

Zip

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777

Xar Ke Zeth
Good and evil are relative, and hate and love are simple emotions.

wow relative, so your in to that new age crap,

What is 'New Age' and why is it crap?

I guess if somebody rapes a child and then kills it that would be relative?

love & hate are JUST simple emotions? thats embarrassing
the whole universe is based in the principles of love & hate every single species in the universe is governed by these principals and let me ask you something during the time every single species in the universe was evolving they defenetly had some king of characteristics that could character there emotions lets just say love, hate, happiness, sadness etc......
why did'ent the emotions evolve whith the species all together?

i mean first there was nothing then bang and everything i mean everything
started to evolve with the exception of every single emotion.
that part did'ent evolve I guess 15 billion years ago species could'nt love or hate because that part hadent evolve yet?

Every single thing in the universe is based on laws, principals & emotions that CANT evolve they are so perfect they had to be created by something.

No.. the concept of love and hate need only exist to nurture and ensure a species/individual survives.. species would become extinct if they habbitually destroyed eachother.. which makes us very imperfect as we've been on the brink of it many times.

What is the purpose for teaching evolution?
to destroy faith in that something by saying that that somthing had nothing to do with creation so there doesn't need to be that something what is evolution? evolution is a religion which has to be believed by "faith"! all these discoveries such as " missing links" have been proved to be either fakes , or theories. Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in god. That's its whole idea in a false faith based on false assumptions, theories, hypotheses, and puer guesswork, lies and phoneis to get people who hate god and sell them that crap indoctrinate them with it in schools universities and it all comes down to that, the people that own this world hate god.

That sounds like addled paranoia.. you've failed to back up all of your accusations about evolution with facts. I also am not a phoney.. and I don't hate god. I simply do not believe in 'him'.. and it hasn't made me a bad person/evil. I also do not insist people 'give up' god.. but I would insist that they do not force my children to give up learning scientific facts in favour of someone else's religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
logical questions
I dont know to much about evolution and mabey I'm wrong but there are things that had to be created by someting.

Welcome to the debate Sevenstars, I am glad to see someone from the opposite side of this debate with some real intelligence.

First off let me direct you to page ten of this debate, I would like you to read my post regarding many of the things you bring up, I think it is interesting that you bring up similar questions as a counter to evolution that I brought up as a counter to creationism.

1)-(15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe) lets just say this is true, when was the time invented before the explosion or after the explosion?

Answer - Never, there was never a beginning of time. Think about the question for a second, "the beginning" refers to a moment in time, a measurment of the very thing we are asking when it began. Illogical in every way. Now I understand where you come from on this, but it makes no sense to me to presume that a god created time. The same illogical questions seem to arise from that.

How long did god exist before time? Silly really. Time is infinite there is no start to it. Just as there is no start to the X axis

Only if you presume there MUST be a start to time (again think about how silly that sentence is, a "start" to the measurment of what a start is) can you assume that a god is required to create it.

2)-take expansion for example when was this process created before or after the explosion (expansion)=1. process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
2. increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope

now you cant say that this process of expansion or time already existed before the explosion becase nothing existed right.but if time already exixted how did it evolve? what was times earlier former?

Great questions, but if you are going to critique scientific theory, you really must try and understand it first. I have read the bible, I suggest you go read a few books on relativity and quantum physics. Here is a good one that covers aspects of both -

www.amazon.com...=pd_sxp_f/102-7074828-2411305?v=glance&s=books

There are many others. I would glady point you to more easy going ones on request.

Time/space (they are not two seperate things) did not need to be created, they are a infinite constant, the same as 2+2=4. The whole big bang theory is very misunderstood. Sure there are those in science that once thought of it within the linear view of three dimensions, and I am sure there are still those that do. But most of science now understands it within the time/space continium. That is to say that the "big bang" is a metophorical point, that probably does exist but is not the begininng of space/time.

3)-when did up & down, back & forward evolve before or after the explosion wait a second can these thing even evolve did these things development from earlier forms i mean what if 15 billion years ago it was the other way around down & up, Forth & Back. LOL

Again these are good questions, keep on this train of thought and you will get somewhere, I cannot answer these questions for you. I can give you my thoughts but these concepts must be grasped.

up/down back/forward etc, these are dimensions. Illusions of time/space, we percieve them as such but the reality is far more than we can grasp easily.

We believe that what we are able to translate from the world around us is less than one millionth of reality. This three dimensional time/space paradigm is not reality, it is consciousness.

[qoute]4)-(evolution is the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.)

OK LETS JUST SAY THATS TRUE "all species develop from earlier forms of life"
BUT WHERE DID THE LAWS THAT RULE NATUER DEVELOP FROM where did the principles that are set out to control the univers develop from.

LOL, you really are puting that mind to work here. Great! But again we need to break that time/space paradigm to answer this. My quik and simple answer -

They didn't come from anywhere, they just are. Time/space/the universe/reality is infinite, possibilities are infinite. Choas theory would tell you that in an infinite amount of choas you will find an infinite amount of order. No creator needed, no intelligent design. This is the way it has to be, there can be no "nothing" or "something" only everything. Now I am not saying that there is no god. Only that what could be defined as god is very different from the bible and the story of creationism is way off. Go see my last post explaining E=mc2 for more on that.

TIME can't evolve
GOOD & EVIL can't evolve
MATH can't evolve
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS can't evolve
LOGIC can't evolve
there just there they were created!!!!!

Good and evil are subjective, so evolution is irrelevent. The rest may be true but they are concepts, not matter. Evolution is a very metophorical thing, to grasp it fully requires lateral thought, thinking outside of space/time. Sure Darwins theory is WAY out of date and full of flaws. It is not the accepted version of most scientists at this time (but science is suppose to evolve). But evolution is a more accurate way to describe where we came from.

5)-hey if you belive in evolution whats the earlier form of (2+2=4), 100 billion years could pase and (2+2=4) is not going to change. (2+2=4) did it evolve or was it created?

What makes you think that everything has to evolve?

Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious.
A superior force Created the universe he is the universe.

There is nothing superior to the universe, the universe is god. God is the universe. Infinity is god, god is infinite. Everything is god, god is everything.

I'll tell you what needs to evolve the most, our definition of god.

The question should not be "is there a god". It should be "what is god".

First define it and then I will tell you if I think it exists. But it is not something that existed before time, before space and before reality. The logic breaks down when you say something (god) must have created this and I say well what created that (god). The only answer is it didn't need to be created. Well I could have used that for the big bang argument then. The truth can never be an asnwer that requires magic, I don't care if you call that magic god or fairy dust.


[edit on 5-7-2005 by parabolee]

great answer parabolee

the whole reason why we are having this argument at all is because people tend to have a very very narrow view of God. i am not questioning the existance of God but rather it's (note i did not use the words 'his' or 'her'. God can't be male or female. IT just is) defination.

This simplistic view of God that people take, that is God is a creator, God is a forgiver, God is a punisher etc etc, is in my view an insult to the great force that runs and governs this universe. Again God need not 'do' anything to run this universe. Jus it's existance is enough. In that way God is the Universe, or the Universe is God

Originally posted by puneetsg
This simplistic view of God that people take, that is God is a creator, God is a forgiver, God is a punisher etc etc, is in my view an insult to the great force that runs and governs this universe. Again God need not 'do' anything to run this universe. Jus it's existance is enough. In that way God is the Universe, or the Universe is God

Yes, I agree that belief in a "personal God" is a conceited and vainglorious human characteristic, born of fear, uncertainty, and immaturity. I think that the parallels between a "geocentric" universe and a "humancentric" God are obvious, and the result is an egotistical and growth-stunted humanity.

Spinoza's God

Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According to Spinoza, God IS nature. While Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community in Amsterdam and condemned by Christians as well for being an atheist, he was very devoutly religious. He saw the traditional anthropomorphic (man-like) god as an abomination, completely rejecting the wonder of nature, from which life comes. To Spinoza, nature is the true expression of God. And each of us is part of it. Unfortunately, his highly technical, mathematical style of writing limited widespread appreciation of his work.

The point is, we all come from our environment, live for a while, and return to it. Nothing magical or mystical; just nature and all its various expressions - most of which we do not yet comprehend.

This was the "God" that Einstein believed in, if you can say that he believed in any "Gods" after the age of 12. I think this is similar to Taoism. I don't personally subscribe to it, but I think it's closer to the mark than Ole' Greybeard.

Zip

parabolee:
There is nothing superior to the universe, the universe is god. God is the universe. Infinity is god, god is infinite. Everything is god, god is everything.

you are totally right parabolee
John 1:1-5
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I believe in a personal God
John 1:18
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. JESUS

I believe in a personal god which is the universe
(Infinity is god, god is infinite) but i beileve that the universe has something to represant it and the way he represented it self in the world was through JESUS i dont know what it is a spirit a god a dragon whatever it is I dont know. But what i do know is that the universe has a beginning and science has proved that so if we konw that it had a beginning it could be one of the next 1)-created, or 2)-Evolve by accident
You have to understand that there was a beginning.
Einstein realized that the universe had a beginning, Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding if it expanded it had to start from some point so you can ether chose to beileve in creation or Evolution.

Creation
1-(1-In the beginning was the Word=(principles), and the Word=(principles) was with God, and the Word=(principles) was God.

2-(the principles that are set out to control the universe ceated the universe it self)

3-The same was in the beginning(=principles) with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Evolutin
Or you can beileve in evolution (frist nothing and then bang everything its theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of ???) but before the beginning what? the universe develop from a earlier form of what? if evolution is true I hope some day i can evolve to understand it.

Yes, I agree that belief in a "personal God" is a conceited and vainglorious human characteristic, born of fear, uncertainty, and immaturity. I think that the parallels between a "geocentric" universe and a "humancentric" God are obvious, and the result is an egotistical and growth-stunted humanity.

So if I BELIEVE in a "personal God" I'M a vainglorious human born of fear, uncertainty, and am immature well i did'ent Know i was like that. Why???
Where does all that hate come from? I know and its are fault (US Christians) we have destroyed God's reputation because we are imperfect
and those who seek to reject him find there answers in are imperfectness

Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic. Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

Einstein "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic of atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
John 1:1-5
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

What is the purpose of quoting these passages from the Bible? Are you trying to illustrate something to us, or are you just [edit, removed the word "mindlessly"] attempting to evangelize by quoting the Bible, hoping that someone in the thread will see the light in those dusty old words?

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
I believe in a personal God
John 1:18
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. JESUS

Yes, I have read the Bible, I know what it says.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
I believe in a personal god which is the universe

Why did you select Christianity as your religion, with Jesus as your personal God representative (even though he is dead?)

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
But what i do know is that the universe has a beginning and science has proved that so if we konw that it had a beginning it could be one of the next 1)-created, or 2)-Evolve by accident

Why do you assume that natural processes are accidental? The beginning of time is timeless. Think in this dimension and there is no Alpha. In this respect, the Big Bang theory is similar to Christian dogma, in that a singularity always existed.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
You have to understand that there was a beginning.

*Brain cranks slowly...*

*Squeaking...*

Okay, I think I understand that.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Einstein realized that the universe had a beginning, Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding if it expanded it had to start from some point so you can ether chose to beileve in creation or Evolution.

Wow, you really nailed that one... With a damn Hat Trick! You scored the Big Bang, Evolution, and the Theory of Relativity all in one run-on sentence!

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Creation
1-(1-In the beginning was the Word=(principles), and the Word=(principles) was with God, and the Word=(principles) was God.

Uh oh, another convoluted interpretation of the Bible wherein a creationist "equates" Biblical terms with whatever [edit: removed phrase "the hell"] they want to...

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Evolutin
Or you can beileve in evolution (frist nothing and then bang everything its theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of ???) but before the beginning what? the universe develop from a earlier form of what? if evolution is true I hope some day i can evolve to understand it.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. You scored another trifecta here by nailing abiogenesis, evolution, and the origin of the universe all in one point. The humourous ending is kinda like a 2-point conversion. Please check out Nygdan's top thread for a brief but important discussion of things that we should all keep in mind.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777

Yes, I agree that belief in a "personal God" is a conceited and vainglorious human characteristic, born of fear, uncertainty, and immaturity. I think that the parallels between a "geocentric" universe and a "humancentric" God are obvious, and the result is an egotistical and growth-stunted humanity.

So if I BELIEVE in a "personal God" I'M a vainglorious human born of fear, uncertainty, and am immature well i did'ent Know i was like that. Why???
Where does all that hate come from? I know and its are fault (US Christians) we have destroyed God's reputation because we are imperfect
and those who seek to reject him find there answers in are imperfectness

My apologies - I meant the statement to be taken literally and without the intention of offense. I do not hate any group of people. I do not hate any religions. I simply think that man's role in the universe is not as the star in a new hit series on NBC. His role is more like a grain of sand on a beach. I believe that we should not abandon logic and reason to unnecessarily attempt to place ourselves in a more important position in the universe. To do so, in my opinion, is counter productive in many important ways.

More importantly, to me, such attempts undermine the development of real knowledge and true understanding about existence, as if we cannot see the forest for our paintings of magical talking rainbow trees that we have placed in front of the damn forest.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic. Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

What do you mean, "atheists object to the use of the quote?" Are atheists against freedom of speech or something?

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777

He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

I am well aware that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, as I posted above. I am also aware that this was by no means a result of his learning that the universe is expanding. Einstein only changed his mind about God once, and that was when he was 12.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Perhaps that was among his many doubts about a personal God, secondary to his scientific doubts. Please rest assured that I have read every possible quote ever recorded of Einstein's religious views.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation.

I'm gonna stop you right here, snip the rest of your speech, and declare that you are putting words in Einstein's mouth.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic of atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God.

Do not get Spinoza's God confused with a "creator God."

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

I have explored Christianity, and in doing so, it has not alleviated my concerns about its falsity.

Zip

[edit on 7/6/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777

I believe in a personal god which is the universe
(Infinity is god, god is infinite) but i beileve that the universe has something to represant it and the way he represented it self in the world was through JESUS i dont know what it is a spirit a god a dragon whatever it is I dont know. But what i do know is that the universe has a beginning and science has proved that so if we konw that it had a beginning it could be one of the next 1)-created, or 2)-Evolve by accident
You have to understand that there was a beginning.
Einstein realized that the universe had a beginning, Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding if it expanded it had to start from some point so you can ether chose to beileve in creation or Evolution.

Creation
1-(1-In the beginning was the Word=(principles), and the Word=(principles) was with God, and the Word=(principles) was God.

2-(the principles that are set out to control the universe ceated the universe it self)

3-The same was in the beginning(=principles) with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Evolutin
Or you can beileve in evolution (frist nothing and then bang everything its theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of ???) but before the beginning what? the universe develop from a earlier form of what? if evolution is true I hope some day i can evolve to understand it.

well this whole "beginning" issue is dragging the discussion off topic as evolution does not look to provide answers to where and how things started but rather to why things are the way they are now.

but let us address the question anyway. what does it matter what was there before the 'singularity' maybe there existed another universe which collpased to form the singularity in the first place (which certain scientists think our universe will also do in time) and this other universe was preceeded by another singularity and so on and so forth.

therefore there need not be a beginning, jus like there may not be an end. the universe and hence God just is. there is no 'creation' required.

U agree that God is the Universe and the Universe is God then how can anything infinite have a Beginning or an End. these concepts are part of our human perception but do not hold true in the 'bigger picture' they are completely human concepts and how can human concepts apply to something that is 'superhuman'

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

the universe is perfect. anything that is infinite is perfection. it cannot be anything but

again Good-Evil, Right-Worng.....human concepts.
There is no good and hence no evil
There is no right and hence no wrong

It is all relative. All a matter of perception.
each creature does what it thinks is necessary for it to survive in this universe. hence good and evil, right and wrong can be changed by simply changing the view you have of the situation.

lemme explain. the romans persecuted the christians right. now for the christians the roman were evil because they were trying to stop them from spreading the word of jesus. but for the romans the christians were evil because they were trying to undermine their own traditional gods.

hence its all a matter of how u look at it. everyone tries to justify their own actions and hence the concepts of good-evil, right-wrong are present.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic of atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

the basic purpose of christianity, or most religions as i see it is not to choose good or evil or anything of the sort (they cant do tht cause there is no good-evil) but to help ppl co-exist peacefully and hence give them the best possible chance at survival. tht being the basic function (unfortunately most of us are not even able to do tht much)

their secondary function is the eventual enlightenment of its followers, but this is a seperate discussion alltogether and should not be discussed any further in this thread.

We seem to have moved away from the basic topic of this thread. Can evolution be proved. I beleive yes it can. Plenty of proof has been given in the previous pages. This beginning issue that is brought up by the creationists just acts as a distraction to the original topic.

As far as i can tell 'creation' and 'evolution' need not be contradictory. note when i say creation i do not mean creation by God. I believe creation by another intelligence is far more plausible.

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777

You have to understand that there was a beginning.
Einstein realized that the universe had a beginning, Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding if it expanded it had to start from some point so you can ether chose to beileve in creation or Evolution.

Sorry you don't know your Einstein like you know your bible. He did NOT believe there was a beginning, the very idea is proposterus. Einstein said -

"the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

See this article for more on this -

everythingforever.com...

Evolutin
Or you can beileve in evolution (frist nothing and then bang everything its theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of ???) but before the beginning what? the universe develop from a earlier form of what? if evolution is true I hope some day i can evolve to understand it.

Sorry no. That may be what some people believe but not those at the pinnacle of physics. I already said this and I don't think you were paying attention so here it is again in bold -

The big bang is a metophorical instance that only exists within the linear time/space paradigm. Reality is so much more than that simple equation.

Evolution is another form of explaining something within the linear time/space paradigm. The truth is that the whole of time is one eternall moment. Evolution is just another axis within it. But creationism is not an axis, is is a dogmatic belief in order to explain something a lesser mind cannot grasp.

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

Sorry but there are many assertions there that are not true. Einstein believed there was no beginning because he proved it theoretically). The universe expanding proves NOTHING, the expansion is within the linear time/space paradigm. Seriously go read some books on quantum physics and Einteins time theories. The fact that the universe is expanding within the illusion of time is meaningless as a proof towards a beginning of time.

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and............ etc

Sorry but you made a whole bunch of assertions and conjecture here that is not backed up by any facts. Einstein did believe in a god, this is true. But he did not believe in the creationism in the way a Jew (of faith) or a Christian does.

The oneness (call it god if you like) is infinite and eternall. We always existed, we always will exist. There is no start or end of time. A creation makes no sense as it requires time before time, matter before matter. Something during nothing. Again the only way that you can believe that is to deny logic and believe magic.

The existence of god does not require magic or blind faith. What kind of god would require us to guess the truth with no proof? How can people believe that? How do you know that the Bible is any more true than the Quran or anything Aleister Crowley wrote? We have a tool to decipher truth and it's called logic, when used it exposes falsehoods and sets us free.

Some scientists argue: 'A monkey tapping away at random on a typewriter
would eventually write correctly not only words but also phrases, sentences, and even whole books. So, given enough time, "chance" can porduce anything-Whales, bees, spiders, monkeys, even Man.

Let us assume that the monkey uses a typewriter with 60 keys:
26 small letters, 26 capitals, a space, full stop, comma, colon, semicolon, two brackets and a question mark.

Suppose we wish the monkey to produce the word peanut. Now, the chances of a monkey typing the letter P are 1:6, and of typing
PE 1/60* 1/60= 1 in 3,600.

so his chances of tyiping the six-letter word PEANUT are (1/60)*6 =1 in 46,656,000,000.

This means that if the monkey could type at a rate of 3 letters per second, he would have to type for 450 years to produce peanut.
Now lets take the frase "peanuts and typewriters" (just 23 correct letters and spaces). This would take a million monkeys over a thousand million
million million million years (i,e.10*27 years), each typing away at 3 letters per second.

This time period is a hundred thousand million million (i.e.10*17) times as long as the age of the univers according to the Theory of evolution. And it is needed for only 23 letters and spaces to be put together correctly!

But our world contains many more then 23 things correctly put togeter; So it would take inconceivably longer still for these hundred and thousand of things to get together correctly by chance.

This is why a good number of scientists in recent years have been calling Darwins theory mathematical noncens'. 5,000 million years in nothing like enough time for random evolution

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
if it expanded it had to start from some point

Thats not, actually, how inflation theory works. Inflation theory, counterintuitively, results in a universe without a center, and it doesn't state that there was nothing, and then something. It states that the period of inflation destroyed (in effect) any evidence for what was before it. It could've been an infinite existence. It could've been another universe that broke up into smaller ones. It could've been a nice old man in a gold throne with a long flowing beard. It could've been a big sneeze.

so you can ether chose to beileve in creation or Evolution

Others have pointed this out, but it really bears repeating. Evolution is the change in populations of organisms over time. If jesus took clay and made the world 6 thousand years ago, that doesn't refute the fact that evolution is currently going on. Now, of course, the general idea of evolution in the public is that the world was made without any god's interference, or not requiring it, and that it operates naturally. No one has ever shown that anything requires any divine interference, and no one has ever demonstrated that there has been divine interference with anything.
Even if out current understanding of the origins of the entire universe leave much unexplained, we can't say that that's proof of god or that that is evidence for something like creationism.

Let us assume that the monkey uses a typewriter with 60 keys:

That analogy is completely irrelevant.

This is why a good number of scientists in recent years have been calling Darwins theory mathematical noncens

Its actually quite the myth that there is a large and growing number of actual scientists and biologists who are rejecting 'darwinism' as being absurd. There simply isn't. There are some, to be sure, but their reasons are simply bogus. The reason's are bogus in the same way that your analogy is bogus. Its like taking a deck of playing cards, shuffling them, and then saying that the chances are astronomically high, impossibly high, for that specific, complex, order of cards, and that it couldn't've actually happened.

5,000 million years in nothing like enough time for random evolution

No experiments suggest that. Rather, we've observed speciation in populations, and we've seen that really bizzare changes can happen if big organizing genes are mutated.

Originally posted by Nygdan
If jesus took clay and made the world 6 thousand years ago, that doesn't refute the fact that evolution is currently going on.

Hehe, very clever misunderstanding of Christianity to illustrate misunderstanding of evolution... You are a shrewd one, Nygdan.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its like taking a deck of playing cards, shuffling them, and then saying that the chances are astronomically high, impossibly high, for that specific, complex, order of cards, and that it couldn't've actually happened.

Exactly. It's like taking a photograph of a crowded New York City street. The odds of taking a photograph a week later or earlier and having the exact same people in the photograph, in the same positions, are extremely slim, but that has no bearing on the original setup of the photogrpah.

Zip

Nothing is Impossible, just some are highly improbable. It is highly improbable that Aliens from Jupiter will come here and abduct every other non-black African Jew with three fingers that has a bunny as a pet, but it isn't impossible cause it could happen just because there are white africans(people who are white and born in Africa) that are Jewish, have pet bunnies, and lost fingers to whatever, that could be abducted by aliens.

I wouldn't bet money on it happening in the next 2-3 centuries, but it could.

Originally posted by Zipdot


What is the purpose of quoting these passages from the Bible? Are you trying to illustrate something to us, or are you just [edit, removed the word "mindlessly"] attempting to evangelize by quoting the Bible, hoping that someone in the thread will see the light in those dusty old words?

Ugh what a mean and utterly ignorant thing to say.
When someone tries to connect todays statements about God and a universe to verses from the bible, in order to show why that someone thinks in a certain way, it makes no sense whatsoever to trigger the "witnessing christian" alert.
Stop being hysterical.

Originally posted by Jakko
Ugh what a mean and utterly ignorant thing to say.
When someone tries to connect todays statements about God and a universe to verses from the bible, in order to show why that someone thinks in a certain way, it makes no sense whatsoever to trigger the "witnessing christian" alert.
Stop being hysterical.

The beginning of John, as any Christian knows, is referring to Jesus and the trinity, as we see in John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh..."

This is another example of interpretation. Are we to interpret one passage in two ways, simultaneously, in ADDITION to accepting all of the contradictions this creates and adds to? In short, I think it's a stretch to assign that passage such an interpretation as was given above, and my "witness alert" goes off any time a person quotes 5 lines of the Bible for every 1 line of original text.

Here are some contradictions to John 1:1-5,1:14:

Colossians 3:1 "Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Hmm, what gives, I thought Christ and God were one?

Here's another!

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Man Jesus? That doesn't sound very Godlike! I thought he was the Word, and the Word was God? Right?

Zip

[edit on 7/7/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Some scientists argue: 'A monkey tapping away at random on a typewriter
would eventually write correctly not only words but also phrases, sentences, and even whole books. So, given enough time, "chance" can porduce anything-Whales, bees, spiders, monkeys, even Man.

Not sure what the point of this was. But I think you ignored my above post because you didn't want to face what it said.

Let me just state this, if you give a milion monkeys a million typewriters, the probability they will write Hamlet are pretty slim. Billions upon billions to one, correct?

But if you have an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typwriters and an infinite amount of time, the probablity that they will eventually write Hamlet drops to a certainty.

So unless you refuse to believe that everything is infinite then you see how your arguement about monkeys is meaningless.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Here are some contradictions to John 1:1-5,1:14:

Colossians 3:1 "Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Hmm, what gives, I thought Christ and God were one?

Here's another!

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Man Jesus? That doesn't sound very Godlike! I thought he was the Word, and the Word was God? Right?

Zip

[edit on 7/7/2005 by Zipdot]

Some call it contradictions, I call it a lacking understanding of the bible and the trinity. I made a thread about the trinity a while ago, I will try to dig it up somewhere.

And let's try not to hijack this thread for the purpose of talking about religion only eh?

Hey guys im new, decided I would stop in and leave my 2 cents after reading the first few pages.

First off I would like to say that this whole argument over evo/rel just makes me laugh and reminds me of the global warming argument, and heres why;

Even today people are arguing that the melting of the polar ice caps and temperature rises globally are not due to human created global warming. After the ice caps melt and the rivers run dry from no ice in the mountains. Those same people will still be sitting around there round table saying its not caused by humans, even as the human species is dieing off around them.

Why, Why would they do this? Its pretty simple; They have something to gain. In most cases this is either money,power or influence over others.

Now you can easily compare the exact same situation to this argument. In my view the proof of evolution is ALREADY IN THE PUDDING. Lets take a white american, and pure blood African, and a pure blood Chinaman and line them up against a wall. Hrm, some of had different skin color, some have smaller bone structures, some have smaller or larger pennis.

Just because they didn't grow another set of arms or a third eye doesn't mean that these differences didn't happen via the process of evolution.

And even if they did grow another set of arms and legs there would always be people setting around there round table saying its just a mutation and not "evolution".

I used to be religious myself, Baptist Christian. Until I read enough of the bible, and OTHER bibles and history to learn the truth about "religion" as a whole. I still believe in God, I want to believe, even though all of the evidence in this world points to the fact that our brains are no different than a computer, when the power goes out and the lights go off you are no more, you are nothing, is the same sense as a computer that is no turned on.

With that said, I can say that the theory of evolution is more relevant than any bible, and should be taught before religions get there hands on the children and are able to manipulate them into turning away from facts even when the facts are shoved down there throats.

Bottom line: You can believe in God, and still not be ignorant to the facts that are right in front of us on a daily basis.

Eventually, religions will accept the FACTS, because heres a FACT religions BEND to the will of society or DIE out, most religions have a degree of flexibility to re-interpret there texts to fit the needs of society at any given time, in a sense religions EVOLVE. This can be proved.